Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Night w. 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. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Please join in the discussion and source your claim of what the right house names are before reversions continue. I already started the discussion before you reverted. Seven Letters 14:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
please take a second look at the article. It is not just an encyclopedia article, but about a juridical and legal subject, about international law. We have to be very precise. I've cited numerous top legal scholars proving that differentiating between de facto and de jure is very important. Likewise, the article constantly (and correctly) alludes to UN, yet UN's position was not mentioned on those states, and you reverted me on that. Let's improve this article about international law and practices. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
For greatest respond ever! WhiteWriter speaks 21:03, 26 September 2011 (UTC) |
Thank you for your message. I perfectly understand that the geographic definition is vague if we want to respect borders. I based my change on the cultural aspect though. Thanks again and have a nice day! Tachfin (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
That map of Somaliland I uploaded at your request has been nom'd for deletion. Seems pretty clear to me that it meets policy, but you can see the discussion here if you're interested. TDL (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your message. I now see your point, perhaps the text could say "exceeds 130" as that's consistent with most of the sources we have now. Apparently the number is changing rapidly. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 09:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem, Night, you may call me as much times as needed. I want to participate in this, specially when it is guided so pleasantly. All best! --WhiteWriter speaks 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Article Incubator/Zola Levitt. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:WHS divs.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Night W, Thanks for letting me know about the poll. Munci (talk) 16:13, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
See Talk:Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk for answers to your question about the Lacy family. Also, I agree with you on the points made in the ancestry section. Either you or I can fix the table as it is not correct. -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- and it looks terrible with all the clutter of coat of arms. -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Template:Partition Plan-Armistice Lines comparison map legend has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TDL (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Good day, how can You dispute something which is issued as official document by President of Philippines and certified by Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs. Please explain me. Best regardsRDAndrew (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
As much as I agree with the change, it'd be nice if assertions like that the EU recognises Jerusalem as a future capital come with sources! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jolie Gabor. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
regarding your edit on State of Palestine, according to whom should official capitals go first? Pass a Method talk 12:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. It looks like the article made it to ITN despite the disagreements between you and User:Danlaycock. It also looks like the number of editors involved with the article is growing, which should help moderate personal conflict between the two of you. Let me know if things get worse and I'll see what I can do. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:26, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Nightw, I've just replied to your comments on my talk page. cmɢʟee'τaʟκ'maιʟ 21:28, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I have logged just today on Novemer 2nd, and I have missed the discussions which appear to have ended and a categorization of countries has been set with the use of the United Nations Geoscheme definition of continents. Sorry for replying so late. My intention was not political and I have found out about the later edit warring of the user in XLR8TION (talk · contribs) with whom I discussed about the lists of diplomatic missions and edited.
Being transcontinental countries the countries of Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and (also Cyprus which geographically lies in Asia) are categorized as either European or Asian or both, and I agree that the categorization leads to confusion and leaves question marks, not to mention controversy. I am aware that these countries (especally Cyprus as an EU member) are categorized as European for sociopolitical reasons, rather than solely on geographic basis. So I will stick to the United Nations Geoscheme definition of continents.
However in the lists of diplomatic missions which have been organized into continents there is the one odd false categorization of the Middle East as a continent, when it is actually a region of Asia, called Southwest Asia (United Nations Geoscheme). Egypt also associated with this region is already correctly placed in Africa in the lists of diplomatic missions. If no objects I will put the Middle East as a subsection Asia, under which it correctly belongs, but will not erase it.
Noraton talk 14:15, 2 November 2011 (UTC).
You are aware that paraphrasing is plagiarism aren't you? I'm quite concerned about some of your edits. TDL (talk) 00:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see an issue because legally speaking these departments are equal in the French context. So why not include it as well since it is not connected to the mainland. Outback the koala (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Due to the very serious copyright concerns that have been raised about you at ANI, I would like to ask that you 1) temporarily refrain from adding materials to articles, and 2) please explain in the ANI thread in what way those copies are not copyright violations. I've already checked a few of the examples, and the problem seems quite egregious. Because this seems like a prima facie problem, I'm also going to open up a WP:CCI on your edits, which will look (eventually) at the work you've done. Note that I am not actually blocking you at the moment, but another admin might, and, of course, any further copyvios will likely result in a block. I know that this just sounds like bullying/badgering, but I need you to understand how serious copyright violations are. Note, also, that I don't mean to imply that you added these statements in bad faith; the exact line between good paraphrasing and bad paraphrasing is one that most editors cross from time to time, and the important thing here is that we make sure to solve the problem (by removing previous overly-close copies, and ensuring you know how to avoid them in the future). Qwyrxian (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The article A. K. Fazlul Huq has been blanked for copyright concerns and listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2011 November 2 following the finding of close paraphrasing from one of its sources. There is more information at the talk page of the article and also at the ANI listing. I share Qwyrxian's concerns that these problems seem egregious. I checked simply one of your articles, at random, and found text matches in the first passage I checked. This suggests that the problem may be widespread, although as I note at ANI your citation of your sources certainly also suggests that you had no intentions of plagiarizing. Sometimes these problems are caused by lack of familiarity with conventions. Under this assumption, I'm offering a bit of explanation, taken from Template:Uw-copyright-new.
There are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.
- You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text".
- Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.)
- Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is, of course, Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
- In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. If you do confirm that a source if public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution, which includes noting that content is copied as well as citing your source; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
A CCI (presuming one will be opened at this point) will certainly help bring out any issues that need cleaning, but there are some important things to note about the way they work. To avoid badgering, we have developed the practice of not giving notice when individual problems are found in articles. It is assumed that once a CCI is open, you realize that there have been copyright issues with your work and no longer need an explanation that this is against policy and why. If you are interested in salvaging any articles that are flagged as problems, you will want to watch the CCI page itself. When an article is blanked, it will be noted on that page. Any article that is blanked may be stubbed or deleted after a week if no action is taken (articles that are blanked contain a link to a temporary page where the contents may be rewritten from scratch; if you rewrite an article, you should note that you have done so on the articles talk page to avoid its being inadvertently deleted). In the case of a CCI, it is also possible that content will be removed without that week's delay, although I have not seen articles outright deleted in less than that time period except in a few very exceptional cases. Based on what I've seen, I don't believe this would be the path taken with your CCI. If once investigation begins the problem is found to be very widespread, this will increase the likeliness that content will be removed presumptively, in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations.
Because there is a considerable backlog at CCI and because it relies on volunteer efforts, it is difficult to predict how long any CCI will remain active. Yours might be fairly quick, as you have only substantially contributed to a couple of hundred articles, but we can never predict how long it may remain open. We have had some completed within days; some have been open for more than a year.
If you have any questions about copyright or CCIs, please let me know. I'm happy to try to more fully explain our practices and procedure. I'll try to watchlist your page for a time, but since I have less time to volunteer now than I once did, it might be a good idea for you to leave me a talkback if you reply, particularly if you do so after a few days. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Can I ask what is going on with this user? This looks unusual... Calabe1992 (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of current Indian pretenders 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/List of current Indian pretenders 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. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of sovereign states. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for your note on my talk page. I am in the wrong place to look up sources, but you could try emailing christopher.buyers [at] virgin.net who is the author of the royalark.net page you found.
Some WP users seem to me to have a political agenda to trivialize the native states, even to the point of making them out to be a kind of fiction, British colonies or provinces in all but name. For them, the Indian Empire was already a "unitary state", so that after 1947 the extinction of the states was inevitable, if not a kind of tidying up. There are even some WP articles on individual states which describe the post 1947 period (after assimilation into India) as "Independence" and the pre-1947 period as "colonialism". For such users, Operation Polo was merely the Indian Union excercising its perfect right to treat the native states as already part of the new India, whether their rulers agreed to accede or not. Clearly, from the point of view of India-wide political parties (and, no doubt, democracy itself) the extinction of most of the states was very desirable (except that some states might eventually have had a more democratic future by retaining some autonomy), but it is no longer essential to democracy to play games with what happened. Unfortunately, the distortion of the history of the political integration of India has been going on at the highest level for so long that even some academic specialists have a clouded view. That makes it easy for the misrepresentations to be embedded in the fabric of Wikipedia. Moonraker (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
What is there about the discussion that relates to either policies, guidelines or matters that have a wide impact and on which a broad consensus is needed? SilkTork ✔Tea time 16:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Flatlist wrapping issue.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
First off, thank you for bringing the potential concerns to the directors' attention. I greatly appreciate that you took this action for your own list, and I'm sure the other directors feel the same way. After the list was pulled from its upcoming TFL date, I went to check for close paraphrasing myself, to the extent that I could. I didn't find much that was concerning on that front, but I came away with some reliable source concerns that I think should be looked at before the list is rescheduled. The comments are at Talk:List of current sovereign monarchs. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi Night w, I have to explain to you about this accident because my contribution was reverted by you. First of all, we would like to know about the following three points. First point is that ususal japanese know Japaese Emperor not have fimly name. Second point is that Jananise article ja:皇室#氏・姓・名字(family name item in Imperial House of Japan article) mentioned it and have some reference. Third point is that I hate foreign language link.
anyway, you may not read japanese, but you feel the article have some reference. Do you need more explain ?--Forestfarmer (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
anyway, I translate it,"daiō = tennō do not have sei and had transcending sei system."
explain of technical term
"daiō"ja:大王 (ヤマト王権) is old name of tennō. It is the king when it says simply.
"tennō"ja:天皇 is the Emperor when it says simply.
"daiō = tennō" is japanese Emperor when Japan conscious of a foreign country (China).may be A.D.6~7.
”sei” is family name when it says simply.
"sei system" in old japan, Japanese Emperor had given "sei" his allegiant.
--Forestfarmer (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I did an initial run through of the new version, and it definitely seems better. I asked for a second editor, more familiar with CCI, to take another look before I move it back to mainspace. However, I actually think it could be even better with a thorough re-write, which would involve cutting the information in about half. See, right now, it seems like you're trying to get every single detail covered in the news articles into the WP article. But the WP article should really be a broader summary of the mosque itself, not just a recounting of the news stories. I removed a few details I thought were excessive, but more could probably be done.
One thing that you could do that would help: the second reference is now a dead link; could you find the original article and update it? Thanks. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
There was no consensus. The item was already being discussed. You offered no compromise and your points were not addressed before your removal of information. Please either self revert or offer a compromise thx ... talknic (talk) 15:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Why November 18th? in AS date not specified, it is said that the November 19, recognized the following, and Gambia among them!!!--analitic114 (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
+ This there are and Lebanon--analitic114 (talk) 10:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Palestine gained independence from the Gambia? I must have missed a lot. Hans Adler 15:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Would you like to explain the nature of this edit? Particularly the insulting edit summary. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 16:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
You may be interested in this. Peter jackson (talk) 17:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Category talk:Anti-abortion violence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I hope you have some idea of how foolish you're going to appear when I revert again and link to the page as it was upon its creation, when it linked to Western Sahara and mentioned nothing of Morocco, and then link to the first time an image was included, one not of Morocco. ¦ Reisio (talk) 07:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I was actually searching for wikipedia's policy on this and the users The Last Angry Man and JCAla seem to exactly fit into this WP:FILIBUSTERS. Both of them and another editor who later joined, Darkness Shines, are not hearing at all and just reverting me if I edit on the article to make me cross 3RR without any of them doing so, so I've stopped so as not to editwar. I even called an RFC on the talk page and have replied sufficiently here (and tired of replying to the same questions finally); actually unknowingly resorting to all the remedies for WP:FILIBUSTERS but this doesn't seem to go away. Even during the RFC and NPOVN discussion they removed one of the tags (factual accuracy) and gave me a two days deadline on the talk page or to remove the POV tag as well and 'finish' the dispute. I've previously reported The Last Angry Man for personal attacks for his remarks at archiving discussion on the same article talkpage for which he got a last warning. I think they are way out of line now. Since you are an uninvolved neutral editor at WP:NPOVN#Taliban it would be more proper for you to file at WP:ANI about this (probably mentioning the content from above). Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if I can review the changes later today. Running a little busy at the moment. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
The Current Events Barnstar | ||
For updating the CELAC article. FormerIP (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC) |
Could you help with this map? See Talk:Jerusalem#Map_options for more details. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Harry Houdini. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.
You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
A move request has been submited here. 219.76.80.86 (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello - Your comment is requested over at Talk:Flag of Western Sahara; there is an RfC underway there to help decide what the article contents should be. If you can take some time to share your opinion on the matter, it would be very much appreciated. --Tachfin (talk) 09:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Abd al-Rab Mansur al-Hadi. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
I already noted that on WP:TFLPREP, and the original comment I added has now been removed by TRM; basically that means everything has been resolved. If you want me to say that on the list's talk page, let me know and I'll add a note there. I don't feel comfortable jumping it in the prep queue because we do generally try to keep lists in the order they get put on TFLPREP. It's not even that necessary because we aren't just picking the ones at the top of the list; we consider all of the pages at prep. Your list can still be selected even if it's low on the page. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
Please don't remove my comments. I've voluntarily agreed not to edit your CCI further, but that doesn't excuse your WP:EDITWARRING to delete my prior comments. WP:TALKO clearly states that such actions are not appropriate. Please self revert. Also, you seem to be confused by the difference between WP:CIVILty and WP:NPA. See here for a list of what constitutes a personal attack. Given all the history that has been presented, it would be ridiculous for you to claim that questioning your knowledge of copyright policy has a "lack evidence". However, if you are so offended by personal attacks, you might consider redacting your comment calling my life "pathetic" TDL (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:AN3#User:Night w reported by User:Danlaycock (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Hello again, Nightw. Recently I have been working on coutnry pages and remembered that you previously requested a move of State of Palestine to Palestine. Do you think consensus might have changed on this given the recent developments in the UN? I can see that you might be busy, so no hurry to reply! :) Rennell435 (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a final warning regarding your edits to Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Night w. You were edit warring. The edits you describe as personal attacks, are not personal attacks, and a reminder that if you have issues with a possible personal attack, that editing is not the way to go, but there are other options. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.