This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I am making some suggestions for amendments to this article - and as such have not carried them out yet. After Damac's motives were questioned about the writing of this article (I added the title below to section off my talk) I suggest it is a relevant article - but needs amendments because it has been written in a subjective point of view (even if he says he has no axe to grind). He obviously has sympathies with certain groups - which is natural - if you check his user page.
1. Firstly it should be made clear on the article that that not only its neutrality but its facts are disputed too - so I would add totallydisputed in place of NPOV.
2. Secondly I would add as a note on the article that word pogrom was used as a concious decision by the writer himself (even though this seemingly goes against using wikipeadia as an original source in that he is putting his own slant on his research - yes the definition Wikipedia holds of a pogrom might with argument catch this in its net - but what do all the sources say) and that both Greek sources and Turkish sources and English ones for that matter do not use the word pogrom. We must not forget that this article might be used by people as verifiable sources - so merely adding the reason in a talk page is not sufficent in my opinon.
3. Thirdly it has to be put in historical context, that goverment of 1955 was close to fascisim in the sense that Arabic was also outlawed and that the religion was trying to be reformed - with the "call to prayer" in mosques sung in Turkish. But the government was a response BY THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED THEM IN to international events around them - and one can also assume that Greek provocation from Athens (as in Cyprus) was rife. What was Athens situation like in 1955?
4. Fourthly, both sides of the events must be told. Unfounded accusations have been made against the Orthodox Church I feel, and these need to be cleared up.
5. Fifth point - Using Mehemt Ali Birand's article as a "source" for everything said above is obviously misleading when M.A Birand does not mention any deaths or casualities. I believe in Damac's good intention in that he did not intendingly mislead. I think it just shows that he came to this article he wanted to create with a certain point of view and just found evidence to back it up. I am going to guess (and forgive me if I am wrong) but he probably didnt't even read M.A. Brand's article and just thought the initial paragraph was enough - if you follow the link you'll see that you have to be a member to read the full article.
But once these are cleared up this could become a strong article to help inform and educate bothsides. 82.145.231.132 11:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid the user Damac is a lier as he is Greek and does have a Greek POV. This article is full of lies and propaganda and the usage of the word pogrom is used to incite racial hatred. peopel should not use Wikipedia for there own racial sensitivities. Wikipedia is not here for such hooliganism. Though as more Greeks inflitrate the international satge - such as tennis - even hooliganism will become prevalent there. I will do my own objective research on this issue and changes will be made. I take serious issue with many disputed events that are being recorded here as historical FACT. Or apart from "not being" a Greek is Damac a learned historian, too?
I will also bring forth reasons for the riots, which are not made clear, such as retaliations for the Greek governmental perscution of Thrace Turks, where they cannot praticse their religion, women kidnapped, raped and forced to change their names and religion [1].
Greece has been taken many time to the European court of human rights on this matter. I will prepare an article on these issues. It is time that the truth really was written.
I am sick to death when people hijack Wikipedia for their own bigotry and prejudices.
Enough is enough. 82.145.231.79 03:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought you're the best person to ask about this. According to the central bank [2], and another source (btw, the article Austrian schilling is no good, as it copies from the "another source"), they conclude that
In 1938, German reichsmark replaced Austrian schilling at 1 reichsmark=1.5 schillings
In 1945, Austrian schilling replaced German reichsmark at par, limited to 150 schillings per person
In 1947, new schilling replaced old schilling, at par for the first 150 schillings per person, then 1 new schilling = 3 old schillings
Could you verify those fact for me please? Thanks! -- Chochopk 13:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello there! I wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my arbitration commitee nomination. Although it was not successful, I appreciate the time you spent to read my statement and questions and for then voting, either positively or negativly. Again, thank you! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 22:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Have you seen this Cfd discussion?
I wonder if you could give it some consideration. Thought and due consideration seem to be singularly lacking from the dabate thus far.-- Mais oui! 00:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I doubt it will affect the result at all, but you're really asking for complaints of bias by closing the Río de la Plata naming dispute two days early. The rules were that "the result will be determined in seven days of the vote starting (28 January 2006 at 1pm UTC)". Mucky Duck 10:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I modified your code a bit, try clicking at the "image" for talk (at the phone). — This user has left wikipedia 17:18 2006-01-26
Hi,
Why did you remove the Futurama image from the Futurama fans template? Captain Jackson 17:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 27, 2006 -- Tantalum T e lluride 00:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Howdy bud! I just snuck an extensive peek at your notes and was utterly impressed at the amassment of info. I have a tiny ammendment to suggest.
New Caledonia is set to hold its plebiscite sometime after 2013, i.e. in 2014 or later, according to the treaty provisions of 1998.
Also, you could add NC to the list of entities where there is an active ongoing debate on the issue of flag change.
The same goes for AU and NZ, although these are stalled and not quite as acute since they already have flags of their own (albeit not designs that are universally popular in their respective societies).
The issue of FO independence is not simply "for economic reasons", as the economic situation is actually an obstacle to independence.
Also, I was wondering about the flag icon shown for Western Sahara - is it really meant to be turned in that direction? It sort of strikes me as contrary to vexillological convention. =J // Big Adamsky 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
bcz I'm planning to do something about the jumble that are the userboxes on my page, and you've got the best solution going... :-) immitation, they say, is the highest compliment, so I guess congratulations are in order? :-D Tom e r talk 13:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd offer my congratulations on €2 commemorative coins since it seems from the edit history you're the main contributor to the article. It's one of the most interesting featured articles I've read recently! └ UkPaolo/ talk┐ 14:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, you recently commented on bible-verse articles, and may therefore be interested in commenting about a proposed policy covering roughly 50 specific verses:
-- Victim of signature fascism 20:15, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, the same anon user removed Abkhasia and South Ossetia entries from Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms and gallery of flags. I requested that this page would be semi-protected. But s/he registered an acount and got away with it. When I started discussion of the gallery's talk page. Now s/he is moving discussion to Talk:List of sovereign states. Would you care to answer? Renata 01:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok when you come back:
Renata 03:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I was going though Wikipedia:Proposed mergers and wasn't paying attention to the redirect. That page and its redirect's former content had already merged, so I deleted the tag I erroneously created. Hope that clears it up. -- Zsinj 02:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Glad to see that you did it. As the Branagh film comes along wwe can re-evaluate the need for some other name.
Vivaverdi 04:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm afraid I don't have database access so I have no better way to figure it out that you. However this was posted on Gmaxwell's talk page after your query there, wich might shed some light on it:
A few of those are coats of arms though, IMHO that's the "worst" fair user category we have, it should probably not be used alone. It basicaly just says that we have no clue what license the image has, it might be public domain, it might be restricted by other laws or it might be copyrighted, so we claim fair use just in case... Anyway unless a particular image has enough info to convince us that it's free licensed I guess it is safer to just treat it like any other fair use image... -- Sherool (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I made a map based on the blank EU map. I don't know if it works as well as the current one, as though accurate, it perhaps has too much detail.
I don't have a definitive master copy in a sensible format, I have Paint Shop Pro multi-layer images pieced together from different bits of maps (I had to extend the original eastward). I do not know at this stage the original Europe map, as though I should have noted it at the time, I did not. It is one of the blank maps here on Wikipedia (as is evident from the consistent country outlines).
If you find it, let me know. I think I may have had to rotate the original or something. I'm not too sure actually what steps were involved in creating the multi-layer jigsaw I have at the moment - hence why I have it saved in that loss-less "work status saved" format (I can't recreate it easily from scratch).
zoney ♣ talk 17:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.
In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{ EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)
Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --
Cel
e
stianpower
háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by
Rune.welsh using
AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name
here.
Hi. Since you did the move, I thought I would ask you. I believe that the assertion that the marketing version of rebate is the ONLY version is wrong. I created the disambiguation page that you replaced because the word has a different meaning here in Australia. Some how I missed the move request tag and so did not get a chance to put forward a case. What do I do to get this looked at again? I don't want to just change it back but feel strongly that it should have a disambiguation page, despite what others may think. SilentC 20:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you happen to be online? If that's the case, I have " something" I want you to see... ;) Phædriel ♥ tell me - 22:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I did read it, and my request meets the criterion. I wanted to move Oxygen first aid to Oxygen therapy. The later name, as you might note, is an existing article. To do this move I would have to be an admin. As you may have noticed, I am not an admin.
This move does not meet the criteria for:
In fact, this is an obstructed uncontroversial move. So give me a hand, and read the article yoruself while you're at it. If i'm missing something, please be specific in you're reply. Shaggorama 09:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
They were originally merged at oneiromancy; the consensus was to split rather than move, so I merged contemporary information into dream interpretation. I'm sorry, I didn't see your comment on WP:RM (I unwatched it after I merged). Hope I didn't waste your time! -- Mgreenbe 11:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, Nightstallion. I see that you reverted the unannounced move of the article on the Istanbul Pogrom to 6-7 September Uprisings. The person responsible for that that move User:Blue sea has once again vandalised the page and moved it to Greek nationalist propaganda. Blue sea has been attacking me all week using sockpuppets and I think he should be tackled on account of his behaviour by an administrator.
I'd appreciate any help you can offer. I tried reverting the most recent move but it didn't seem to work. The page should be protected to allow the name and its contents be discussed in peace. -- Damac 15:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you've heard about the User Page Award, but I've nominated your page. If the judges like your User Page best, you get a shiny new barnstar. I hope you don't mind... smurrayinch ester( User), ( Talk) 20:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That is meant as a joke, isn't it? "Whomever" is, after all, wrong here. Kelisi 21:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm really reluctant to bring this up and start another wheel war, but the unilateral deletion of {{User no rand}} is the last straw. I'm really trying to assume good faith, but Tony Sidaway and a few others have taken it upon themselves to bypass the standard process of template deletion (again). If you view the past 5000 deletions and use you browser to search for "Template:User", you will see at least a dozen deletions which haven't gone through TFD within the last week or so. I am coming to you because I think that the rules and process are important, and deletion requires consensus. Otherwise, we might as well let WoW run things. I also think that it makes sorting and orginizing userboxes hard since they are being deleted at someone's whim. First and foremost, I'm looking for this to be undeleted:
since that is absolute nonsense (IIRC, it said that "This user opposes all forms of Randroid thought"). What it really said is irrelevant, since it is up to TfD to determine what is and isn't an attack userbox. Also, I think all the other unilateral deletions within the last week or so should be undeleted and brought to TFD, if necessary. I really don't have the time nor the energy to do a RfC/RfA, so I beg you to please stop this nonsense before such actions are required. Thank you in advance. -- Dragon695 17:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, Nightstallion/γ! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:
But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!
More information can be found on this page.
KnowledgeOf Self | talk 19:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem! Nice userpage by the way! -- light darkness 20:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I guess when MediaWiki gives an error instead of just retrying I should go all the way back. Silly software. :p ¦ Reisio 23:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments on my talk page yesterday. I thought I would let you know that I am reconsidering returning, but not right now as of the moment. SWD316 talk to m e 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
oh yes. I at least had the sense to make decent adjustments, unlike others who have apparently emulated your charming setup... All I know is this: ALL YOUR AWESOMENESS ARE BELONG TO M3!!! :-p —Preceding unsigned comment added by TShilo12 ( talk • contribs)
Can you now change the name of this article into the one for which we all voted on the talk page (I cannot to move article to new name, it do not work). Maybe you can. If not, then we will have to copy-paste entire content to the page with new name. PANONIAN (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Why is an Irish Catholic in favor of Romanian-Moldovan reunification? -- Pierremenard 23:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (A russian speaking moldovan)
I would like to put a UTC-5 (and, if possible, /-4 for summer) userbox on my page (I am a new user). However, I do not want to create one just for my use; I'd rather use more of a generic template thing as is mentioned on the Wikipedia_talk:Userboxes/Time page (on which you commented) if possible, but I do not understand the code used at the bottom. Could you suggest something or help me with this because I do not want to risk messing up the userbox pages by editing, creating, changing, or doing something else to them. Thanks. // MrD9 07:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm disappointed with your decision not to move the page as it shows contempt for both community opinion, historical truth, and the common sense. It seems like you didn't read the page carefully, as it was pointed out there that Gediminas' title changed over the years and its translations still vary as well. In the opinion of 14th Lithuanians, his title was above the king not below it. The policy, which you didn't bother to formulate succinctly anyway, is not applicable to non-Catholic rulers, as the title of king was bestowed by the Pope only and the Pope had no authority over non-Catholic rulers in general and Gediminas in particular. In the context of Eastern European history, "the policy" as interpreted by yourself discriminates against Orthodox and pagan rulers and even emperors, as Gediminas was actually an emperor in a sense. Also, your decision not to move turns the whole nomenclature for Lithuanian rulers into a mess, as we have Algirdas, Vitautas, etc but Gediminas, Grand Duke of Lithuania stands out of line an incorrect and controversial title frivolously sticked to the title of the article. Honestly, you need to improve the standard of your work. -- Ghirla | talk 07:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I know i'm right, and i'm just glad i've progressed a long way in the real world, or this would really be tough right now. Hopefully we can all get some cool heads out of this and realize that policies have to apply to everyone, even those "above" the law, and that we all need to fix the mechanisms related to this policies. Either that, or Wikipedia becomes an informational clubhouse for a certain neaveau riche elite. Karm a fist 17:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
A few of those linkage icons for personal use. I will create my own, but I'll be sure not to have mine look like yours tick for tack. Regards. ε γκυκλοπ αίδεια * 21:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain why did you revert my edits? -- Panairjdde 11:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hy,
I've seen that you are aware about the state of this article, and I think you are the person I should talk to. So, I found this link and there it states that:
I looked in the article and there is the info looking like this: United Kingdom (Expected) April 2006. Then I looked on the site of the Romanian ministry for European Integration here, and there is little or no info about the parlamentary approval of the Treaty in the UK.
Finaly found these two links: on BBC Romanian and on british Parliament. The first one states that the House of Lords aprouved the treaty today, and only the royal seal (ratification) is to be done, and the second one, states that the text is as brought from the Commons. Also I found this, which states at the end: Bill read the third time, and passed..
So, is it correct to say that the Treaty was aprouved by the UK Parliament??
Thanks Mihai - talk 18:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey NS! I was wondering if you would have a look at this brief discussion on format/title. I know that you are a key competence when if comes to constitutional statuses... ;) // Big Adamsky 20:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
===>No problem I meant to make both the whole time, actually, but I only ever intended to use the reintegration one. - Justin (koavf), talk 15:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Grüß dich Nighstallion, not sure if this topic is really your forte, however I have an interesting discussion going on with a user who insists that family names of Austrian (and German for that matter) nobles are translatable into English. So it would be something like "Kinsky of Wichnitz and Tettau". You can follow that long discussion on my talk page, the users, and I have decided to move it to the talk page of Austrian nobility to keep things shorter. Your input is greatly appreciated if you care.... mfg Gryffindor 16:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Dear Nightstallion, I thought you might care to participate in the vote on English nomenclature for " County" and " Commune," at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geography_of_Poland#Vote. I personally favor using serviceable English terms (such as "county" and "commune") for general concepts, and authentic names, authentically spelled (rather than Anglicizations) for persons, rulers and actual places. (Some users, strangely enough, to my thinking, take the opposite view.) Regards, logologist| Talk 17:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello Nightstallion! I would like to inform you that a noticeboard has been established to better aid discussion of articles concerning German-related topics. Feel free to participate with the project if you are interested! Olessi 01:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
This board was founded yesterday (and doesn't have members yet). I think moving this to Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedias' notice board might be a good idea, and would like to invite you to discuss this at Wikipedia talk:German Wikipedians' notice board and, of course, to participate. If the amount of Germany-related stuff there becomes overwhelming, we can just spin that off into a WikiProject Germany. Viele Grüße, Kusma (討論) 03:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Greetings! You have edited the Katie Holmes page in the past. I've completely reworked the article and have posted it on WP:PR in the hopes of advancing it to WP:FAC. I would be grateful for your comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Katie Holmes/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 18:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello! How are you? I see a sea of blue ... in more ways than one ...
Apropos, I've a question. As a result of some discussions regarding the rendition of names for Canadian prime ministers, including pre- and post-nominals, I've devised an alternate approach that seems an appropriate compromise. This allows for simpler names in the article lead/intro, but complete renditions in/atop the biobox.
To that end, I'm trying to tweak a template/infobox to exhibit the same result without the plethora of code (as is the case in a few select examples currently; below). So, my question is (actually two)
The desired output is exhibited here or here, but I'm unsure how to get there. Thoughts?
Moreover, if this is feasible, perhaps it can serve as some sort of standard for all articles with bioboxes, and perhaps beyond?!
Your assistance is appreciated. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 18:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there dear NS! Regarding your questions! ;)
Kisses! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, my friend, for your support during this tough time(heh, i've said that so often recently that i'm wondering if I should make a template!), and your support in my manifesto. Please let me know how to refine it better, on its talk page, there's an explanation of the legislature idea. Karm a fist 15:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been through a distinctly torrid time on Wikipedia, so it's lovely to have a friendly greeting. - Poetlister 22:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Ich bin eifersüchtig darauf. Es ist total klasse! - The Great Gavini diskussion 20:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Today three weeks have passed since I was granted access to the administrator toolbox. During this time I have made use of it in the following way:
I've found that the rollback tool is much more useful than I'd thought for vandalism patrol. In fact it makes that task so easy that I've been doing it more than before. On the other hand I've been surprised by how little the blocking tool is needed. Having done a significant amount of vandalism patrol I have still only blocked one solitary vandal. The great majority of addresses which send out a vandal edit do so only once. Those who do it more often usually stop after a warning or two. Only rarely is a block actually needed and in those cases someone usually beats me to it.
As a side note I haven't retired from writing articles either. I'm still hoping to bring Freyr up to featured status but even though I've already performed more edits on it than on Hrafnkels saga back in the day, a lot of work remains to be done. Community expectations for featured articles have gone up and so have my own ambitions. I'm currently waiting for a couple of books I ordered to arrive and then I may be able to make the final push.
I'm trying my best to live up to the trust you showed in me by supporting my RFA. If ever you feel uncertain whether I'm using the admin tools in the best interests of the project, let me know. I am at any time willing to relinquish the mop and reapply for it to address concerns people have and ensure that I'm not using the admin tools without being trusted to do so. Haukur 22:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
===>Considering naming issues... I made one for "Czechia": Template:CZa {{ CZa}} and "Viet Nam": Template:ViN {{ ViN}}. I don't know if there are any naming conventions for these little flag templates, but if there are, whoops. I figured you might like them. - Justin (koavf), talk 03:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".
The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.
Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--
Cel
es
tianpower
háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by
FireFox using
AWB on
Celestianpower's behalf)
Greentubing 04:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
===>Gotcha I went to the individual pages (cf. French Guiana) and found different flags there. I'm guessing they're unofficial flags? If they are the flags of the regions, it simply makes sense to have those rather than the sovereign state above them. That is to say, {{ ALASKA}} should have the Alaskan flag, not the Stars and Stripes. - Justin (koavf), talk 15:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Using your argument of correct pronunciation, you might as well move Junichiro Koizumi to Jun'ichiro Koizumi. My rationale for moving to Shinichi Suzuki is use common names. -- TML1988 02:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi there, I saw you re-added the image CIS.svg. I noticed an anon putting it in between the edits I reverted, but wasnt sure what to make of it. Is an SVG always better than a PNG? Does WP have any preference one way or the other? Thanks and greets, The Minist e r of War (Peace) 09:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I saw that you're changing your stance on userboxes. I think this entire thing has been blown out of proportion, but that seems to be happening more frequently now *sigh*. Wish you'd reconsidier (we need all the allies we can get at this point), but I understand if you don't want to. Anyhow, thanks for the earlier support! -- Dragon695 01:26, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
In light of your recent unilateral move of the article on List of German concentration camps to List of concentration camps of Nazi Germany, I encourage you to move all the remaining articles (including the one on Germany) to new names similar to the one you invented. Halibu tt 03:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
U know what, that is a very good question... and from the picture currently on the President's webpage, you seem to be more right than I am on this. If you want to switch them now, go ahead. But otherwise, I will do it later today. Thank you for the note. Themalau 09:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The site is : http://www.presidentrdc.cd Themalau 10:59, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey. You closed the move debate at Talk:Facebook (website) as "no consensus". Currently, Facebook is a disambiguation page for Wikipedia:Facebook, Facebook (website) and wikt:Facebook. Since when do we create disambiguation pages for project pages or wiktionary pages absent a namespace conflict? It seems like the notice for Wikipedia:Facebook could be a dab link at the top of the Facebook (website) article and the wiktionary link could be contained at the bottom of that article as is customary for sister projects. Following that it seems logical that Facebook (website) could be moved to Facebook since there is no longer a namespace conflict. Your thoughts? savidan (talk) (e@) 04:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! savidan (talk) (e@) 15:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, my dear NS! Don't worry, I have not forgotten at all about your request; but I see it is getting increasingly difficult for me to spend much time on WP :(
The last couple of weeks, and the upcoming 3 or so, I must cover double turns most of the time; add the urging of my bf to spend more time with him (or else...) to that, and I don't think I'll be able to do much regarding the requests of design for a while... darn!
I still promise to help you, and i don't take my promises lightly. In your case, I love the challenge as well ;)
Hope you'r doing fine, baby, big big hug your way! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I am writing in response to your message regarding the templates used to reference Hong Kong. Actually, the current templates already suit all different kinds of purposes in Wikipedia and are user-friendly. The current arrangement is like this:
I have checked that most of the articles that contain one of these templates are actually using the correct templates. I think this way of naming the template is pretty descriptive, and is simple enough for typing when editing an article. Furthermore, most people in Wikipedia don't know about the naming convention in Hong Kong and they usually automatically add {{ HKG}} to the articles about sport events, such as Olympic Games, in which "Hong Kong, China" instead of "Hong Kong" should be used. This has happened many times before, and it took me a lot of time to change them from "Hong Kong" to "Hong Kong, China". But User:Instantnood insists to change {{ HKG}} from "Hong Kong, China" to "Hong Kong". This would mess up a lot of sport-related articles in Wikipedia. Furthermore, {{ HONG KONG}} , {{ HKG-PRC}}, {{ HongKongSAR}} are redundant and has been redirected. But Instantnood insists to screw up the redirections and make two separate templates the same one. I really don't know why one has to change a convenient template system to a nonsense one. Finally, thank you for moving {{ HONG KONG}} to {{ HK}}. The latter one is easier to type. - Alanmak 10:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Regarding your comment on the verifiability of this site, I wanted to let you know that the source you cited is a 404. It is possible that you copy/pasted or typed it wrongly, or that the source has been taken down for some reason. Stifle 14:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I saw your name on Gryffindor's talk page. I was wondering if you could help me by placing a post in favor of larger fonts on this page under the small font size section. Really appreciate your help. Thanks. -- Mmounties 18:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello again! How are you? I'm on a wikibreak of sorts (work-related), so I'm going to be brief ... if that is even possible!
That poll is interesting: time will tell whether the NDP can displace the Liberals or Conservatives in what I think will be a short-lived parliament. However, the Ontario provincial elxn of 1990 was a complete surprise, so nothing is impossible. :)
Apropos: I've belatedly reviewed the EU list you previously informed me of and asked my input regarding (forgive my tardiness). It's great; some minor comments:
As well, I'd like your feedback on a 'provisional' article that I've drafted with definitions and maps of prominent entities containing America. Take a peek at the talk page for America for one reason why I think this something like this is needed. I'd very much like your input on the draft article's talk page, specifically:
Remember this is a draft, not public. :) Once I get feedback from you and others (over the next few days), I will place this as a legitimate article and include links in appropriate articles.
I might not get to you promptly, but I will in days. Regardless, thanks for your assistance! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi NS,
You may have been premature in closing the page move on Talk:Outer Hebrides just now. The discussion was still active today. On the other hand, once you discount the support votes from anons and possible puppets, its unlikely that a concensus to move would emerge. -- Solipsist 12:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I ve put one note to the administrators on the talk page of Molise Slavic I hope u read it and I would like to hear your comment:-). Luka Jačov 14:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, Nightstallion, revert Luka Jačov's unauthorized move of the article Molise Croatian dialect, as this is impossible for us ordinary users. It seems he doesn't understand the appropriate procedure for opposing the voting results. -- Zmaj 15:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
U r very bad administrator when u dont anwser other user's questions! Luka Jačov 08:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Nightstallion, I'm not sure if it's common practice to just ask administrators to do things, but I figured I'd try it anyway becuase you've indirectly/directly helped me before with problems. I was reading a few USVI articles, and I noticed that about half the cities/islands were named either [city/island], [city/island, U.S. Virgin Islands], or the latter with U.S. spelled out. Since I found that most USVI-related articles used "U.S. Virgin Islands" in their titles ( Template:U.S. Virgin Islands; except for the main "United States Virgin Islands" article itself), I tried to standardize all of the article names to use "..., U.S. Virgin Islands." Everything went fine until I got to Saint Croix (one of the islands). For some reason, it is the only one I can't get to move, but I can't figure out why, since there appears to be no history. Right now the old redirects plus my redirects trying to rectify the situation sort of created an infinite loop type situation, and even though the page I want to move it to has no history, it won't work. Basically, since it's not really a voting/controversy type thing and is more of a technical website issue, I wanted to see if you could move Saint Croix, United States Virgin Islands to Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands for me. All of the other islands use "U.S. Virgin Islands" in their names, not "United States Virgin Islands," and this is the only page that won't move. If you can get it moved, I will make sure the existing redirects all work afterwards. I just don't really feel like dragging this out a week with WP:RM when I doubt anyone would have a problem with the move. Thanks. // MrD9 02:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I dunno if you've weighed in, but anyhow... Please comment on my counteroffer on the talk page of Doc's userbox proposal. -- Dragon695 06:25, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
This guy has been away for about 6 weeks but is suddenly back and is already up to his old tricks, moving Sons of Noah back to Table of nations again without any consensus, ignoring the requested move vote outcome and your previous intervention. ፈቃደ ( ውይይት) 23:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Hey man, check out this article :) - FrancisTyers 12:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment on my user page. It makes me feel a little better knowing someone actually cares. Moe ε 05:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we needed "finally" at the end of that move vote on facebook. It is a good trait for administrators to be professional and non-partisan when closing debates, and it's obvious that you were neither. Mike H. That's hot 09:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Please do not revert the article without explaining yourself. If you have reasons please state them on the talk page. Irakliy81 18:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said, please present ARGUMENTS for your POV. Otherwise I will be forced to accuse you of vandalism. Irakliy81 18:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Based on some of your numerous userboxes (I've borrowed a few), I think you might be interested in this new project. Bubba73 (talk), 00:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Congratulations, Nightstallion! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:
But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!
More information can be found on this page.
haz ( user talk) e 18:50, 1 March 2006
Admin Mark Sweep removed a category Category:Pro-cannabis Wikipedians from a valid template Template:User pro-cannabis, then deleted the category (which he had thus just emptied) citing CSD C1 (which allows only for deleting an empty category). How is this not disruption and vandalism, not to mention abuse of process? On what grounds can he thus forcibly disassociate a list of Wikipedians? Although there are changes regarding userboxen under discussion, there is presently no basis in policy for any of this.
Please help,
StrangerInParadise 08:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm at a loss to explain the strange way that the table is displaying. I've tried poking around with the code a bit, but I'm really better at using the wiki table syntax than <div> commands. smurrayinch ester( User), ( Talk) 08:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Why not add yourself? (I'm going on an expansion campaign, because I like seeing friendly users' faces once in a while) haz ( user talk) e 21:02, 3 March 2006
Many thanks for that, it's more than 'alright' :) -- Alf melmac 10:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I did not know you know Latin :) Thanks for helping out! Renata 17:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi there! How are you? I'm swamped (hence my distance) but, if you get a moment, please weigh in on this issue/poll. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:52, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
How are you doing, my sweet NS? I simply wanted to drop by to say hi, and to apologize from the depths of my heart for being unable to assist you with you problem at your userpage due to my absence.
I see that you've solved it - that's great!
Anyway, I'm back after a forced wikibreak, and I simply wished to visit my friends. I hope you're doing fine, and now that I'm back full time, please, whistle whenever you need me. An enormous virtual hug, Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
PS. I "incidentally" can't help but to think the same about you! ;)
Congratulations, Nightstallion/γ! Your user page has been nominated for the Esperanza User Page Award! Five judges will look over your user page and award it 1-10 points in four categories:
But first, you must be chosen as a finalist. If your user page is chosen as one of the five finalists, you'll have the chance to win an award created just for having a great user page!
More information can be found on this page.
KnowledgeOfSelf 12:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm suprised at the no concensus result, it seemed to me that it was 2 to 1 (66%) in favor of a name change.
Did you count User:Gateman1997? He voted in the wrong section. -- ProveIt (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Do you know much about go? You have intervened in a complex discussion on go terminology. I have a go book you can read about on Amazon, and another one that is published online, and many go articles available online too. So I think, rather than close a discussion on go terminology abruptly, you could have asked what I think (you can read on my user page that I have spent quite a number of years on this). Charles Matthews 22:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, since the first sentence is actually incorrect, strictly speaking, you may be under a misapprehension about this. The page was created by a native speaker of Chinese, and his approach has introduced inaccuracies. Charles Matthews 15:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I think I've fixed it. Is that how you wanted the table? smurrayinch ester( User), ( Talk) 15:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thanks for the help! Arre 12:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi Nightstallion, I noticed you made the move from Wielkopolska Uprising to Greater Poland Uprising. The discussion was still in progress, and I didn't get a chance to cast my vote, so would you mind bringing it back for a few more days? Appleseed ( Talk) 12:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Nightstallion. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 14:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Nightstallion. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. Also, please tell me how to make suggestions better and whether you'd be okay with suggestions put directly on your talk page. Leave SuggestBot feedback here. Thanks. -- SuggestBot 14:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems the two of us are those finalists with rather lengthy user pages (text-wise), so we'll probably appeal to the same kind of taste, I s'pose... =] Having said that, I wish you the best of luck! — Nightst a llion (?) 11:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought you might be interested in some updates regarding the missing flags.
Pskov Oblast at this time does not have an official flag at all (they do have a coat of arms though). According to the Oblast's Charter, the flag must be adopted by the Oblast's legislation. The most recent legislative initiative I was able to find was May 25 2004 Decree of the Oblast Administration "On formation of a workgroup to develop the symbols of Pskov Oblast". I guess they are still "developing" the flag. Some of the sources indicate that the flag will be identical to the coat of arms, but also that the coat of arms may be amended in the near future.
Novgorod Oblast has no flag for what I assume are pretty much the same reasons. A contest for the best flag sketch was announced in 2002, but none of the submitted sketches was deemed acceptable. According to the contest rules, the flag must include (but not be identical to) the Oblast's coat of arms. A new contest was going to be announced in 2005 (I don't know if it was). Funny enough, they are unable to finish interior decoration of the legislative building because it has to include the Oblast's flag.
As for Kaliningrad Oblast, a similar contest was declared in 2002. I am not sure whether the contest was a success, but a law was drafted in November 2005, with the description of the Oblast's flag and coat of arms. It was expected that the new symbols would be in effect on the 60th anniversary of the formation of Kaliningrad Oblast ( April 7, 2006), but the draft was eventually declined in December as the flag symbols were not Russian enough. They are now planning a new contest, and also created a special commission to resolve the issue.
Hope this helps.— Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I've been assigned to be the mediator for the Japanese Macrons case. Discussion will be carried out on the Talk page of the case request. I will have some preliminary questions up soon, I am looking forward to working with everyone to get this resolved. Thank you, psch e mp | talk 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)