User talk:Nightstallion/γ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This 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.

Contents

Suggestions

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)

Damac's motives questioned

Istanbul Pogrom TO BE RE-WRITTEN

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)

Question about Austrian schilling

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)

By the way, should I use schillings or schilling for plural? It looks like schilling in German, but why does everyone say "schillings" here? --Chochopk 13:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
All those facts are correct (of course; OeNB doesn't lie =]). In German, it's "Schilling"; since current consensus seems to be to use domestic names and capitalization, I s'pose that's what you should use, ain't it? —Nightstallion (?) 14:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting!

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)

Category:Transport in England

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 wholeheartedly agree. What has the category's existence got to do with whether England is a country or not? I tried my best. Good luck! —Nightstallion (?) 06:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
You comments make it clear that you do not understand differences between the the structure of the United Kingdom and the structure of Austria. Please see my reply and reconsider your vote. CalJW 09:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I've replied there; you've failed, however, to explain in what way the status of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland differs fundamentally from the status of the states in Austria; both are recognized subnational entities with a degree of autonomy (and yes, I know that England has not got its own law-making assembly as of now). What's the issue that makes you think my knowledge of the UK's structure is false? —Nightstallion (?) 09:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
England does not have any autonomy! Try to find anything about an English parliament/assembly or English ministries. None exist. England is governed by the government of the United Kingdom. It has a (British) Labour Party government even though the Conservative Party gained most votes in England in the last election. As a political entity, has no existence (though personally I would like it to). The various subdivisions of England have autonomy, but that is not the same thing. On the other hand, Scotland does have some automony (like the states of Austria). CalJW 09:46, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I already said that I knew that, yes. In my opinion, this is not relevant for creating categories for the four home nations, however. —Nightstallion (?) 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
On local subcategorisation see category:Transport in the United Kingdom by locality and Category:Transport in England by locality. The latter was created by Mais Qui!, and is not a useful subdivision in my opinion, but I have chosen not to nominate it as it is harmless compared to the main England category and I wish to be moderate. CalJW 09:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Apart from the one created by Mais oui!, I do not see any categories based on whether the transport article in question is located in any specific part of the country... Am I blind? —Nightstallion (?) 09:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't get you. All those categories do exactly that. For example category:transport in London contains articles about transport in London and Category:Transport in Kent contains articles about transport in Kent which is the English county closest to France. There are similar articles in Category:transport in Scotland such as Category:Transport in Glasgow. A category:Transport in Scotland by locality is called for to separate the topic area and local subcategories of Category:Transport in Scotland. CalJW 09:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake; I misread the second category you gave as "Category:Transport in the United Kingdom by locality". Very well, since we've got subcategories which are more detailed than the England category, I think we won't need the generic England category, mostly — but what for those cases where a transport topic would be in a large number of local subcategories? Wouldn't that fit better into Category:Transport in England than in Category:Transport in A, Category:Transport in B, ..., Category:Transport in Z? —Nightstallion (?) 10:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Rio de la Plata

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)

It was listed on WP:RM, and RM are closed after five days. If anyone complains, I can reopen the vote for another two days, but I doubt it will be of relevance. —Nightstallion (?) 10:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
It was indeed listed on WP:RM. With the text (my emphasis): "A final vote on the naming of this river. Lasts 7 days. violet/riga (t) 13:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)". It was also announced on Talk:Río de la Plata with the rule: "The result will be determined in seven days of the vote starting (28 January 2006 at 1pm UTC)".
If by you mean "I doubt it will be of relevance" that you don't believe that the result would be much affected then I tend to agree, but that's neither my call nor yours and by closing the vote early you weaken its validity. Mucky Duck 10:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
violetriga has reverted my mistake, either way; sorry for any trouble I may have caused. —Nightstallion (?) 11:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Click at the talk image

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

Hey, cool. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 06:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Futurama image

Hi,

Why did you remove the Futurama image from the Futurama fans template? Captain Jackson 17:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Because its license is fair use, and we're not allowed to use fair use images in userspace. —Nightstallion (?) 06:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Very good

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 27, 2006 --TantalumTelluride 00:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was pleasantly surprised myself. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 06:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Your notes on NC

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.

Thanks for your interest, and I always welcome additions to my notes. If you've got anything you think might be interesting to me, just shoot it my way; it would be appreciated greatly! ;)

New Caledonia is set to hold its plebiscite sometime after 2013, i.e. in 2014 or later, according to the treaty provisions of 1998.

Mh, yeah, I tend to simplify that. The actual provisions are "three referenda between 2014 and 2018", FYI. ;) I've clarified it now.

Also, you could add NC to the list of entities where there is an active ongoing debate on the issue of flag change.

Done.

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).

Aye. Funny you should write just now, when the South Australian Democrats have strongly urged a flag change for their state... ;)

The issue of FO independence is not simply "for economic reasons", as the economic situation is actually an obstacle to independence.

I think you've misunderstood me there. It reads "postponed plans for independence from Flag of Denmark Denmark for economic reasons.", which means they postponed the independence plans for economic reasons, not that they postponed their independence plans (which were motivated by economic reasons). ;)

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)

Mh, yes, that's currently being discussed somewhere. I think at the flag's talk page at the commons, IIRC. —Nightstallion (?) 11:39, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

userboxpage

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 Tomertalk 13:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm honestly flattered. ;) I simply wanted
a.) to keep using userboxes;
b.) to only have those people see them who want to see them, thereby not kicking my personal viewpoints in every visitor's face and keeping bandwidth usage lower;
c.) to organize them better than would be possible on my main userpage.
Good luck with copycatting, and if you need help, just ask. =] —Nightstallion (?) 13:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

€2 commemorative coins

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)

I just happened to look at the front page today. Haven't done that for ages. It was a nice article that greeted me there. Keep up the good work. Stefán Ingi 23:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Glad to hear that! Thanks. And I'm trying to keep up the good work. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 22:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

proposed policy

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)

Reverts on List of sovereign states

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)

I warned him for now; if he continues, report him to an admin who's not asleep (as I will be shortly) to have him blocked. —Nightstallion (?) 01:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
You cannot really block him. His IP changes every single time and they are not even in some sensible range. Also, I haven't noticed him doing anything more, just removing A & SO from everything that says "sovereign states". The only way to deal is to discuss... (or fully protect, which IMHO is too much). I need some help here :) Renata 02:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Mh. As I've said, I'm operating on low sleep and will drop into bed shortly, so I'm afraid you'll have to ask another admin to help you deal with it, sorry. Good luck, either way! —Nightstallion (?) 02:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
It does not have to be today. This whole thing lasts like two weeks now. I'll do more research on this and report later. Have a good dream! Renata 02:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok when you come back:

Renata 03:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mh, yes, I see. Quite frankly, I don't really know what to do in a case such as this; the IPs mostly belong to either 212.72.135.* or 212.72.156.*, but I can see that a rangeblock might not really be good, either... I suggest asking at WP:AN if anyone knows what to do. Sorry I couldn't help! —Nightstallion (?) 10:17, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
But do you think he should be blocked or the debate reopened? That's the 2 ways to deal with it. Renata 18:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Either of those; as the article currently stands (definition of sovereign states in the intro), what he's doing amounts to vandalism. He did contribute good shtuff to the List of unrecognized countries, though, so I think we just need to get him to listen to reason. —Nightstallion (?) 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Out of curiosity

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)

Ah, okay. I figured something like that. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 02:14, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Changing MAGIC FLUTE (film) makes sense.

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)

Re: FU images

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)

Well, I have no problems with not using the software logos, but I don't really see a problem with using international organisations' logos and flags, or is there? It's basically just a question of clarifying what their license actually is, ne? —Nightstallion (?) 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I wouldn't know. I would asume the logos are coverred by some kind copyright but IANAL. You are probably better of asking at Wikipedia talk:Copyright or something like that. --Sherool (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

EU mini map of members, candidates and statuses

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.

Image:Eu_expand_multi.png

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)

Thanks for your quick reply! I figured something like that, yes. In that case I'll wait 'til E Pluribus Anthony has expanded the map used at Schengen Agreement (and a number of other articles) a little bit southward and use that, then, since it shows the microstates more clearly and can be easily updated by me. ;) Thanks, though! Take care, —Nightstallion (?) 18:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

An Esperanzial note

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! --Celestianpower 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.


Rebate article

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)

Try WP:AN, I'm too tired currently to think in a straight line. —Nightstallion (?) 21:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey dear!

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)

Hi! Incidentally, I was just taking a peak at it. ;) The only things that don't look "right" to me in the final draft are that the linkage box in the center might look better if centered; and that I'm not quite sure as to what to do with the awards box. Do you think it'd hurt the layout to give that one white background, so that Image:Goldeagle.jpg doesn't look quite as horrible as it does now?
Apart from those minor quirks, splendid work, wikithanks! huggles (Be sure to add Image:WikiThanks.png from me to your awards now. =]) —Nightstallion (?) 23:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Aww, no worries, dear =) Go ahead and retouch it at my Sandbox at will; since it's for you, not for me, some minor details like the ones you mention should be better off if you address them yourself. Please, if you want me to stick my hands into it again, just whistle ;) Btw, no worries about the Wikithanks - I definetely won't give myself an award! The pleasure of seeing you happy with my modest design is all I could ever wish. Kisses! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Yay! it looks great this way! Enjoy, Nightstallion! ;) Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'll just have to add the wikithanks myself, then. ;) The issue of the linkage being uncentered is apparently only a problem when viewing diffs; since I can't figure out how to change it, I'll be content with knowing it works mostly. Thanks a lot again! —Nightstallion (?) 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Bitte schön, mein Freund! Küsse! ;) Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Dreifach-Bussi zurück. =] —Nightstallion (?) 23:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM

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:

  1. a cut an paste move fix.
  2. a category move
  3. an image move
  4. a merge request
  5. an unobstructed uncontroversial move

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)

Erm, yes, you're missing something. You haven't explained to me yet why I should simply delete an existing article, whose content has not been merged into the article you want to replace it with yet. —Nightstallion (?) 10:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You need to look at the two articles. "Oxygen first aid" is just a wierd way of saying "Oxygen therapy," the articles are about the same thing. Oxygen first aid is a fairly developed article, whereas Oxygen therapy is an uninformative medical stub. The article Oxygen first aid should really be titled Oxygen therapy, and Oxygen therapy is nothing more than a definition which is already presented in the Oxygen first aid article. It's barely even an existing article; it's just taking up the space that I would like to move an article into. Take a quick look at the articles yourself, you'll see what I mean. Shaggorama 16:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'd have suggested including the reference in the more comprehensive article, but as you wish. —Nightstallion (?) 17:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd like that too, but it's not my reference, so it wouldn't be right for me to cite it. Maybe the original author will find the new page. Thanks for the help. Shaggorama 10:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Gladly. —Nightstallion (?) 11:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RM of Oneiromancy and Dream interpretation

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)

No harm done. =] —Nightstallion (?) 11:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Istanbul Pogrom

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 have move-protected the page, so that the vandal can not move the article; report him at WP:AN/I. —Nightstallion (?) 17:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User Page award

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... smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 20:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it, and thought to myself "well, seeing as how I don't stand a snowball's chance in hell against your user page (and a few others, but primarily yours), I definitely won't self-nom myself; if someone else thinks I stand a chance, they can still nominate me". Either way, thanks for nominating me; and I'm putting my bets on you. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 20:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Nightstallion, your page is BEAUTIFUL! Very easy-to-navigate, etc...wow! I can't even remember what I was coming here for... :D--24.58.164.194 21:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC) (ViolinGirl)
Thanks, I'm honestly flattered. =] —Nightstallion (?) 21:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Can I feel just a little honestly flattered too? ;) - Phædriel ♥ tell me - 23:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course you can, darlin'. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 07:14, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"...and will pounce on whomever misuses it."

That is meant as a joke, isn't it? "Whomever" is, after all, wrong here. Kelisi 21:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am not a native speaker, but to the best of my knowledge, it's the ultra-correct way. "I will pounce on her/him" → "I will pounce on whomever...". You can ask at the reference desk if you don't trust me, though; if you do, be sure to let me know the answer as well. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 21:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I am a native speaker, and I can tell you that a relative pronoun's case is governed by the clause that it introduces, not by any element in the clause that it modifies. It's "whoever" here because it is the subject of "misuses" (and likewise the verb inflects to agree with a singular subject). Thus, all these examples are, perhaps counterintuitively, right:
  • Tell me who came here last night. (subject of "came", even though the relative clause is the verb's direct object)
  • Whomever you saw at the garage must be behind this. (direct object of "saw", even though the relative clause is the main clause's subject)
  • It's up to whoever wants to do it. (subject of "wants", even though the relative clause is a prepositional object)
I think you might call the "whom" that some people use in these situations a kind of overcorrection. Kelisi 03:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay, thanks. One strike against me thinking I was at about the level of a native speaker. :( Thanks for the explanation! —Nightstallion (?) 07:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry too much about that. There are plenty of English-speaking people who have no idea how to use whom. Kelisi 05:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for reassuring me. ;) Take care! —Nightstallion (?) 12:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Userbox deletion

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:

  • 11:20, 31 January 2006 Tony Sidaway deleted "Template:User no Rand" (attack userbox)

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)

I can't say much more than to file all userboxes for undeletion which have been deleted; I've personally decided that I will try to keep a certain amount of userboxes stable (the ones on my watchlist), but don't want to invest major amounts of my time into fighting people who think they are doing the right thing™, anyway. Good luck with undeletion, though! —Nightstallion (?) 20:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks anyways, I've gone ahead and filed "User no Rand" in DRV. If you have a chance, a quick vote on it would be greatly appreciate. Cheers! --Dragon695 00:57, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Will do! —Nightstallion (?) 05:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey there....

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:

  • Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
  • Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
  • Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
  • General niceness: at the judges' discretion

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 | talk 19:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Meh, I'm fairly sure I won't make it to the second round, but still, thanks. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 20:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

No problem! Nice userpage by the way! --lightdarkness 20:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 20:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

deleted edits

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)

Heh, meant for this to be on your Commons talk page, but I'm sure you'll get it here. :p ¦ Reisio 00:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
No problem, I know how MediaWiki can be... ;) —Nightstallion (?) 05:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

SWD316

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 me 03:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear you're at least considering it! ^_^ —Nightstallion (?) 05:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

(Heh ++;) ++;

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)

Thanks, I'm flattered. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 07:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Timişoara Province, Ottoman Empire

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)

Yes, I can, and I did. Please note, however, that you should never, ever copy-paste articles. Edit history is important for the functional working of the GFDL. —Nightstallion (?) 07:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sofia won!

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Sofia was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Indulge my curiousity

Why is an Irish Catholic in favor of Romanian-Moldovan reunification? --Pierremenard 23:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (A russian speaking moldovan)

shrugs Don't think the issues are related. IMO, in both cases reunification would do both parts good, that's all. —Nightstallion (?) 06:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think they are related either; I meant that you are obviously not from the region, and its rare to find someone who knows where Moldova is, let alone has an opinion on Moldovan-Romanian reunification! --Pierremenard 07:24, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I've got an opinion on almost all issues of international politics, since it's one of my main interests. ;) But I think you're more likely to find people who've heard of Moldova in Austria than, say, in California. =] —Nightstallion (?) 07:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

UTC-5/-4 userbox

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)

On the page now; I created it since sooner or later someone else would have wanted to use it, anyway. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 07:28, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. BTW, is there a way to customize your signature? I thought I saw it someplace when I first registered, but now I cant find it. Thanks, again.//MrD9 07:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Go to "My Preferences", you'll find it there. Take care! —Nightstallion (?) 07:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Gediminas, Grand Duke of Lithuania

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'm sorry if you feel that way, but that doesn't change anything about the fact that I won't go against policy on a subject that has been controversial enough. I kindly invite you to get the opinion of other administrators on my decision in this case, though. Would that be okay with you? —Nightstallion (?) 07:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and regarding the other rulers — I s'pose those should actually be renamed, as well, per the naming convention. You're also welcome to try working out a specific subset of NC for Lithuanian nobility, though; you'll have to get it by the other editors who contributed to the original nobility NC, though. —Nightstallion (?) 07:48, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

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. Karmafist 17:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

May I steal...

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. εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:18, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, take what you want. —Nightstallion (?) 21:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Flag of Italy

Could you explain why did you revert my edits? --Panairjdde 11:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For a simple reason: If you are unhappy with the colours of Image:Flag of Italy.svg, you should discuss this with the Wikipedians who determined which colours should be used, not replace it with an image that is redundant, and violates the naming conventions that WP:Flags at the Commons uses. —Nightstallion (?) 12:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You are right. Best regards.--Panairjdde 14:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. ;) Take care! —Nightstallion (?) 14:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Accession 2005

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:

Tot marti, Tratatul a fost ratificat de Camera Lorzilor din Marea Britanie. Nu au fost propuse amendamente. Tratatul urmeaza a fi predat reprezentantului reginei, din Parlamentul englez, urmand a fi supus promulgarii (royal assent).

I looked in the article and there is the info looking like this: Flag of the United Kingdom 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)

I'm not quite sure, myself. The total lack of coverage on Google News, which is normally very up-to-date on British news, makes my suspicious. —Nightstallion (?) 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
That's why I was also suspicious. In the Romanian media it is the same thing, almost total silence, and usualy all the signings are given a certain degree of coverage depending on the importance of tha state, and I hoped that for the UK it would have been at most the same amount of coverage like for the Dutch signing, and all I could find was the small paragraph on www.hotnews.ro :-?. Anyways, I searched deeper, and it seems that both chambers have approved the treaty, so that's it. Mihai -talk 21:04, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom of the Netherlands

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)

I'm flattered. ;) I'd use a similar breakup as in :nl; there, they also have an article for the European Netherlands at Netherlands, and an article about the whole Kingdom of the Netherlands at a separate location, so I think the current version is fine, actually. Wouldn't you agree? Besides, all of this will be completely reformed on 1 July 2007, anyway. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 20:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cypriot templates

===>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)

Great. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 05:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Frage

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)

I've commented; having had three or four former nobles in my grade, I think I know what I'm talking about. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 05:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Geographic terms

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)

Thanks for participating. It's much appreciated. And congratulations on your adminship (I didn't know you had been nominated)! I'm certain your exercise of admin powers will strengthen Wikipedia! logologist|Talk 23:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Gladly, and thanks. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 05:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

German Wikipedians' noticeboard

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)

Thanks for telling me! —Nightstallion (?) 05:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:German Wikipedians' notice board

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)

Aye, indeed. —Nightstallion (?) 05:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Please spread the word among all Wikipedians you know that might be interested, and add Austria-related tasks if you can think of any, so the project won't become too Germany-centric from the start. Danke, Kusma (討論) 07:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Katie Holmes

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)

Looks fine to me as it is. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 09:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Blue ball!

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)

  • (1) do you know how I can render the 'name' field in a regular or larger font, while rendering the pre- nominals in a smaller font?
  • (2) do you know how I'd be able to do so within a hidden structure (for those example where information is unavailable)? (See fields lower in the template for examples.)

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)

I'm afraid I don't know too much about the more complicated techniques of templating; I'd have expected <small> to work. Doesn't it? —Nightstallion (?) 09:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
NP. I thought that as well, but my attempts to do so – strabismus notwithstanding – have so far proved unsuccessful. I'll keep at it, though. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Why strabismus? Good luck either way. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 20:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Sup NS!

Hi there dear NS! Regarding your questions! ;)

  1. I'm fine, hun, thanks :) And you?
  2. Awww thanks... isn't my bf cute? Awwwww!
  3. Geez, this is daunting... I've been trying to correct the problem for half an hour to no avail :( Maybe we should simply redesign that table section entirely. It appears that the subtitle format you chose somehow messes it. Please, gimme some time and I'll see what I can do... which at this point, I have no clue what will that be!

Kisses! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 21:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

  1. Okay, I s'pose. My gf is rather stressed due to her Matura (= final exams in Austria), and my civil service duty is starting to get on my nerves, but overall, I can't complain. B'sides, both of those issues will be resolved in less than a year, so... What the heck.
  2. Yep. You're a sight for sore eyes, too, BTW. ;)
  3. Sure, take your time. Thanks for your help!
And kisses to you, too. =] —Nightstallion (?) 09:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank You

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. Karmafist 15:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. I'll take a look at it. —Nightstallion (?) 20:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the greeting

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)

Gladly! —Nightstallion (?) 20:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

Ich bin eifersüchtig darauf. Es ist total klasse! - The Great Gavini diskussion 20:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Danke vielmals! ^_^ —Nightstallion (?) 20:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Three weeks of admin tools

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:

  • Protections and unprotections: 1
  • Blocks and unblocks: 4
  • Deletions and restorations: 69
  • Rollbacks: 246

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)

I think you do great work. Rock on, and take care! —Nightstallion (?) 06:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Two new templates

===>Considering naming issues... I made one for "Czechia": Template:CZa Template:CZa and "Viet Nam": Template:ViN Template: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)

Well, yes, there are naming conventions (actually, there's only one naming convention: use ISO 3166-1 alpha-3), but still, nice. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 06:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...

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,
--Celestianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

Image:SADC Flag.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:SADC Flag.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Greentubing 04:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's day!

As a token of my appreciation, a valentine for you :). Happy Valentine's day!--Shanel 12:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
As a token of my appreciation, a valentine for you :). Happy Valentine's day!--Shanel 12:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Awww, no personalized heart variant? ;) Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 12:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Image:IrisSiberica-CloseUp-hr.jpg
Happy Valentine's day from me as well! --Shir Khan 13:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Gleichfalls! —Nightstallion (?) 13:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

French department flags/templates

===>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)

Well, yes and no. The difference is that the four French overseas departments have top-level ISO 3166 codes, and not only the usual subdivision ones (like Alaska does); I would propose that we use {{GUF}} (e.g.) for the version with the official flag, and something like {{FR.GF}} for the version with the local flag. What do you say to that? Cheers, —Nightstallion (?) 06:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
As I happen to stumble on this page precisely when this quetion arises, some precisions from a Frenchman
  • the flag of French Polynesia has a distinctive official status (a law allows this collectivity to raise its own flag -but only besides the national sign.
  • As concerns overseas departments, flags are _everywhere_ unofficial, with quite different histories between places. For instance in Martinique the unofficial flag was once official in XVIIIth century (I just learnt it there while in Guadeloupe there is a flashy touristic unofficial flag (used in Wikipedia in the middle of the entry) and a flag of the regional council but not of the island - and anyway it is not official, simply its design was payed with public money, and the regional council probably owns some intellectual property on the picture. (I think using it on the Wikipedia is a mistake : this flag is definitely anecdotal). French Tourist 22:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. So you would agree with my stance? Another question: How official are the flags of Wallis and Futuna and the French Southern Territories? —Nightstallion (?) 08:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's day, dear NS!

Happy Valentine's Day, my sweet dear Nightstallion!
Phædriel


Same to you, darling! —Nightstallion (?) 06:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Shinichi Suzuki

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)

I have inquired further at WP:MOS-JA. —Nightstallion (?) 07:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

CIS png/svg

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 Minister of War (Peace) 09:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, yes. We're trying to get as many and as correct svg flags as possible up over at commons:Commons:WikiProject Flags, and we're making good progress. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 09:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sadden to hear that

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)

Mh? I'm not quite certain I know what you're talking about? Where did I change my stance? —Nightstallion (?) 08:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Oops, I was tired and misread the tagline (it was herostratus (dunno how I could have misread that)). --Dragon695 06:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

List of concentration camps of Nazi Germany

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. Halibutt 03:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

What exactly seems to be the problem? As far as I could see, there were five votes in favour of the title I used, and a sixth was also in favour of having "Nazi" in the title, so that's why I moved it. (As a note: Coming to me a month after the end of the voting seems a bit... strange to me.) As I'm sure you know, we already have an article on Nazi Germany, which contains information about Germany at the time of the dictatorship; while pointing you to WP:POINT, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, I'd like to know what exactly your problem is. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 08:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Congo flag

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)

Facebook

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)

Mh. Sounds fine to me, actually. Sorry for not having thought of it myself. —Nightstallion (?) 19:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not an administrator. Could you go ahead and delete Facebook and then move Facebook (website) there. I've already added the project page self ref and the wiktionary box to that page. savidan(talk) (e@) 22:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Are you positive you added the links to the wiktionary and projectspace entries for facebook to the top of the website entry? 'cause I don't see 'em there... —Nightstallion (?) 23:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Bah! Someone reverted me. They're back now. savidan(talk) (e@) 03:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
(S)he reverted you again, but I reverted h(er/im) and did the move. 's it okay this way? Take care! —Nightstallion (?) 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! savidan(talk) (e@) 15:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You also might want to change the result of the debate that you closed because this other admin reverted you. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
shrugs He's got a point, somehow. Get something consensus-like on the talk page first, then I'll do it again; I don't like to revert back and forth with other admins without having any grounds and written justification for it. —Nightstallion (?) 20:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll start a new discussion, I guess. I just don't see why there should have to be consensus for things like this. If the old article still existed then there would be something to discuss. savidan(talk) (e@) 20:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I can see your point, but I'd like evidence that the other people involved also do so. ;) Thanks for your patience! —Nightstallion (?) 20:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't dispair!

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 :(

Oh... Sorry to hear that. By all means, take your time, then.

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 sincerely hope (and expect) that the "or else" wasn't a literal threat. ;)

I still promise to help you, and i don't take my promises lightly. In your case, I love the challenge as well ;)

grins I've tried a number of fixes already, but the one that works was not among them, I'm afraid... =]

Hope you'r doing fine, baby, big big hug your way! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 01:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I am, thanks. Abrazos de oso back to you! (PS: You didn't write what you did for Valentine's. =]) Take care! —Nightstallion (?) 06:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

About the country-referencing templates

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:

  • {{HK}} for "Hong Kong" ({{HONG KONG}} redirects to this)
  • {{HKG}} for "Hong Kong, China" ({{HKG-PRC}} redirects to this)
  • {{HKSAR}} for "Hong Kong SAR of PR China" ({{HongKongSAR}} redirects to this)
  • {{HK(PRC)}} for "Hong Kong (People's Republic of China)"
  • {{HK-full}} for "Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China" ({{Hong Kong in full}} redirects to 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)

The only problem I have with that is that the basis for all country templates are ISO codes, not IOC codes, so I was opposed to unilaterally changing the situation from (((HKG = Hong Kong | HKG-PRC = Hong Kong, China))) to (((HK = Hong Kong |HKG = Hong Kong, China))). (And that I incidentally don't want to have to change all references to HKG to HK on my notes page. =]) —Nightstallion (?) 10:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
C.f. my message for User:Curps and User:Alanmak at User talk:Curps. Thanks. — Instantnood 18:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Spiral

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)

Mh, thanks; I've meanwhile found the correct link and posted it. That should fulfill WP:V then, ne? —Nightstallion (?) 16:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox Swiss town

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)

Looks like they're going to change it to the same font as the Infobox Town DE. Thanks again for your help. --Mmounties 22:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Gladly! —Nightstallion (?) 22:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Feedback requested!

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!

Hope you'll be back in action fully soon. =]
Soon. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hope so! ;)

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. :)

We'll see, we'll see. ;)
Soon. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Hope so, too. ::grins::

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:

  • (1) I'd probably consolidate or resection the intro into more manageable bits
    Mh. Any specific ideas as to how?
    Not specifically yet, but a one pararaph intro and a section indicating anomalies would be a start. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Mh. Better this way? Feel free to edit if you can correct my language, as well. ^_^;;
  • (2) Add a TOC to the top
    Done.
  • (3) Perhaps tighten the lists, or list special territories in columns or cells that resemble columns
    Mh, I'm not quite sure I know what you mean with this...?
    Well, much like the current tables, but enhanced: take a glance at this list, where items are arranged in cells in columns, and not one after the other in lines spearated by commas. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, now I know. I don't think that will work well, since regions like South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands would completely wreck the table width; as it is, the territories are sorted in lines per their status (e.g., the British territories per degree of autonomy, the French ones per their nominal status, ...). Do you think it would improve the layout to break that up and put them into columns?
  • (4) I haen't forgotten about the prior map request, and would probably include a colour-coordinated series (with the list) that exhibits the growth of the EU through time
    Well, I'm happy with the map I currently have -- at least until Georgia seriously considers joining the EU --, and I think the EU-growth-map fits into Enlargement of the European Union better than into "my" article; I may be wrong in this, of course.
    Understood, but it's still on my to-do list. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
    Oh, okay.

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:

Regarding all of the below, thanks! Particularly re: (1) and (2), I've made appropriate comments on the talk page for the article. Please weigh in again there, where I've solicited added feedback. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Mh, okay; if your refs don't consider Quebec Latin, then you can't include it, naturally.
  • (1) Is the proposed article title sufficient: "...in/of the Americas", "Regions of the Americas", etc.?
    The current title sounds fine to me; that doesn't necessarily mean everyone else will find it perfect, of course. ;)
  • (2) Are there any notable territories I'm missing, or are the definitions deficient somehow?
    I'm not absolutely certain, but wouldn't Quebec be considered part of Latin America in some definitions? Maybe in the lighter green shade?
  • (3) Can you suggest a way to better render the maps? I've a vision of how I want them to appear (two columns on the right side of the article), but my knowledge of the coding to get there is admittedly limited.
    I know what you mean, but I'm afraid I don't know how to get that result, either...
    • Damn! :( E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

Great work, overall. Well done! And gladly; if you need help with anything, just call. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 22:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. TTYL! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 23:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Sure! Take care! —Nightstallion (?) 06:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

PageMove Outer Hebrides

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)

Molise Slavic

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)

United States Virgin Islands

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)

Sure, no problem, you did exactly the right thing. WP:RM is only for (potentially) controversial moves. I've moved the article and corrected the redirects. Take care! —Nightstallion (?) 06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. By the way, if you have two seconds to spare, could you tell me why it would not move? It seemed to have fit the "any registered user can move this page" criteria, including the lack of history at the destination," but after ten minutes I finally realized it wasn't going to let me do it.... Thanks again. //MrD9 06:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Frankly, I have no clue. I also have no clue why St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands seems to have the exact same name, yet is still different... Probably some Unicode char in there. —Nightstallion (?) 06:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Please comment

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)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 06:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

FDuffy is back and at it again

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)

Sorry, been away from the internet for a short while; it seems this has been resolved already meanwhile. —Nightstallion (?) 06:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The peace will last until the next time Duffy logs in. Then he'll move it again. Mark my words. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I've move-protected it for now. Try a round of discussion with her/him, if (s)he refuses to try to work it out (through mediation or whatever) you'll have hard evidence for it this way; if you go to mediation and get a result, then that's fine, too, ne? That's all I can think of for now. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 16:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! regards, --ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Language / dialect

Hey man, check out this article :) - FrancisTyers 12:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

"Finally"

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)

It was just that I saw no grounds at all to hold the vote again; the reasoning why the move should have occured despite the vote result was quite clear, so per WP:IAR and WP:UCS... Ah, never mind. —Nightstallion (?) 09:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

List of Sovereign states

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)

New project

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)

Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 12:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

User page award

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:

  • Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
  • Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
  • Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
  • General niceness: at the judges' discretion

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

Help, an admin is sabotaging my Userbox!

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 afraid since Jimbo has all but ordered categories removed from most userboxes, and many userboxes expressing a POV deleted, this is clearly against process, but following Jimbo's rules. I don't think there's anything I can do, but you can still consider posting here. —Nightstallion (?) 08:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Where did he order this? I believe Jimbo has given no such order, and admins should not be going jihadi saying Jimbo says so!. I need your help! Are admins no better than brown shirts now? StrangerInParadise 08:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
On the mailing list, and subsequently in the proposed userbox policy. By all means, put it onto WP:AN, but I really don't know what could be done against that... And yes, admins are just like regular users, they just have a few more powers, that's all. —Nightstallion (?) 09:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo didn't order anything. He made a request on his talk page, that's all. savidan(talk) (e@) 19:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The admin in question, Mark Sweep got blocked for 3RR, and cited for his rogue activities, when he reverted Admin User:Babajobu intervening to undo the dammage. Babajobu in turn got blocked, for what was a somewhat restrained description of just how far out of control this guy had gotten (see also WP:AN/I#Abuse of policy to justify template deletion), for WP:CIVIL, but was sprung 20 min later. It all unfolded on #wikipedia, I had front row seats.
Between deleting the category and getting blocked, MarkSweep took the liberty of going onto each userpage containing the Pro-cannabis template and doing a subst:, thereby breaking the link to the category.
The most disturbing thing was two other admins refusing to restore all of what was deleted, unless I could somehow justify to them that it was worth it, as if undoing a rogue bypass of RfD wasn't enough. It took me an hour to do so, but everything is restored now, and for now I am left in peace. Things have gotten very bad here at Wikipedia.
StrangerInParadise 20:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Your userpage

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. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 08:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The strangest part is that I didn't change anything about the code, it just stopped working on its own; maybe some MediaWiki changes I wasn't aware of? I wouldn't know which ones, though, and forgot to write down the date it stopped working. Still, thanks a lot for trying! —Nightstallion (?) 09:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah! It seems that the code for the infobox you use has changed, and this appears to have messed up the page. The best thing to do is to subst: the infobox in and change a couple of lines of the code. I've created a version at User:Smurrayinchester/NS which has the fixed code, which you can copy. It seems to work in both FireFox and IE fine, but has changed the appearance of the infobox. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Great! Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion (?) 17:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians with a picture

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

Updating flags

Many thanks for that, it's more than 'alright' :) --Alf melmac 10:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

latin

I did not know you know Latin :) Thanks for helping out! Renata 17:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's in my babel boxes on my userbox page. ;) I did not really take too much thought with those yet, though; if you want, I can make some time and really try to come up with the canonical translations (after correcting a few mistakes in the original quotes =]). Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 06:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Feedback requested!

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)

Done. ;) Hope you'll be less swamped soon! —Nightstallion (?) 06:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My sweet NS

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.

No problem at all. =]

I see that you've solved it - that's great!

Aye, though I could bite myself in my posterior for not realizing earlier that the issue must've been a change in the infobox code. ;)

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)

Same to you! hug

PS. I "incidentally" can't help but to think the same about you! ;)

Thanks, I'm flattered. blush =] —Nightstallion (?) 06:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

UPA

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:

  • Attractiveness: general layout, considering colour scheme and/or use of tables if applicable
  • Usefulness: links to subpages or editing aids, helpful information
  • Interesting-ness: quirky, unique, captivating, or funny content
  • General niceness: at the judges' discretion

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)

San Jose International Airport

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)

I'll look into it shortly; if my decision was wrong, let me apologize in advance. —Nightstallion (?) 05:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, and sorry about the extra trouble. ProveIt (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Go terminology

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)

Yes, I do in fact know quite a bit about go. Sadly, my skills are rather lacking due to the lack of practice, but as far as knowledge of rules and terms goes, I'm rather firm.
As I've said, the article is currently nigh exclusively about fuseki, so the title fits (and is 45% more uncomplicated than the other proposed titles, including the original one). Feel free to create an opening move theory article and move all parts that are not about fuseki from the current fuseki article to it. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 05:44, 7 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)

Mh, granted, the article has some factual inaccuracies, but it's still mainly about fuseki currently. The introduction should properly state that fuseki are just part of the opening theory, and not the whole of it, but I moved it to fuseki since that's almost exclusively its current content, although that may not have been the goal of its original author. —Nightstallion (?) 17:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

I think I've fixed it. Is that how you wanted the table? smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 15:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, great! Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 17:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

izz al-din al-qassam brigades

thanks for the help! Arre 12:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. —Nightstallion (?) 12:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wielkopolska Uprising

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)

Please see my post on Talk:Greater Poland Uprising; 's it okay this way? —Nightstallion (?) 13:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?

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)

Looking for articles to work on?

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)

We're both finalists!

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! —Nightstallion (?) 11:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Aww, that's wonderful news, NS! Thanks for the luck wishes; I really think you deserve to win tho, since you've performed an awesome work with your userpage, way beyond the minor help I could provide. Hugz hugz! Phædriel ♥ tell me - 11:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
You're sweet. =] Thanks, and good luck once more! —Nightstallion (?) 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing Russian flags update

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)

Thanks for the information! Let's hope they come up with flags some time soon. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 19:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Japanese Macrons Mediation

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, pschemp | talk 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to it. —Nightstallion (?) 19:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)