User talk:Night w/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

You'r comments on User talk:Qwyrxian

Please stop being disruptive. I never said that "it would have been a copyvio even if it was in the public domain." What I actually said was that "Even if the source was in the public domain, that doesn't mean you can plagiarize the content." Which of course is true. It wouldn't be a copyvio, but WP:Plagiarism is still entirely relevant since proper attribution wasn't given. It has nothing to do with copyright policy, and I never said it did.

And it should go without saying, but finding "a whole heap of templates where the coding has been copied" is of course is irrelevant. I can find a whole heap of text that has been plagiarized from copyrighted material (see here for many examples) but that doesn't mean it's not a copyright violation.

I suggest reading more carefully before jumping to conclusions in the future. If you had of simply read the source that you insisted the content came from (or shown even an ounce of AGF), you would have realized your error and we could have avoided all of this nonsense. If you'd like to continue this discussion then I'll gladly oblige you, but since multiple admins have explained to you why your edits weren't appropriate I don't see anything productive coming from further discussion. TDL (talk) 19:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Danlaycock...seriously. Find another hobby on Wikipedia. There's a CCI open. If you have examples of copy-vios, given them to a trusted CCI editor (Moonriddengirl comes to mind), and stop interacting with Night W. Someone will handle it. That someone should not be you. Night W is not going to listen to anything you have to say, even if you're right. You're not going to give him any faith/benefit of the doubt, even if you should. So it's time to just. Walk. Away. Unless you'd prefer to have this dragged into ANI? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Re-read our conversation on the CCI page. That's exactly what you stated. Nightw 15:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Electoral calendar 2013

Wheres is the source on this content?(Lihaas (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2012 (UTC)).

It's in the "References" section, which you changed to "External links". If you have a problem with the source, you can say so on the talk page. Nightw 15:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of this list know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on January 16, 2012. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/January 16, 2012. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :D Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There are currently 45 monarchs in the world reigning as sovereign heads of state (King of Swaziland pictured). A monarch is the person who heads a monarchy, a form of government in which a state or polity is ruled by an individual who normally rules for life or until abdication. In political and sociocultural studies, monarchies are normally associated with hereditary rule; most monarchs, in both historical and contemporary contexts, have been born and raised within a royal family. Some monarchies, however, are not hereditary, and the ruler is instead determined through an elective process. Most states only have a single monarch at any given time, although a regent may rule when the monarch is a minor, not present, or otherwise incapable of ruling.

Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action

Hi, you left some comments at Wikipedia:SOPA initiative/Action#US only under the section regarding actions being US only. Not long after you left your comments, the section was modified and more options added [1] which is more or less how things remain. I'm just writing to let you know, in case you're not aware of this and want to change you response in light of it. Nil Einne (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Night w,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Monarchs list

If that call os made, what has been constructed is a list of monarchies, not a list of monarchs. A monarch is a person, and there are only 30 people who hold the position of monarch of a sovereign state. I find it amazing/appalling that this has reached FL status, and the eve of Main Page visibility, without such a basic issue being addressed. Obviously a compromise sentence could be formulated (There are currently 45 monarchical positions in the world reigning as heads of state in 44 sovereign nations, occupied by 30 individuals), but to my mind that is a poor compromise over a contradiction that should not exist between the title and the content. Kevin McE (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on errors. If the sentence is causing an issue, it can be removed. Nightw 10:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

List of living legitimate Capetians

Hello. As for the legal issues, the list simply mentions them as Capetians. I don't see how this could violate BLP. Reigen (talk) 10:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not, but some editors are overly zealous of connecting people to former royal families without sources. You can remove the tag if you want, but just wanted to let you know. Nightw 11:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. The Capetian family is rather well-documented, so the information could be verified in a number of genealogy sites. Reigen (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. Nightw 11:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thailand

Hello, Thailand has now recognized Palestine:[2]

Please ad to map:[3] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

America and Americas

Hello, there are users that are changing these articles: (America and Americas), in the Americas article they do not want "American" as a demonym for America(s), but that has sources, can you help? thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.60.255.55 (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Alinor / Japinderum

Hi Night w, on Talk:Foreign relations of South Sudan I noticed that you've been referring to User:Japinderum as Alinor. Are Japinderum and User:Alinor the same person? How do you know? There's nothing on either user's page. A case of sock puppetry perhaps? Thanks, Bazonka (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Putin (is it okay if I call you Vladimir?). It's the same person; the new account persistently pushes for the same arguments on the same pages as Alinor did, adding the same content (word for word) that Alinor did before him (here is a great example).

From what I can tell though (though I haven't really been following), at the moment it's just a clean start. It only becomes a problem when he violates any restrictions imposed on the old account (there was a ban from Kosovo stuff, but it's expired). Nightw 07:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:Divided regions

May I know why can't Cyprus be placed under this category? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You can add it to whatever category you want to, but please stop inserting stale discussion tags. Nightw 18:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

But I'm afraid that's what you did.[4] Could you please undo yourself, and clarify at my user talk page? 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I see that, sorry. I think there was an edit conflict in there somewhere. Nightw 19:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess there were several. I didn't intend to add it back but it happened to be. 218.250.159.25 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Kind request

Night w, I kindly ask you to stop with your "Al, ..." comments and similar. See first paragraph here. I'm not Sasha30 (as accused recently) or anybody else with restrictions, blocks, etc. And I will appreciate if you don't mingle discussions (some productive, others not so much) with such irrelevant things. Japinderum (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Come on. Making the exact same edits (word for word with the exact same grammatical errors) is pretty damning. Are you honestly trying to tell me that you just went back into the long-gone edit history of an article, found a reverted edit from an editor that happens to also edit all of the same articles you do (and pushes all the same ideas), didn't read it or couldn't be bothered to fix the obvious spelling errors, and pasted it in as is.

No. You tried to add one of your old, rejected ideas to an obscure article that you didn't think anybody was watching. It is extremely relevant as ever since your current account was created you seem to be trying to draw me into age-old debates where you refused to get the point. Why you don't just log into your old account is beyond me. If you've lost the password, there are ways to retrieve it. As I said to you before, I'll continue to call a duck when I see one. Nightw 10:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I gave you the above link to read the first paragraph only (not related to the article edit), not to resurrect the debate about the article edit itself. If you want to discuss the article edit we can do this on the talk page there. And don't be silly - I don't think that "nobody is watching article-whatever and I can write some crappy things there". I'm amazed you imagine such thing is possible.

You think that the purpose of this account is to drag you personally into some old or new debate? Not very modest of you. I just wonder, how many time passed between your old debate with the other user and my account? Anyway, I think it's obvious that I'm not stalking you or anything like that. Yes, there are a few topics where our paths intersect, but I don't think we're shadows of one another, are we?

I don't want to argue about irrelevant things - whether your assumptions for accounts, etc. is correct or not. Since both accounts don't have any blocks or whatever I don't think this should matter to you either. That's what I'm asking you - don't mingle discussions with that "Al, ..." things (unless you see some sockupppetry/duck action) - those are unrelated to the discussion topics and articles content. You can respect or disregard my request for courtesy. Japinderum (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I'll respect your right to a clean start. As long as you're not trying to resurrect an old rejected "Alinor" debate as you did with the Diplomacy edit. I'll call you Japinderum otherwise. Nightw 12:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll looked at your "clean start" link and it seems that concept has negative connotations similar to yours in "old rejected" debate description. I'm not here to judge whether your debates with the another users were "bad" or "rejected" or something like that. Since the other account you mentioned isn't restricted in any way I would assume they were civil in their Wikipedia dealings and not "bad" or "rejected". I can assure you that I'm civil as well and that regardless whether my opinions are similar or not to some other previous discussions you participated in (and obviously still disagree with the opposing view) I hope we'll be able to conduct a constructive and civil discussion instead of name-calling. Japinderum (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing of Co-Prince as not being a personal title

But how does one source an absence of something? The issue is that nowhere in the sites of the Andorran government, nor that of the national paper or the national broadcaster is it ever used as a personal title: you will not find Co-Prince Nicolas or Co-Prince Joan anywhere. I would have to turn the question around, and ask for the sources for using those phrases. The position holders are referred to consistently as the french co-prince (Catalan does not capitalise nationality indicators) and the episcopal co-prince. Kevin McE (talk) 19:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I get about 3000+ hits on Google for "Copríncep Nicolas Sarkozy", including about 7 from govern.ad. Plus about 12,000 and 6 for "Copríncep Joan-Enric Vives". In most cases though it seems to be preceded by "el" or some other conjunctive (like here). In other cases it seems to be written as a straight up title (like here). I know it's not much but with the claim being so adamant it's enough to make me slightly inquisitive. Especially given the current (though contentious) verifiability, not truth policy. The style of Sarkozy's office (according to his rep office's website) seems to be His Excellency, the French Co-Prince (Catalan: S.E. el Copríncep francès), which does make it less personal. Nightw 03:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Those google searches don't exclude a very high proportion of instances in which the phrase is broken up by a comma, and do include such examples totally devoid of grammar, sentence construction and understanding of another language as "President Bishop of Urgel Coprince Nicolas Sarkozy Coprince Joan E.V. Sicilia". The evidence that Co-Prince Nicolas Sarkozy (the name given in the article before my edit) with that pattern of capitalisation) is correct is very scant. I didn't see it so much as an "adamant claim" as a sensible explanation as to why a pair of entries was so clearly different from the others in this regard. Kevin McE (talk) 23:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Thanks for the responses. Nightw 04:53, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

AnkhMorpork

It is necessary to detail your objections to an edit prior to reversion. A sole terse edit summary fails in this regard.
Best Wishes

AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No it's not necessary -- if the edit summary refers to applicable Wikipedia guidelines/policies that's sufficient. If you (AnkhMorpork) politely asks for clarification -- using {{helpme}} a talk page or Wikipedia:Help_desk -- I suspect you'll get help. If you continue to make demands you're not going to be well-received. Nobody Ent 19:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, Night w. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Letting you know as a courtesy; while you're welcome to respond there, it's not required -- in fact, ignoring unwarranted accusations is frequently the best way to deal with them. Nobody Ent 19:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take your advice on that, Nobody Ent. Nightw 04:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Israel Palestine-conflict

If you choose to amend the article, could you split your necessary expansion of the paragraph, 'Current Issues in Disrepute' and your amendments of the 'Present Status' paragraph, into two separate edits. That way your uncontested edit to the 'Current Issues in Disrepute' will be clearly divided.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I can't, under the 1RR scheme. Nightw 04:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. It was a good pararaph.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 12:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at The Blade of the Northern Lights's talk page. Message added 17:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: recent amendments

Can you construct an introductory statement to contextualise the paragraph beginning "In January 2012, Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu told Irish Foreign Minister Eamon Gilmore" seeing as you removed "The apparent endorsement of violence by the Palestinian Authority has been cited as undermining the Peace Process by Israeli officials". Otherwise, it appears like a news bulletin.
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 17:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, yes. Can I cross-post this to the talk page so we can work on it under one heading? Nightw 17:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

"but rather to a pursuit to establish permanent control over the territory in order to provide that security" . Can you amend to "but rather to a pursuit of establishing permanent control over this territory in order to provide that security"
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Much Obliged. I'll address my main issues on the Talk page AnkhMorpork (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2012

Europe topic

Hello. You have a new message at Template talk:Europe topic's talk page. Message added 21:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC). Just a ping for your opinion. The IP is arguing for my previous position of including all dependent territories. CMD (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Enjoy this popular Israeli food

Thank you for addressing my concerns in a rational and agreeable manner. Apologies my initial contrary behaviour. Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha, no problem. And sorry from myself also for being BITEy. Nightw 06:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

History of South Asia

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:History of South Asia's talk page. Message added 00:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC). An RM based on opinions expressed in the AfD. Hope you can chime in, as you did in the AfD! CMD (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I-P conflict

Thoughts on my edit?
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Copied your post to the Talk page. Hope you don't mind
Best Wishes AnkhMorpork (talk) 16:15, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

AFD and PROD notifications

Hey there. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swallingwikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

RFC - International recognition of South Sudan - Redirect target

This RFC is related to the recent AfD you participated at. Japinderum (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: TFL for Africa list?

Actually, Madagascar's list is approved and queuing for the main page. I don't mind waiting a while longer to get it featured. But thanks for the notice! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 17:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Heads up

Just so you know, you have been mentioned at my talkpage in relation to the Inter-Services Intelligence RfC closure. -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 22:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any of the battles between these two. I commented on NPOVn threads and followed it up on the article talk pages when necessary. The items I commented on were clearly conflicting with policy (dubiously sourced, missing attribution and/or unbalanced) and I demonstrated that accordingly. However, presumably because what I explained was not in line with what he wanted to put in, JCAla appears to now uniformly dismiss my input as "involved". Nightw 07:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

1) Always so happy to help collecting diffs against other editors when administrators had already decided NOT to follow that idea at that moment. (And although he got his own share of disputes.) 2) Excuse me for not being impressed by that tone, either. JCAla (talk) 08:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't why you assumed my offer was about you. Do you think you're the only user here with a history of editing tendentiously in that topic? Apparently you're still under the impression that my disagreeing with you on noticeboards constitutes some kind of campaign against you. "And although he got his own share of disputes" — I'm sorry, have we met before this? Or are you looking through my contributions for something to use against me? Pathetic. Nightw 08:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Read your offer to TP again, carefully. Don't assume what I might think or not think as you fail terribly in that. Also, you might be aware that I am part of the "Wikiproject Israel Palestine Collaboration" for some time now and related articles are watched by me, although rarely edited. So, it was very hard NOT to become aware of your disputes. And, again, that tone. JCAla (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've read it, wrote it even. And no, I'm not aware—is anyone? And I'm still unsure as to why any past debate I may have been involved in on IPCOLL might be relevant to this case... Or is it just because I disagreed with you? I'm assuming you don't go looking through the contributions of all the noticeboard participants. Perhaps you could find something more constructive to do. Nightw 09:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Night W, you could be a little more civil with your comments, even though your objectivity is being questioned. JCAla I suggest you drop this matter, it's not getting you anywhere. Pick the right battles to fight, arguing over this isn't one of them. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've dealt with these types from the content noticeboards before. They don't get the response they want, so they try to discredit the respondant by bringing up irrelevant debates from the user's contribution history. It's an old act, and I've no patience for it. Nightw 10:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sovereign states

You reverted my edits with no explanation and without providing a source. This is against the rules of Wikipedia. Palestine is not sovereign, neither de jure nor de facto. If you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word sovereignty, I think you should do some research before reverting me or at the very least provide a source to justify yourself. For example, you can read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state#De_facto_and_de_jure_states 174.113.154.168 (talk) 16:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have firm rules, and you'd get much further in discussion if you didn't lecture experienced editors on policy upon first discussion. CMD (talk) 21:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China article

Since you have previously discussed about the Republic of China, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.49 (talk) 18:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Consequences of the PRC → China move discussion

In the course of the previous move request discussion in August 2011 it was reaffirmed that other articles, categories, etc., wouldn't be affected. This principle was reaffirmed in CfD in October 2011 and February 2012. But this article was moved.[5] Please discuss at Talk:Demographics of Greater China#Move request. Thanks. 119.237.156.246 (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Night w. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

turkmenistan

http://www.turkmenistan.ru/en/articles/16102.html http://www.turkmenistan.gov.tm/_eng/?id=651 --Murza-Zade (talk) 06:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Thank you. I'll add it later on today if you haven't already done so. Nightw 06:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is/is not a sovereign state

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Palestine is/is not a sovereign state". Thank you. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 20:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)