User talk:Nightstallion/ζ

USS Defiant

When I posted a request at WP:RM, it was not to initiate another vote but to undo the unilateral move made by User:CoolCat. I have changed USS Defiant into a redirect for now, but due to the ambiguity (it has two registry numbers and should technically be at "USS Defiant (NX-74205)" despite being "USS Defiant (NCC-75633)") I'd appreciate it if you moved the page since you were the admin who removed the move request. Thanks! --Vedek Dukat ^Talk 22:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It seems you're right, sorry for overlooking that earlier. —Nightstallion (?) 06:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Nightstallion/ζ, thank you for voting in my RFA which failed eventually at a result of (91/51/8). I do not plan to run for adminship until a later date. Once again, I would like to thank you for voting. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 03:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of accession 2005

Hello,

First of all, congratulations for the fine job of keeping the article up to date. I'm righting you because you were modifying recently the image Image:Accession2007.png, where Sweden is missing as a country that already has ratified the treaty. I think it is due to caching of an older version when you addded Austria. Thx. Mihai -^talk 07:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, you're absolutely right. =] —Nightstallion (?) 07:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

About the Irish vote I have the source in Romanian: [1] and I added it to the comment I made after the edit. :D it states this:

Miercuri, 14 iunie 2006, proiectul de lege privind ratificarea Tratatului de Aderare a Romaniei si Bulgariei la Uniunea Europeana a fost ratificat si de catre Camera Deputatilor din Irlanda. Atat Ministerul Integrarii Europene cat si Ministerul Afacerilor Externe din Romania au salutat decizia Camerei Deputatilor irlandeza.

which goes like:

Tuesday, 14 june 2006, the law project about the ratification of the Treaty of Accession for Romania and Bulgaria to the EU was ratified also by the Chamber of Deputies in Irelad. Both the Ministry of European Integration and The Ministry of Foreign Affairs salute the decision of the Irish House of Deputies.

Also Here (pdf doc from the Irish Parliament website) you can see that the document was laid before the chamber. I will add these references on the articles talk page. Mihai -^talk 15:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was only slightly confused because it said "2005", not "2006". ;) I didn't doubt the date itself, I was just slightly confused. =] —Nightstallion (?) 18:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Currency

This message is repeated on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics. Sorry for spamming, but I felt this could be interesting to you.

I have finished drafting Template:Infobox Currency, and you can look at its discussion page for instruction, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Sandbox for sample outputs. It is much better than Template:Currency box. Any comment is appreciated.

--Chochopk 09:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Nightstallion, I hope that I have not offended you with my prior comment. I am still fairly new to Wikipedia, having been here only about 6 weeks. If I did offend you in any way, please accept my apology for not choosing my words more carefully. If you are able to, I would appreciate if you could take another look at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves, where I have made another posting relative to the naming convention. Kind regards, --Brian G 12:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all; I've replied there. —Nightstallion (?) 12:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Immediate Deletion

Take a look at this page - Julissa Bermudez - and I think that we would be in agreement that this page needs to be deleted. Thanks Kyros 07:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

are you an antimicronation person

oh yeah one of those retired army people that wasted there time fighting for a country they think is good Stoli 07:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC) MICRONATIONS

I'm absolutely against war, in fact. While I do think that micronations are mostly ridiculous, I wouldn't be opposed to having a featured article about them -- if the article in question fulfilled the standards Wikipedia has for FA, I'd support it. But it doesn't, so I don't. —Nightstallion (?) 07:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

NSA electronic surveillance program

Thanks for the move, Nightstallion. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/w:s) 03:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. —Nightstallion (?) 15:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Cuba-United States relations

Thanks very much for providing the template for Cuba-United States relations. I've also written a Cuba-China relations page, how would I go about getting a template for that? --Zleitzen 06:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple – you ask me, I do it. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 15:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again! You're a star!--Zleitzen 16:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Euro sign

Please look carefully at the opinions expressed on Talk:Euro sign. I do not think there is clear a consensus for the move. But if on reflection you still do, then I won't press the issue. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Mh, I still think it makes sense to have all currency sign articles at "*** sign". —Nightstallion (?) 15:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress

===>Help please Check out User:SteveLo. Pushing Moroccan POV on Western Sahara-related articles, refuses to discuss edits, inserts inaccuracies into articles, deletes Template:POV, deletes warnings from User talk:SteveLo, etc. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 18:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Dear Nightstallion/ζ,
Thank you very much for your support on my recent RfA. I am pleased to announce that it passed with a tally of 72/11/1, and I am now an administrator. I'll be taking things slowly at first and getting used to the tools, but please let me know if there are any admin jobs I can do to help you, now or in the future. —Cuiviénen 02:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How did I do?

Hello, I hope you don’t mind, but I was looking for your opinion as you seem to someone who would be qualified to offer a critique. Please let me know what you think of how I handled the following situation.

I noticed that a link from 1998 in IRL to David Steele pointed to a cricketer instead of a racecar driver as I expected. A little bit of research revealed that the racecar driver was actually named Dave Steele and there was also a musician named David Steele (musician). Several of the links to the musician from other pages appeared to point to the cricketer. Here is what I did. 1) I created David Steele (disambiguation) 2) I added {{otherpeople| David Steele}} to the top of David Steele (musician). 3) I added {{otherpeople| David Steele}} to the top of David Steele and removed 2 manual pointers (to other David Steele articles) that were at the top of the page. 4) I corrected several links (on 1960 in music, Dr. Feelgood (album) and Bands Reunited) that should have been pointing to the musician that were pointing to the cricketer. 5) I corrected the spelling on 1998 in IRL from David Steele to Dave Steele. 6) I created a new article for Dave Steele. 7) I corrected a link on Punch the Clock that pointed to Dave Steele that should have been to the musician. 8) I changed text on The Complex (Blue Man Group) from Dave Steele to a link to the musician.

Did I make proper decisions in the above actions and did I execute them correctly?

Also, in addition to what I did, I found a link on Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania to David Steele that is really yet another person. Should I put this on the DAB page as a “redlink” and then change the Wharton article to point to the DAB? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian G (talk • contribs)

Hi! Sounds as if you did a great job with this. =] Re your last question, I'd say "yes". Keep up the good work! :) —Nightstallion (?) 09:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've corrected the last one, now. Sorry I forgot to sign my last post; I seem to do that too frequently.--Brian G 12:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Move help

I was wondering if you could help me with a page move from Michel Jourdain Jr. to Michel Jourdain, Jr. per WP:NCP. There is an existing redirect which is blocking me, I believe because there is a bit of history? I think that this is too uncontroversial to go through the whole voting process, but if you think I should go that route instead, please just let me know. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you could reverse this redirect.--Brian G 12:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 05:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Great. Thank you.--Brian G 10:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Move

User:ObRoy has repeatedly ignored warnings on moving and has left triple redirects at Charles, Lantgrave of Hesse, which is a misspelling. Lantgrave doesn't exist in English. Could you please move the page back to Prince Frederick Charles of Hesse? The redirects Charles, Lantgrave of Hesse and Charles, Langrave of Hesse should be deleted as well. I'm at a loss as to what procedure I should take to formally notify the administration of ObRoy's actions. Charles 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

sighs I really don't know why we've got NC if people simply ignore them... Done. —Nightstallion (?) 18:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for moving the page. AFAIK, this user has ignored WP:NC. Common usage rules in this instance, so Frederick Charles cannot be moved to "of Finland". Charles 18:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Threshold for WP:RM

Hi there. I thought the WP:RM threshold for "consensus to move" was 60%. However, somebody changed it to 70% with this edit. Can you find out what happened and take appropriate action (ie, change it back)? Thank you very much.--Endroit 20:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 19th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 25	19 June 2006	About the Signpost

Foundation hires Brad Patrick as general counsel and interim executive director	NY Times notices semi-protection policy
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Undeletion of images now made possible
Adam Carr's editing challenged by Australian MPs	News and Notes: Project logo discussions, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 23:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tom Kristensen

Hello. I am looking for help/advice. I was looking at 2003 24 Hours of Le Mans and clicked on Tom Kristensen which took me to a disambiguation page. The disambiguation points to Tom Kristensen (race driver) and Tom Kristensen (poet). The "poet" article appears to be linkless except from the disambiguation page. The "race driver" article appears to be linked to directly by 14 articles. Also, there are 30 articles which appear to link directly to the disambiguation page. My questions are: 1) Am I correct that the 30 articles should not link to the disambiguation page, but rather directly to the "race driver" page? 2) If #1 is yes, should they be corrected and is there an easy way to do this rather than manually editing each page? 3) Does it matter that the "poet" page is linkless, and can this be used in some way to help with the problem in #2?. Thank you in advance. --Brian G 02:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I've resolved the issue by moving the race driver over the dab, since he's clearly the primary meaning. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! —Nightstallion (?) 06:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again!--Brian G 10:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Your "improper" conduct

It strongly appears that you have disrupted the move request at the former Ploypailin, well knowing that there was a move request not to that name you moved it to, but to another name. Such improper conduct is not acceptable from you. It disrupts community processes and besides, seeing that you have not been able to present any proof to support your move, tastes of pushing POV. Shilkanni 09:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Blablabla. The article states verbatim that her surname is Mahidol, not Jensen. I've seen no proof for either of those options, but if you can show me something, I'm not opposed to moving it to Jensen, either. And FYI, I didn't move it "while there was a move request", but as I closed the requested move after the usual five-day period. —Nightstallion (?) 09:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

List of circulating currencies

I've added Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of circulating currencies. Do you think you can find some references for this? Joe I 10:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe simply xe.com? —Nightstallion (?) 10:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Move request

Hiya, I am contacting you because you've helped with some other similar moves. I believe that consensus has been established for a move at Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Could you please review the discussion at your leisure, and, if you concur, take care of the move? Thanks. --Elonka 18:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Andy Wallace

Hi, Nightstallion. You've been so helpful that I have another question for you. Andy Wallace is a disambiguation page for Andy Wallace (producer) and Andy Wallace (racing driver). Unfortunately most of the links for both articles were pointed directly to the disambiguation page. I just changed 13 links to point to Andy Wallace (producer) and 21 to Andy Wallace (racing driver). Now that I have this clean, what can be done to help keep it clean? I'm afraid that as long as the disambiguation page exists, people will keep linking to it without paying attention. Both articles seem to have enough links that it doesn't seem right to have one of them take the primary role; this would probably just result in more links to the wrong place. Any ideas?--Brian G 01:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a whole WikiProject dedicated to keeping such pages' what-links-here cleaned up: WP:DPL. —Nightstallion (?) 05:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

ISO code - Montenegro

I have posted the message below on the article List of IOC country codes and copy it here because I note you mention the new ISO codes for Montengro and Serbia on your Personal Notes page (which, by the way, I find fascinating enough to have added to my watchlist =))..

The inclusion of Montenegro here is somewhat suspicious given there is no ISO code for that country yet. Is there a source for this? doktorb | words 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

doktorb | words 22:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I've replied there. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 05:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Quick delete

Hi again,

By mistake I asked to delete a template in the ARticles for Deletion page instead of Templates for Deletion'. I have created the page Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Template:RasulGuliyev but it is useless. Can you delete it please? Švitrigaila 09:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 09:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Kazimierz III the Great

Is it standard procedure to double count votes for editors of a certain article? Note was made to contact you if the result was disagreed with. I feel English should be used and indeed, the fact that many of the editors are Polish or have the language as their mother tongue (with a preference for Polish forms). Charles 20:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not standard procedure, but I'm currently taking a sabbatical from those tiresome WP:RM. —Nightstallion (?) 05:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't blame you! You do a great job though. Charles 05:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Tsushima Basin

hi, would you mind taking a look at the situation at Talk:Tsushima Basin, about how to characterize the result of a poll? thanks. Appleby 20:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Nightstallion. The vote was close, but with 57.9% good enough for me to put Tsushima in the lead. Appleby does not like it, and i just listed him on WP:3RR, where he seems to be well known. -- Chris 73 | Talk 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just formally listed this issue for RfC in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies.--Endroit 13:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

More requested moves

I also have requested these moves:

• WBTW-TV to WBTW
• WAOW to WAOW-TV
• WEMT (TV) to WEMT

First 2 because those are the official callsigns, last one because there is no need for additional disambiguation.

Could you make these moves please? CoolKatt number 99999 02:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 05:40, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Hello Nightstallion, could you take a look at Boleslav I of Poland? This is where the page was moved following a 16:12 vote (no consensus?). Also, that page wasn't even the one that was voted on. I can't restore the article because the redirects are bungled. Appleseed (Talk) 12:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The same editor also moved Boleslav II of Poland and John II Casimir of Poland. Appleseed (Talk) 12:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've said above, I'm currently taking a sabbatical from RM, please ask at WP:AN/I for now. —Nightstallion (?) 13:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand. And as I browse your talk page, I see you've also come across User:Shilkanni. Thanks anyway. Appleseed (Talk) 14:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

A short Esperanzial update

As you may have gathered, discussions have been raging for about a week on the Esperanza talk page as to the future direction of Esperanza. Some of these are still ongoing and warrant more input (such as the idea to scrap the members list altogether). However, some decisions have been made and the charter has hence been amended. See what happened. Basically, the whole leadership has had a reshuffle, so please review the new, improved charter.

As a result, we are electing 4 people this month. They will replace JoanneB and Pschemp and form a new tranche A, serving until December. Elections will begin on 2006-07-02 and last until 2006-07-09. If you wish to run for a Council position, add your name to the list before 2006-07-02. For more details, see Wikipedia:Esperanza/June 2006 elections.

Thanks and kind, Esperanzial regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 16:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit to protected page

Hi Nightstallion, I was wondering whether you could add {{redirect|The King}} to the article Elvis Presley, which is currently fully protected. Thanks very much. haz (user talk) 14:09, 24 June 2006

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 10:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Xara Xtreme

Hi Nightstallion. On May, 31 2006 (11:34, 31. Mai 2006) you helps out with a redirect problem with Xara Extreme, but unfortunaley there was a misspelling ("Xara Xtreme" is the correct spelling, not "Xara Extreme"). So I have tried to rename Xara Extreme to Xara Xtreme, but there was already a redirect page called "Xara Xtreme". Therefore I've copied the article text from Xara Extreme to Xara Xtreme. My question is: Are you able to copy the history of Xara Extreme to the correct article Xara Xtreme? --Remi de 20:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Done; however, *never* do cut-and-paste moves again in the future, it's strictly forbidden due to copyright reasons. —Nightstallion (?) 10:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Thanks a lot! --Remi de 11:53, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Userbox Barnstar

This user has been awarded a userbox barnstar for their work designing new userboxes.

Dragix 06:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 10:06, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Logo Discussions

You seem to be master of the logo discussion, but have you notified the respective communities of the discussions going on? If not I would be glad to do so. Daniel (‽) 16:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that can't hurt; I think I got all of the larger Wikisources, but I'm not sure whether I notified the Wiktionaries... —Nightstallion (?) 18:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Pic

Hey man, I was tryin to show my girl you're pic, but where is it? Joe I 17:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleted for anonymity reasons, sorry. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 18:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Standardized look for geographical infoboxes

Hi - I created a proposed guideline for geographical infoboxes I expect you might be interested in, please see Wikipedia:Geographical infoboxes. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD question

Greetings Nightstallion,
Before I list all the Template:infobox country_data_s for TfD, can you look at User:MJCdetroit/Sandbox to make sure that I am listing all those templates correctly. Is there any problem with listing them as such? Please comment on my talk page: User talk:MJCdetroit. Thanks, MJCdetroit 17:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for June 26th.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 26	26 June 2006	About the Signpost

Quicker deletion of non-compliant images proposed	News and Notes: 100 x 1,000, milestones
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Message delivered by Ralbot 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Your article, List of European Union member states by political system, was selected for DYK!

On June 27, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article List of European Union member states by political system, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi

In what way was it superfluous?--KYN 16:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, firstly, the fact that those states are not listed among the member states makes it rather obvious that they're not member states; secondly, I've mentioned some of them -- those which *are* discussing membership -- in the last section before the tables; thirdly, it was too detailed for what's basically only meant to be a list; fourthly, I've enlarged the microstates to an almost visible size on the maps, anyway. 's that good enough? ;) —Nightstallion (?) 16:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry in closed poll

Nightstallion, hi, a question came up about the renaming poll that you closed as no consensus at Talk:Władysław II Jagiełło [2]. It has since been pointed out that the vote was tainted, and that four of the votes were from the same user (see here for WP:ANI checkuser verification). Can you please advise as to what Wikipedia policy is in these cases? There's another poll ongoing right now, but should we instead re-evaluate the old poll with the sockpuppet votes discounted, to see if there's a different consensus decision? I'm not sure what normal practice is after a poll is officially "closed", as to whether it's worth re-opening. What do you think? --Elonka 20:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that sockpuppeting warrants re-opening a case. —Nightstallion (?) 05:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Elections in Morocco

===>POV dispute If you get a chance, check it out. Two users keep on changing the text, including taking out the POV template, which I put in there precisely so changes to the article could be discussed. One of the users has been blocked previously for breaking the 3RR to reinsert pro-Moroccan bias. If you don't have the time/energy to mediate, please pass this along to someone else. Thanks. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 22:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if you passed it along to WP:RfC, WP:MC or somewhere like that; if there's anything specific I can help with, gladly, but I haven't got too much time for mediating right now, sorry. —Nightstallion (?) 05:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Andres Bonifacio article

Hi there,

I chanced upon the article Andres Bonifacio and I am surprised that some people changed the spelling. I am Filipino, Born and raised in Manila. You can check libraries and legal records that prove that we never use 'é' nor 'á' (special characters) in our language. The only special letters we use are 'ñ', 'ng' and 'll'. Maoster 12:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Name of list

Hi there! You recently changed the name of a Featured List to List of European Union member states by accession, however I think a more adecuate name would be List of European Union member states by accession date. I believe the former name sounds too much like a half sentence. Up to you really. Cheers! -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I specifically wanted to avoid using "date" in the name; "by accession" can refer to accession dates *AND* application dates, while "by accession date" would not really explain that application dates are also included. —Nightstallion (?) 15:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Kingdom Islands in EU after 1/7/07?

On the List of European Union member states by accession, the note for the Netherlands Antilles states the new 'Kingdom Islands' status for Saba, Bonaire, and Sint Eustatius means they will be a part of the EU. Do you have a Dutch or Antilles source confirming this? The last I heard, the new 'Kingdom Islands' status was unclear, compared to the status aparte Curaçao and Sint Maarten will get. - Thanks, Hoshie | 23:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the Kingdom Islands will be an *integrated* part of the Netherlands within the Kingdom of the Netherlands, they will almost certainly have the same status as the Azores or the Canary Islands. I haven't seen an Antillean source, but I've read it somewhere... —Nightstallion (?) 05:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Dutch wikipedia says so, too. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 07:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue IV - June 2006

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue IV - June 2006
Project news Three new task forces have been started: Ancient Near East, Australian military history, and Maritime warfare. New infoboxes for military awards and weapons are nearing completion; any comments on the proposed designs would be extremely welcome! A system of article importance ratings has been introduced to accompany the existing article quality ratings. Help with rating articles would highly appreciated!	From the Coordinators Five months ago, as we were in the midst of coordinator elections, Loopy commented that "I don't think it's unrealistic to imagine this project as one of the most prominent and effective ones around in say, a year's time." Since then: We have grown from just under a hundred members to nearly 300, and appear to be the second largest WikiProject (lagging, curiously enough, behind WP:COMICS). From one small task force, we have grown to include seventeen. Instead of a hand-made worklist of a few hundred articles, we now have one that is quickly approaching 10,000, and forms nearly a third of the overall 1.0 worklist effort. I'd say—without any unrealistic optimism—that we're well on our way to fulfilling those expectations! Kirill Lokshin, Lead Coordinator
Current proposals and discussions A discussion about the use of operational names in articles has started. Discussion continues about the role of "good articles" in the assessment process.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

—ERcheck (talk) @ 11:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

İlham Əliyev

The fact you're an administrator doesn't prevent you to give your opinion when you have one. I know you share mine about : Talk:İlham_Əliyev#Survey_on_move. :o) Švitrigaila 11:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Viele Danken. :o) Švitrigaila 11:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "vielen Dank". ;) —Nightstallion (?) 11:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

ISO 639-3

I started List of ISO 639-1 codes. In future this could be a reference point for a code transition. I you like to add some codes or general thoughts, I am happy :-) Tobias Conradi (Talk) 21:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Belgium

By the way, the referendum about monarchy held in 1950 is neither mentioned in the main article about Belgium, nor in the one about Leopold III. lG — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 19:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Micronation Featured Candidate Article

Hi, wanted to let you know that someone reopened the featured candidate article that you closed recently. I agree with you that it should be closed. I suggested that it could be renominated after waiting awhile and then linked properly to the Featured Candidate nomination page (as you pointed out in your comment). Davidpdx 20:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

A Request for Your Feedback

Hello; I noticed you have recently contributed to the current events portal and thought you would be interested in looking at a proposal for redesigning the page. If you can, please take a look at a redesign proposal I created and provide some feedback on its talk page. So far, very little feedback has been received, and so the additional input would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. joturner 23:06, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

AAAAAAA!

A AAA AA AAAA AAAA AAA AAAA. AAA AAAA AAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAA AAAA AAAA AAAA! —AAAA AA AAAAAAÄAAAAA (AAAA) AA:AA, A AAAA AAAA (AAA)

Signpost updated for July 3rd.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 2, Issue 26	26 June 2006	About the Signpost

Angela Beesley resigns as Wikimedia Foundation trustee	Requiring confirmed email suggested for uploads
Wikipedia cited by the England and Wales High Court	Unblock requests directed to new mailing list
News and Notes: Wiktionary milestone, privacy policy update	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Award

Congratulations! You are now a major contributor to three Featured articles: €2 commemorative coins, List of European Union member states, List of circulating currencies.

I know two of them are lists, but it should still apply. You're an enormous contributor, keep it up. Joe I 06:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! (I actually have a fourth one coming up, another list... ;)) —Nightstallion (?) 06:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Larry Brown

Would you move and delete Larry Brown (disambiguation) to Larry Brown. Thank you Kyros 07:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 07:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Your article, Monarchies in the European Union, was selected for DYK!

On July 4, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Monarchies in the European Union, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 15:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Single characters used for ordinal numbers

When I changed the ordinal characters, it was because my computer was display characters that were not numbers (assorted "L"-shaped characters and small open circles). For what it's worth, I'm using Firefox in Mac OS X; in addition, I have several fonts installed in order to cover nearly character currently defined in Unicode.

Mh. Curious... it works fine for me under WinXP, NetBSD and MacOS X... ::scratches head:: I'll think about it; thanks for bringing it to my attention! —Nightstallion (?) 05:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

About the Nevis article

Hi there Nightstallion, sorry for the late answer--I´m traveling right now. Yes, the Nevis article is probably ready for peer review. Maybe we can ask the Caribbean discussion board members to look it over? I'm not too familiar with how the FA process works, but I assume it should be stable and thoroughly reviewed before it's put on the list to be nominated. Best wishes, Pia 10:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You seem to already have a very good understanding of how Wikipedia works. ;) Yes, peer review and Caribbean Wikipedians' noticeboard would be the way to go; once all changes and suggestions have been implemented, there should be no problem in getting it through WP:FA. Looking forward to it! —Nightstallion (?) 10:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

RoM/FYROM

Hi Nightstallion, that boring issue, the RoM/FYROM debate, is imperversing, through a new editor, User:Chambi10, in two templates: the one you've already been vigilating, Template:WTO, but also in the Template:NATO; would you mind keeping a eye on the latter template? Ciao, --Aldux 16:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 05:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Logo proposals

For your work maintaining the logo discussions on Meta .

Good work on maintaining the logo discussions; they seem to be coming along well. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 18:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I strive to serve. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 05:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes

Your userbox page is quite impressive. I just wanted to tell you that a few of them got messed up with the deletion of templates or what not. – Zntrip 05:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take a look at it when I've got more time. —Nightstallion (?) 05:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks to your userpage, I was able to get the section edit links working again in my newly formatted page. :) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Gladly. :) —Nightstallion (?) 11:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Logo

Hi,

Even I was wondering whether to start pressing the matter again. You seem to be interested and active in logo changes. Hope you can help. How should we proceed about it? I sincerely feel that a stitch in time will save nine. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I've got no clue, I'd just like to have that sorted out ASAP... —Nightstallion (?) 09:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Should I again ring up Anthere. Angela seems to have resigned from the board. Or you have better suggestions? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds good to me. —Nightstallion (?) 16:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Thanks :D

I'd just like you to know, you're pure evil, going around fooling us non-native German speakers like that, just for you own sick amusement  :-p Enjoy your day knowing how powerful you are, Witzbold! --Mitglied von die Elektronischenzyklopädie Schriftleitung 16:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just thought you might want to know; you can always get a username change. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 09:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your advice please

Hello. Is it reasonable to move Louis Schneider to Louis Schneider (actor) and then move Louis Schneider (racer) to Louis Schneider? Someone recently moved Louis Schneider (racecar driver) to Louis Schneider (racer), I'm not sure why, since they didn't link anything to it.... Looking at all the articles, I think that the driver's links outweigh the actor's links by a total of 7 to 2, so I'm thinking that the driver is more notable. If this is OK to do, is it something that I can do myself, or do I need admin help, and if so can you, please? I will promise to clean up any redirects after any moves are done. --Brian G 00:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it makes sense, yes. Try to do it, and if you encounter problems, I'll help. :) —Nightstallion (?) 09:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I tried to make the moves and it let me move Louis Schneider to Louis Schneider (actor), but it won't let me now move Louis Schneider (racer) to Louis Schneider which is now a redirect pointing to the actor. Your help will be appreciated. --Brian G 11:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 16:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I've cleaned up all the links, so there are no double redirects. --Brian G 22:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Háček

It may interest you there's yet another vote at talk:caron. Third one, I belive. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 04:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

List of European Union member states by political system FLC

I've removed my support and asked you a question in the FLC discussion. Would you reply? Thanks! Mário 16:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Help!

I wrote a standard message to Turkish speaking users about the discussion I have about İlham Əliyev. You can read this message here. I think it's neutral enough. The goal is just to have potentially interested people to hear about the discussion and to vote if they want.

But User:Theresa knott has decided it is spam. She has written in my own talk page : "You are spamming native turkish speakers, that introduces bias. This is an english speaking encylopedia. Please don't do it anymore." [3] It means for her, only the English can vote, if I understand her well. So, she has decided to erase every message I wrote, one by one. She has decided I have no right to communicate to other Users to get their help. See here. What right has she to do that? Am I free to speak or not, with whom I want to? It seems I'm not.

Once again I seek your help. What can I do?

PS: I hope she won't erase this message too. Švitrigaila 11:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course I will not delete this message. It is the spam that I am objecting too. I do not belive that only English can vote and i have no interest in the final outcome of the vote ( I did not vote myself nor will I) But I do object to talk page spam. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 11:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Trading spaces

Under Renovation

Hello, Nightstallion, and thank you for signing up to participate in the trading spaces program. As you requested to have your user page renovated by another user, Sceptre will be renovating your userpage. Please contact Sceptre on their talk page about the renovating. The renovating will be listed at Trading Spaces: Undergoing Renovation, please feel free to update the status as it changes. Enjoy! --User:Natalya (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

List of European Union member states by political system

I think the list was better without the think tank bias. I'm not questioning the democratic procedures in the EU countries, I just consider the presence of the "Look, the champions of freedom" map, which is based on the opinion of the American government, is not the best way to achieve neutrality. Apart from that, the list is good. Mário 11:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue is now solved. ALoan has edited the article before promoting it. Sorry for bothering you, but I was really concerned about this. Keep your good work! Cheers! Mário 16:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, if the only thing you wanted was a more specific mention of the fact that it was only Freedom House's opinion, that's perfectly fine with me and a good idea. I was by no means trying to present Freedom House's rating as the truth and enlightenment of the world. :) —Nightstallion (?) 05:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing flags update

Hi there! I apologize for the delay in delivering the promised update. I was on vacation and when I came back, I, to my shame, completely forgot about your request, only remembering about it when I was reviewing my old entries I intended to archive. Anyhoo, here's the news:

• Pskov Oblast. No news of interest whatsoever. Looks like the flag issue is in stasis for now.
• Novgorod Oblast. As of May, they were still talking about a new contest. Vice-Chairman of the Oblast Duma maked a remark stating that "they are not going to hurry and will be reviewing the drafts until they find one that would be acceptable".
• Perm Krai created a group responsible for creating future flag and coat of arms of the krai. They were also considering a possibility of adopting the flag of former Perm Oblast. However, they postponed the flag issue until December, following the elections.

All in all, nothing exciting. Still, it's an update :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, and no worries, there's no hurry. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 06:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll close

Hey man, if you have a spare moment can you close the poll here? Thanks - FrancisTyers · 19:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Year 10000 problem, Year 10,000 problem, etc.

It appears that Oh Crap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) moved Year 10000 problem (where you moved it a month ago) to Year 10,000 Problem. Is there any chance you could revert the mess to the status quo ante Crap?

Signpost updated for July 10th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 28	10 July 2006	About the Signpost

Reuters tracks evolution of Ken Lay's death on Wikipedia	Creating stable versions using existing software proposed
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Blocking changes, privacy policy update
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Numismatics

Just something to keep ya busy!  :)

Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Collaborate : Finish Assessment, Expand and reorganize style guide, New category structure, Infoboxes: designing and adding to pages, more... Expand : Coins of Australia, Half sovereign, 5 yen coin, Canadian Silver Maple Leaf, Coins of Ireland, Series of 1928 (United States Currency), Royal Mint, Achaemenid currency, Elymais, Roman provincial coins, Seleucid coinage, Nabataean coinage, South Vietnamese đồng, more... Featured article candidates : Peace Dollar, more... Merge : more... Stubs : Brockage, Cistophorus, Coinage Act of 1849, Zuz (Jewish coin), Polish Mint, more... Wikify : Twenty pence (English coin), Canadian Silver Maple Leaf, Chinese Silver Panda, Common coin errors, Gold standard, Coin grading, Euro, History of the English penny (1154-1485), Petrocurrency, more... Others : Requested Images: English coin Three Farthings, Commemorative coins of Poland, more... Improve to GA: History of money, Numismatics, Roman currency, Money, Ancient Greek coinage, Fiat currency, United States Mint, Canadian Silver Maple Leaf, Banknotes of Zimbabwe, more...

 Joe  I 21:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Orkney nuts

Hi, can you have a look at the startling career of newbie User:Mallimak. He is on a one man mission to utterly divorce Orkney from Scotland. The plain fact is that Orkney is a council area of Scotland, nothing more nothing less, it has no special status whatsoever compared with Clackmannnanshire, Moray or East Renfrewshire. It does not even have an active autonomist or secessionist political movement (errr... except for User:Mallimak that is).

Eg, have a look at this article, which he just created from a redirect: Orcadian. Now, how NPOV is that little rant? He is going about adding redundant supercats (Category:Orkney people when they are already in Category:Natives of Orkney, removing nationality links (and trying to create a new nationality called "Orcadian": Orkney has never, ever been a state, nor a country, nor a nation), stubbing non-stubs, creating a whole pile of substubs (which should all be redirects).

I'm getting sick of the wee [insert expletive of choice], and would appreciate admin intervention. Have a thorough look through his entire Wikipedia career here.

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orcadian.

Thanks. --Mais oui! 09:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I can't think of much more than posting at WP:AN/I and asking for specific actions (I can't think of anything right now, as I'm pretty stressed IRL, sorry) or filing an RfC, as simple admin intervention seems unlikely to be successful, wouldn't you agree with that? —Nightstallion (?) 09:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, ta. Personally, I'm kind of hoping that a friendly word and bit of stern guidance from an Admin or two might put the chap on a more constructive path, cos right now it is clear that he is intent on havoc. I know that at least three other Admins are aware of this guy's behavious (User:Alai, User:Grutness and User:Wangi) but none of them has seen fit to "have a chat" with the guy. I am seriously deficient in the diplomacy stakes myself, and the guy clearly detests me, so I really do think that 3rd party intervention will be necessary if he continues in this frankly bizarre vein. --Mais oui! 09:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, I'm currently in no diplomatic mood either due to personal stress, sorry... Try to find a diplomat at the admin noticeboard, mh? —Nightstallion (?) 10:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, although hopefully not necessary. Thanks anyway. --Mais oui! 19:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Europarty table

Hey there. I was feeling tempted to do a bit of work on the big table, and thought I'd solicit your feedback before I got up to my elbows in find-replace commands.

I had the following in mind:

• Replacing the ED column with an MER column. MER looks, at least in the early going, to correspond to a party-style creature even though those involved might be loathe to proudly call it that. Mixing and matching purely-EU-parliamentary entities and continent-wide extraparliamentary entities never sat super well with me, so getting the ED out will help that.

  Agreed.

• Replacing a left/centre/right split of the standalones with a left/centre-left/centre-right/right split. Having Front National and crew sharing a column with some pretty respectable mainstream centre-right parties was another one of those lingering irritants to me. Having two "centre" standalone columns also cleverly lets us not call ELDR or EDP "left" or "right" of centre.

  Aye, sounds good.

• Adding an ADIE column. I've managed to get contact info for their coordinator, so I should be able to get a membership list out of them.

  Great!

• Reordering columns as follows, from left to right:

PEL, NGLA, (left), EFA, EGP, PES, (centreleft), EUD, ELDR, EDP, EPP, (centreright), MER, AEN, ADIE, (right)

Aside from reflecting the above, the only additional change is kicking EUD to the left a bit, where I think it fits a bit better. Samobroona is generally described as left-of-centre, and Jens-Peter Bonde started life as a communist. The Tom 13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

One little change: Make it

PEL, NGLA, (left), EFA, EGP, PES, (centreleft), EUD, ELDR, EDP, (centreright), EPP, MER, (right), AEN, ADIE

So that the independent leftists and rightists are between the centre and the actual European parties. Do you know what I mean? This way, we've got

left (PEL, NGLA; ind.), centreleft (EFA, EGP, PES, ind.), centre (EUD, ELDR, EDP), centreright (ind., EPP, MER), right (ind., AEN, ADIE)

Otherwise, it may appear as if PEL are necessarily more left than the independents, and as if ADIE are necessarily more right than independents. Also, shouldn't AEN be more rightist than ADIE? I don't know ADIE's membership, but I had the impression that ADIE was more centrist than AEN... —Nightstallion (?) 13:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that assymmetry, but on balance those loner parties are further to the right than the AEN/ADIE groups... we're dealing with such pariahs as Vlaams Belang that they aren't allowed into the mainstream. Another thought that just crossed my mind was to do a Euronat column, but there really aren't enough represented parties to justify it. The Tom 17:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, Euronat is not really an official group, is it? —Nightstallion (?) 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Various currency names

You recently made edits to a number of currency articles. In a number of cases, you changed the name to lowercase except the first word in the name of the currency. Since these are actually proper names or titles, the case should remain capitalized throughout the name. Thanks. —GrantNeufeld 16:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Basque Country autonomous community

Regarding the move rquest I posted at Talk:Basque Country (autonomous community), I think you may have missed the point, which I obviously didn't make clear. The article has been moved a few time and has been split from its talk page, which other editors have noted as being confusing. I have constructed a series of redirects and new moves, and all that is left is to join the substantive article - Basque Country autonomous community - with the talk page it corresponds to. Mtiedemann 00:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, having now checked further down my watchlist, I realsie the article has been moved back to its original name, with parentheses, thus avoiding the problem. Thank, Mtiedemann 00:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. I was aware of your (good) changes, and just wanted to clean the final bit up; generally, dab should be done with parentheses, if it's not an official name (and "Basque Country autonomous community" isn't). :) —Nightstallion (?) 00:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Protected Pan-African flag: protect against move-vandalism

Nightstallion...you protected the article Pan-African flag against move vandalism but a closer look at the history of the article will show that it was Red, Black and Green from 2003 until it was changed in March of 2006...not Pan-African flag...if you want to protect it...then protect it as it was for 3 years as Red, Black and Green...it was only changed to Pan-African flag in March of 2006... you protected the article Pan-African flag against move Vandalism but a closer look at the history of the article will show that it was changed to Pan-African flag in March...the history of the article shows that there was a consensus that the title of the article of "Red, Black and Green" was perfectly acceptable for three years...y should 1 person change it without consensus???

My move wasn't move Vandalism... it was made in completely good faith...the move before mine was vandalism...look closely at the history...beginning in 2003...it didn't seem that a consensus was needed 2 move it back were it wuz...

if Brossow can change it only on the request of Lisasmall then it must be changed back based on the consensus of being Red, Black and Green for three years...and none of the editors in that time frame objecting to the title...PLEASE reconsider the protection and move the article to Red, Black and Green...at my request...thanks!!!

There were two in favour of pan-African, and only you in favour of RBG, plus you cut-and-pasted it. I currently see no reason to revert it. —Nightstallion (?) 10:10, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Saint symbology

• Could you go and read my comments and reconsider your vote?--evrik 02:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

New wiktionary logo notification

Hi, just wanted to share it with you:

• "... contacted all remaining Wiktionaries with more than 10,000 entries ..."
• but you might have missed at least one ;-)

Anyways that one is now fixed. Cheers, Goldie (tell me) 17:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That was likely because I couldn't really find any place where it should be posted. :) Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 17:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 17th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 29	17 July 2006	About the Signpost

Library of Congress, Holocaust Museum negotiate with Wikimedia	Issue of article subjects requesting deletion taken up
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	News and Notes: Blocking changes, single login
Wikipedia in the News	Features and admins
The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Treebark (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Denver 2008

Hey, how's it goin'? I'm gathering support from Wikipedian Democrats to help bring the 2008 DNC to my hometown of Denver. If your interested, just post {{User:1ne/Userboxes/Denver2008}} on your page. Anyhow, have a good one. Editor19841 23:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi there! Just thought I'd drop by to say I'm back! And well rested too :-) Thanks for your encouraging words. I'll be sure to remember them moving forward. --HappyCamper 03:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful to have you back! :) —Nightstallion (?) 05:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Test Wikipedia

Although the logo looks crude (as test wiki itself is). The logo doesn't seem to match the background for monobook. I may change my logo to reflect your inverted globe. But I completely disagree with your idea of "The Test Encyclopedia". The Test Wiki isn't an encyclopedia, so it makes very little sense. I would use

W I K I P E D I A

The Test Wiki

or...

Test wiki for
W I K I P E D I A

The Free Encyclopedia

--LBMixPro^{<Speak|on|it!>} 06:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can easily change it to read "The Test Wiki"... —Nightstallion (?) 06:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In the same vein, I changed my vote from C1 to C2. --Snaxe920 19:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. :) —Nightstallion (?) 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Austrian party logos

hi Nighstallion, how are you? what is going on here? I went through a lot of trouble and work to secure the images of the party logos. Unfortunately the ones you posted are in pixels that are much lower than the previous ones. Almost all of the logos, such as from the SPÖ, FPÖ, ÖVP, etc. were send to me by the press offices of the party, therefore they are the official versions. If any new images show up that are an improvement from the old ones (such as higher resolution, new format in svg., etc.), then I have no problems with that obviously. Gryffindor 10:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, sorry if I troubled you; I was only trying to use the most up-to-date logos currently available. You would agree, then, that using them in Template:Austrian legislative election, 2006 is a good idea? —Nightstallion (?) 10:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No need to apologise, I know you didn't mean any harm and only have the best intentions. I just think we should have the highest quality of images whenever possible. I'll check again if any of the logos changed since the last election, I'll let you know. sincerely Gryffindor 13:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks a lot! Always a pleasure to work with you. :) —Nightstallion (?) 14:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Names for Peking

I misunderstood you edit comment at Names of Asian cities in different languages. Are "Pecin" and "Beijing" both Romanian forms for Peking as they are in Welsh? - AjaxSmack 14:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I'm quite sorry, I misunderstood *your* edit. I've reverted myself, apologies. —Nightstallion (?) 15:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Neuschwanstein

Schloß/Schloss

1. My adding of the traditional spelling of 'Schloß' to the Neuschwanstein article was not vandalism. Please read the appropriate Wikipedia policy to see what qualifies as vandalism and what doesn't.
2. When multi-millions of educated German speakers use a certain spelling, then by definition this spelling cannot be "incorrect". Language is an open-source project. (Feel free to add your own findings here in case you have any.)
3. The link to http://www.neuschwanstein.de/ is of little relevance since the point in question was how the German-speaking community at large would translate Castle Neuschwanstein. It's not like it's some kind of trademark owned by the people who operate said castle. Besides, the spelling used by their webmaster was included in my original edit.
4. The spelling reform has brought fragmentation to a previously unified writing system, and now we have to live with the results. This means including all commonly-used spellings wherever a German word appears in the English Wikipedia. Failure to do so would constitute a misrepresentation of actual language usage.
5. Finally, if you abuse your administrative powers to protect your own changes to a page then you shouldn't be an administrator. It's obvious that you would like to see the traditional spellings eliminated sooner rather than later, and the political leanings detailed on your user page fit right in with that. However, Wikipedia is about documenting reality, not trying to change it.

--84.142.172.135 08:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a question of my personal "political leanings", it's a question of what the most common, most correct and self-identifying name of the place is in German, and that is Schloss Neuschwanstein. The fact that you'd prefer to keep the old spelling is of no importance to official regulations, and according to them, Schloß is an archaic and now incorrect spelling. Please keep your personal little crusade from the non-German Wikipedias; I can see why you'd think that you were more likely to get through with it on Wikipedias were few people are likely to know German, but I'm afraid it won't work that way. —Nightstallion (?) 08:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Classifying edits that you don't agree with as "vandalism" violates Wikipedia policy. Protecting your own edits to a page violates Wikipedia policy. You still haven't addressed this.

They appeared to be vandalism to me; apart from that, I employed semi-protection, not protection.

As to what the most common name is, again, if you have evidence that reform spellings are widely accepted in the population, please consider updating 'Acceptance of the reform'. Right now the text doesn't support your view. And how exactly is Schloss "most correct"?

Try Google, you'll see that "Schloss Neuschwanstein" is much more common than "Schloß Neuschwanstein": 241,000 against 64,700.

People who publish stuff on the Internet tend to include disproportionally large numbers of a) younger people and b) businesses, and are therefore not really representative of the entire German-speaking community, just like the fact that most newspapers use (some kind of) reform spellings does not mean that the majority of their readers do. Besides, if you restrict the Google searches to German pages, it's 1/3 vs. 2/3. Even if this accurately represented the population from schoolchild to grandmother (which, as I said, I don't think it does), this would mean that one third of all German speakers use "archaic", "incorrect" spellings by your standards. That's a laughable claim. --84.142.177.3 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the "official regulations" you cite don't exist. Authorities may be able to decide what children are taught in school or what spelling their civil servants need to use, but other than that, they cannot tell anyone how to spell anything as this would violate the basic rights of the people.

Yes, official regulations *do* exist. Unlike English, German has a central authority (technically, several -- one for each country) which decides what spelling is to be taught and to be used officially; and while you state that the reform was unpopular, you ignore the fact that the news spellings are still used by a majority of people.

So the same majority of people who are against the reform use reform spellings in their writings? That's schizophrenic. Or perhaps it just isn't true at all. --84.142.177.3 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Should we start using "ne" instead of "eine" in German Wikipedia articles, just because it's commonly used by many Central and Northern Germans? Wikipedia doesn't *only* obey common use, but also correct use.

No, we shouldn't. "ne" was never formally acceptable German by any standard. --84.142.177.3 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

For this reason, the decision on which German spellings to include in the English Wikipedia needs to be made based on what is widely used, not what certain groups of society would like to see used. Suppressing a common spelling on the grounds that you don't like it is inherently POV.

Again, see above -- a majority of German speakers *do* use the new spellings. I'm not suppressing it because I don't like it, but because it's officially archaic and not in official use any longer.

"Please keep your personal little crusade from the non-German Wikipedias" — Gee, that's exactly what I wanted to tell you.

--84.142.172.135 10:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. —Nightstallion (?) 10:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Apart from that, it seems obvious to me that non-German Wikipedias should follow the guidelines of the German Wikipedia on orthography, so on what grounds do you wish to claim it makes sense *not* to do so? —Nightstallion (?) 10:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The German Wikipedia is in firm control of the kind of people you'll find in a typical AStA. They're politically biased. (They also go to great lengths to redirect every page to the most politically correct equivalent.) All in all, the English Wikipedia is much more balanced and NPOV. --84.142.177.3 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

To the anon: The first time you changed Schloss to Schloß, it wasn't vandalism, it was POV-pushing, which is not allowed at Wikipedia.

But changing Schloß/Schloss (which I think is a good compromise given the alternatives) to simply Schloss isn't? --84.142.177.3 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Writing "Schloß/Schloss" suggests that the two are alternative spellings. They aren't.

To me the presence of the hyperlink to the spelling reform page suggests that one is the traditional spelling (which some people use) and the other is the reform spelling (which some other people use). --84.142.177.3 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Schloß is a misspelling. User:Angr 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's your point of view. --84.142.177.3 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The edit summary "I will not allow left-wing spelling dictators to maliciously change and misrepresent my native language" is a personal attack and also not allowed at Wikipedia. (It's also a lie to suggest that the German spelling reform is a malicious change or misrepresentation of German, but that's beside the point.)

How is anyone who goes around proclaiming "no "ß" in schloss any more!" (as if this was some kind of law) not a spelling dictator? The "malicious" part refers to the whole ideology of making the language dumber so educated people would no longer have any advantage. But that's too big a discussion to have here. The "misrepresent" part refers to the fact that only mentioning Schloss would imply to the non-German reader that this was a universally agreed-upon spelling. Since that's clearly not the case (see the public discussion that has been going on for the last ten years), it's a misrepresentation. --84.142.177.3 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The proclamation "no ß in Schloss anymore" didn't come from Nightstallion, it came from a committee of scholars from all German-speaking countries back in 1996. The spelling reform didn't "make the language dumber", because spelling has nothing to do with language. Using only Schloss correctly implies to the reader (whether German or not) that this is the only correct spelling, which it is. "Schloß" is an archaic spelling and today a misspelling, just like "theuer" and "beyde". User:Angr 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Except that the move from 'th' to 't' and similar changes occurred through an evolutionary process within the writing community whereas the 1996 changes were designed by said committee, actively working against the direction the German spelling had taken up to that point. --84.142.177.3 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

However, continuing to make the change when it's clear the change is unwanted (since it was changed back by a large number of different users, not just Nightstallion) is a bad faith revert, which according to WP:VAND is vandalism. User:Angr 11:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. I did provide an edit summary. If anything, it's an edit war (regrettably). --84.142.177.3 13:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The presence of an edit summary doesn't mean a revert isn't bad-faith. User:Angr 14:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not what the Bad faith reverts paragraph at WP:VAND says. --84.142.177.3 15:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, grow up. Both of you.

Concerning the orthography: My brand-new german dictionnary only knows Schloss, not Schloß any more. The official homepage only uses Schloss. Thus, it is Schloss. Off korc efriwon kan uz hiss on speling, but nonetheless books should usually use what is currently defined to be the correct spelling, and this then applies to an encylopedia even more so. If the alternative spelling is that important to you, add a paragraph on it to the Neuschwanstein article; probably nobody would complain about a *good* explanation why there are two frequently used spellings and about knowing which one is (at least officially) the correct one.

Concerning the whole discussion about vandalism and edit war... Well, guys, just shut and grow up finally. ;) You both have good intentions, so do you really need to quarrel?

hth, — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just added the new paragraph myself. Are you both happy now? ;)

hth, — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 20:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The only problem I have with that is that we'd have to add a similar note to *every single article* about a German subject which previously used ß, but does not use it any longer. By that right, we should be noting that Swiss spell everything without ß in *every* article which contains an ß. I'm fairly sure I don't agree with having a note just on this article and not on others. —Nightstallion (?) 05:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's enough to have a note wherever anyone complains about only the new spelling being used. But if you think otherwise, you are free to add such notes to all other articles as well. ;) (Seriously, first, I think there aren't that many such articles, and second, almost nothing in wikipedia is really standardized, so why start with this?) lG — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 10:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not quite sure I understand the reason why the fact that a single anonymous user doesn't like the new spelling trumps the fact that the castle refers to itself as "Schloss", not "Schloß", and the fact that "Schloß" is officially an archaic spelling in German as of 2006... —Nightstallion (?) 10:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Because what he sais is not wrong. The old spelling is wrong, that's why it's not used in the translation in the introduction. The old spelling is used, and this should (or at least can) be mentioned in the article. It doesn't hurt anyone to get more information than "necessary", does it? lG — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 10:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Mh, fair enough. If we're going to handle it like that, though, we should write some templated text which we will then include in all articles which have differing German content depending on whether you already use the new spelling or whether you refuse to. —Nightstallion (?) 10:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at this: User:Shir_Khan/sandbox/german_spelling_template. lG — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 12:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks fine to me... —Nightstallion (?) 12:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking steps to improve the situation. As for the specific template suggestion:

• "...the reform is not yet widely accepted" — Correct, but the inclusion of yet implies that someday it will be. Perhaps it will, but right now that's crystal ball business.

I'm quite sure that it will be accepted sooner or later, as it's what children learn in school at the moment. However, as this is of course not a question of personal opinions, I agree to replace "yet" with "at the moment", which is still correct without the mentioned implication. I will, however, not agree to just to remove the "yet", as this would imply the opposite, namely that the reform won't be accepted in future.

Hmm... "at the moment" is better, but still seems somewhat volatile. What about "as of today"? --84.142.174.9 13:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 15:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• "many people still use..." — Correct, but again, the presence of still suggests a certain development (implying that one day they'll stop). Better to write "many people continue to use...".

I disagree that "still" implies something like that. For example, in the sentence "I'm still happy with my relationship.", it does not imply that this will probably change.

Yes, but for using a sentence like that there would probably be a reason in the first place, like someone just having asked "Have you broken up?" — "No, no, I'm still happy with my relationship". If you didn't feel the need to create any contrast, you'd probably just say "I'm happy with my relationship". --84.142.174.9 13:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I for example still have my good old Super Nintendo, and the fact that I say still does *not* mean that I'll give it away in near future. ;) However, I'm really not here to argue about the exact meaning of "still". That would be even more useless than arguing about that whole spelling reform stuff. — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 15:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thus, I'd say "still" is appropriate wherever something used to be some way and still is. Which is the case here.

Common usages such as "I'm still stuck in the meeting [but I'll be home soon]" or "My PC still uses Windows 3.11 [I should really go and install XP]" do imply a certain direction. Since "continue to use" doesn't have any of these connotations, why not use that? --84.142.174.9 13:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Simply because I'm stubborn. ;) (Just kiddin'... ;) ) I really can't see the difference, but if it makes you happy, I can change it to "continue to use". — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 15:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• "...the old spelling" — better to write "traditional spelling" here.

It's not traditional, it's what has been used since the previous spelling reform.

There was no previous "reform". What happened in 1901 was that in a situation in which there wasn't yet a unified German spelling system, a group of experts got together, looked at what spellings were used by the population, and then, based on the observed direction of the language development, declared one of them to be "official" to achieve unification. They did not invent a single new spelling, all spellings were already in use before 1901. --84.142.174.9 13:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Quoting the definition of a tradition: "A tradition is a story or a custom that is memorized and passed down from generation to generation, originally without the need for a writing system." Thus I'd say that the writing system itself is definitively excluded from being a tradition.

What this means is that traditions can be passed without having a writing system, not that the properties of a writing system cannot one day themselves become a tradition. --84.142.174.9 13:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, not so many generations ago only a small minority of persons could read and write at all.

Well, of course "traditional spelling" refers to the traditions of those within the writing community, not those on the outside. Should be obvious. --84.142.174.9 13:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thus, I strongly reject the term "traditional spelling" itself. I would, however, agree to replace "old" with "archaic".

"Archaic" means "belonging to former or ancient times". That the spellings developed and optimized by the German writing community (until the reformers came with their bulldozers) somehow belong to a former, let alone ancient time, is the very thing that is disputed by those who regard the spelling reform as illegitimate. If everything else fails, then let's use the term "pre-reform spellings" although I'm not entirely happy with that. --84.142.174.9 13:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

But it's the most NPOV proposal I've heard so far. — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 15:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

What, "archaic" or "pre-reform spellings"? --84.142.151.212 18:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Then again, I'm not entirely sure the current template is the right way to go. Sometimes several German words with different spellings appear in one article, sometimes they appear as part of longer lists, etc. I don't think it would be feasible to include a note for each of them.

Neither feasible nor necessary, I'd say. Notes should be added where the title of the article itself (or, as in case of Neuschwanstein, at least the full name and translation of it) is disputed.

But if, say, "lasst" appears somewhere in the middle of an article, then that's disputed too. It's not just about article titles. --84.142.174.9 13:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

How about not referring to individual words or names, but instead adding a single parameterless template at the top of the respective page when needed?

How about not adding a single template at the top of each page, but instead mentioning on the Main Page that in all articles using foreign languages, the currently official spelling of that language is used?

I don't see how this would achieve anything. What I'd like to see in order to make the use of German spellings in English articles more NPOV is some kind of hint for the reader that when somewhere it says "German: Schloss" that there's a sizable group of German speakers who would dispute that that's an acceptable spelling. The reader needs to be aware of this controversy. It doesn't have to be a note for every specific word but there should be something on the actual article page. --84.142.174.9 13:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be honest: I like the spelling reform. It's okay for me if you don't. It's not okay to spam the whole wikipedia with, well, what Nightstallion called your personal little crusade. One of wikipedia's policies is a neutral point of view. Mentioning every five lines that a few people don't agree with something is a *very* strong point of view.

Except that these "few people" who reject the reform amount to millions of German speakers. I don't know if it's 20 million or 40 million or 60 million. I've read some estimates that the majority of people continue to use non-reformed spellings. Which makes sense considering that there are more people between the ages of 30-100 than there are from 6-29. The opinion polls are pretty clear, and everyone who hasn't lived in a cave for the last ten years knows about the spelling controversy. To claim that a "single anonymous user doesn't like the new spelling" like "Nightstallion" did is absurd. Take a look at http://www.sprachforschung.org/ in case you're interested.

You say that your brand-new German dictionary contains only "Schloss". Perhaps you've bought a Duden or a Wahrig. If you'd bought an Ickler or a Mackensen, you would have gotten a different result. Now what? (Besides, you wouldn't even need a "brand-new dictionary" if it wasn't for the reform and its continuous revisions.) Also, most serious literature (not lifestyle guides offering "Genuss-Tipps") continues to be published using the traditional spellings, at any rate the percentage is >= 50%.

So what I'm trying to prevent here is that a Wikipedia visitor reading about "Schloss" mistakenly thinks that this was a universally accepted spelling. As I've explained, it isn't. Some readers may not care either way, and that's fine. But for the others I wouldn't want to see the German language misrepresented. --84.142.151.212 18:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Especially as it is really not of interest outside of the article about the spelling reform itself.

Also, I don't think that any reader needs to be aware of that controversy, especially if s/he can't even speak German at all. Also, just because some don't like a law, that doesn't make it less applicable.

But it's not a law! Perhaps that's the misunderstanding here. The reform spellings are only binding for schools and authorities (actually, only those who choose to use them, it's not automatic). Nobody else is in any way legally forced to use them. Courts have found that. Actually, one court has even found that a specific school must not teach the plaintiff (a schoolgirl) reform spellings since they aren't widely accepted. --84.142.151.212 18:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There *are* spelling rules for German and I can't see any reason not to use them without mentioning that they changed. — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 15:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The text could be something like the following:

"This article uses the currently official German spellings as defined by the spelling reform of 1996. Some of these spellings may be disputed by some German speakers who continue to use traditional spellings. For more information, see <some page>."

--84.142.172.50 14:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

— Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 10:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this whole discussion leads nowhere. I make certain allowances for disputed article titles, but I don't (and probably won't ever) agree to the rest of it. If you think it's that important, it should be discussed in some, well, discussion with the whole wikipedia taking part or at least being informed about it or... Sorry, still too new to wikipedia, but I'm sure there is a way to have an official discussion about the problem and maybe make it a wikipedia policy or something, whatever the result is.

hth, — Shir Khan (?-"-!) — 20:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

State religion

See my proposed edits at User:Ekrub-ntyh/State religion. As I said on the talk page, there should be a separate subheading for relevant examples of de facto cases. ekrub-ntyh ^talk 18:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

See my reply there. Thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 19:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

TfD

Hi there! Would you mind if I asked you to close this TfD? I cannot do it myself because I voted there, and it's been there overdue for quite a while now. It's a bit messy, but not terribly so. If you could help, I'd much appreciate it. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears this has been closed meanwhile. —Nightstallion (?) 05:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

VoteQuestion

Is there a closing date for the poll on Talk:Wladyslaw II Jagiello? The thing has been going for ages with pretty much the same result and no-one has come to close it. Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey again. Can I take it then from your silence that I should ask someone else? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry; yeah, that would be best, I'm pretty stressed already, I'm afraid. —Nightstallion (?) 05:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Cactions bug

Thanks for your bug report. Despite being on holiday in sunny SoCal, I've managed to find time to make the following bugfixes:

• Hash/URL anchor symbol (#) bug replaced. No longer parsed through to history pages, etc.
• Caction links on redirected pages now point to the correct page (not the redirect page)

If you find any more, let me know, although I make no promises of fixing them while soaking up the sun! haz (user talk) 00:27, 23 July 2006

Wonderful, thanks! —Nightstallion (?) 05:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

IG Farben Building

Many thanks for your support - I've amended the article as per your suggestion. --Mcginnly | Natter 03:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done. :) —Nightstallion (?) 05:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject Newsletter - Issue V - July 2006

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter Issue V - July 2006
Project news Two new task forces have been started: Indian military history and Japanese military history. Clarified explanations for the three levels of the importance scale are now available. Monthly assessment statistics are now being compiled. The recently promoted Aleksandr Vasilevsky is the project's one hundredth featured article. We have obtained the services of a bot to assist with the newsletter delivery; much thanks to Grafikm fr for setting this up.	Current proposals and discussions A new round of project coordinator elections has been proposed. The general intent is to increase the number of assistant coordinators from two to six. All project members are invited to comment on the proposal! A discussion about standardizing military unit categories is ongoing. A proposal to require mulitple reviewers for A-Class status seems to have support, but will likely depend on the election of additional coordinators. The creation of a German military history task force has been proposed, but needs further input.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot.

Republicanism in Sweden

Hi! You put an internal comment into this article, which reads "NOT THE CASE: in Sweden republicans are definitely in the majority, but they have a long-standing agreement with monarchists to maintain the status quo". That does, indeed, fit in with the article from the Monarchist Alliance I've found, but would you happen to have any sources regarding your statements (1. majority of republicans, 2. agreement to maintain status quo)? I'd be very interested in this. Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion (?) 08:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I probably could find a source, but it would be in Swedish. Is that allowed? (I suspect not.) Anyway, if a Swedish language source would be useable, give me a shout. (I don't have much spare time at mo.) --Mais oui! 08:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be better than nothing, aye. Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion (?) 08:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th

The Wikipedia Signpost

Volume 2, Issue 30	24 July 2006	About the Signpost

From the editor: Special report, writers wanted
Another country reportedly blocks Wikipedia	School files suit against anonymous user(s)
Meetups And Newsworthy International Assemblages	Wikipedia featured in The New Yorker
Election officials named to handle vote for board seat	Report from the German Wikipedia
News and Notes: Biographies of living persons, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	The Report On Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 03:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

blank world map

Hi Nightstallion, how is this for showing dependencies?, from your request at Wikipedia:Blank maps --Astrokey44 09:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks wonderful! Thanks a lot! —Nightstallion (?) 09:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Updates for Nevis article

Hi Nightstallion, Thank you so much for you kind support and encouragement. The main issue with the Nevis article was that it did not seem to be comprehensive enough for featured status, or I could have polished it off with ease even while traveling. All the smaller issues raised during the nomination process were taken care of by David and myself right away. But adding large sections of text takes longer, because of the need for proper sources, so I figured the article would probably have to be renominated later on. I wasn't sure how long the nomination stays active. I just finished reading six peer reviewed articles about research conducted into Nevisian culture by ethnomusicologists and anthropologists, so I'm ready to do that section tonight. I have already finished the expansion of the economy section and the recent history section, as per requests on the nomination page. I think culture is all we have left to do now. To be perfectly honest, I'm not too familiar with the featured status process. Is the previous nomination page closed or do I add more text there to let the posters know the changes they requested have been completed? Best wishes, Pia 12:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You simply move the previous FAC page to "PRIORNAME 2" and create a new nomination at the same location. Good luck! BTW, since you seem to be rather knowledgeable about Nevis (to understate it ;)): When can we expect another attempt at secession? —Nightstallion (?) 12:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your help. Much appreciated! About secession: the new administration's plans are anybody's guess. Mr. Parry has changed his mind too many times to be predictable. PAM has already made statements in the press about the close cooperation to be expected between NRP and PAM in the next federal election. (As a matter of fact, PAM will need the NRP in order to get back in power. Labour is too strong in St. Kitts to be defeated without a coalition between NRP and PAM.) I don't think Parry would turn down the chance to be Prime Minister, but I think PAM would have to offer him just that in order for NRP to swallow, hook, line and sinker, the idea of cooperation and radical constitutional reform, especially if the reform would affect section 113 and make future independence difficult to achieve. After all, secession was the fundamental issue on which the party was initially formed. As you might know, there was no love between Simeon Daniel (the "old" NRP) and Joseph Parry of the "new" NRP. When Daniel retired, a lot of NRP supporters felt out of touch with the direction the party took. Those who didn't join the opposition are still a grassroot source of resistance to the policy of reform over secession. We'll have to wait and see what happens next. Best, Pia 12:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Your /notes page

===>Another improbable union Don't forget Senegambia. Who knows - that might happen before Romoldova. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:45, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that one. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 06:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)