User talk:Danlaycock/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Magic number

What is your interpretation of the magic number? Kingjeff (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to explain this at Talk:2012 Toronto FC season, but basically a magic number of 0 or less means that the team has been mathematical eliminated from the playoffs. However, if their magic number is not zero you can't say that they aren't eliminated yet. It's possible that a team can be mathematically eliminated before their magic number reaches zero. Let's suppose that standings are like this:

{{Fb cl header|noqr=yes}}
{{Fb cl2 team|p=1 |t=[[Sporting Kansas City]]|w=19|d=5 |l=10}}
{{Fb cl2 team|p=2 |t=[[Chicago Fire Soccer Club|Chicago Fire]]|w=18|d=5 |l=11}}
{{Fb cl2 team|p=3 |t=[[New York Red Bulls]]|w=17|d=7 |l=10}}
{{Fb cl2 team|p=4 |t=[[Houston Dynamo]]|w=15|d=9 |l=10}}
{{Fb cl2 team|p=5 |t=[[Columbus Crew]]|w=15|d=6 |l=12}}
{{Fb cl2 team|p=5|t=[[Toronto FC]]|w=15 |d=6 |l=13}}
{{Fb cl2 team|p=6 |t=[[D.C. United]]|w=15|d=5 |l=13}}
{{Fb cl footer}}

so TFC finished their season with 51 points (I never said this was a realistic scenario!) and DC and CLB have one game left against each other. TFC's magic number versus CLB is 34 × 3 + 1 − 51 − (34 × 3 − 51) = 1. However, since the only possible scenarios for the last game of the season are:

• a) CLB wins and finishes 5th with with 54pts
• b) DC wins and finishes 5th with 53pts
• c) a tie and CLB finishes 5th with 52 points

it is mathematically impossible for TFC to make the playoffs even though their magic number is >0. No matter what the score of the final game, TFC can't make the playoffs. If it's impossible for them to make the playoffs, then they've been eliminated even though their magic number is >0. The main point is that the magic number can only tell you if a team has been eliminated, it can't tell you if a team hasn't been eliminated.

Here's the best analogy I can think of off the top of my head. Let's say that by law a person must be 16 years old to drive. If I tell you that I'm 14 you can say for certain that I can't legally drive. But if I tell you that I'm 21 you can't say for certain that I can legally drive since you don't know whether I've got my drivers license. So while being younger than 16 means that I can't drive, being older than 16 doesn't mean I can drive. Likewise, a magic number less than or equal to zero means the team is eliminated, but a magic number greater than zero doesn't mean that a team isn't yet eliminated. TDL (talk) 08:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The arguement on the talk page is basically September 6 vs. September 12 to October 20. Kingjeff (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Experienced user

Could you please help me with the city and province of Izmir? Templates on "see". Thanks in advance and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done - For your reference, to do this you just need to add:

{{about|"topic of current article"|"topic of other article"|"name of other article"}} →

This page is about "topic of current article". For "topic of other article", see "name of other article".

to the top of the article. TDL (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Please have some Turkish coffee, freshly served. --E4024 (talk) 19:29, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Move request pertaining to Ivory Coast sub-articles

– Fayenatic London 15:24, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Danlaycock. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football.
Message added 07:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rather than edit war, I've take the issue up at the project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

New calédonia

Hello

1/Why did you choose to talk about what you don't understand?

If you read the "accord de Nouméa" it say than WE people of new-Caledonia will choose the future of OUR country between 2014 and 2018 ;The discution about the flag was about show it on the mayors offices or not (for your information not all the mayor offices show it some of theme only show the France flag) IT IS NOT THE OFFICIAL FLAG AND NEW CALEDONIA IS STILL PART OF FRANCE.

2/why you choose to ignore people who are concerned

It is not the first time some people from other country choose to trust what they see on the net (witch mean nothing than we can trust). You just increase tensions here whit wrong informations for that you are clearly responsible so when it is gonna explode (and it will thanks to you and other of the same kind ...)i will send you pictures and documents so you can see what you've done from your country in your comfortable office ...

3/Why you undo things about a country that is on the other side of earth.

I don't even care about your country (the genocide of Tasmania, the civil war, ...) why don't you do the same. Or maybe your are omnipotent and knows every things just with your spirits, in this case may i call you god ... but in if not just try to talk about what you know it will be the best for the rest of the human kind.

so thanks again for you infinite knowledge... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzu (talk • contribs) 03:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't know everything. Fortunately, I do know how to read so I can find things out. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that information must be verified by a reliable source in order to be included. In this case, according to The Daily Telegraph (a highly reliable source) "the New Caledonian Congress overwhelmingly voted to adopt the emblem of the indigenous movement, which features red, blue and green stripes with a yellow sun and black totem, as the nation's second official flag." Is the Telegraph wrong? It's entirely possible. But if that's the case, then you need to provide a reliable source which supports your argument. As it stands, we have The Telegraph (a highly reliable source) saying it's a second official flag versus you (an anonymous poster on the internet) saying it's not. As you rightly said, we can't trust everything we read on the internet and this applies to your comments as well. If you want to change the article, you need to cite reliable sources which support your argument.

All I care about is accuracy. If the FLNKS flag isn't official, then show me sources which state this and I'd happily remove it. However, accusing me of inciting race riots really isn't the most productive way of trying to convince me that the article is wrong. TDL (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Try this [1] because the daily telegraph is (a highly reliable source) only for you because they don't have any offices here the government does and you will see that they are talking about the flag only on the mayor office and not all of theme ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzu (talk • contribs) 04:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I find this for you [2] i think i'm gonna change the flag of UK according to this "reliable source" and if you have answer for me then you can on my own talk page ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonzu (talk • contribs) 05:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Um, did you even read that link? It says that it's the Flag of Nottinghamshire, not the Flag of the United Kingdom. And that website isn't reliable.

As for your first link, where does it say that it's not the official flag? That meeting was held on July 27, and states that in line with the previous resolution from July 13 (which is the one the Times was referring to) they decided to hoist two flags. That doesn't contradict the Times source. TDL (talk) 05:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Stability Mechanism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simple majority (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

European Fiscal Compact

Copying from the talk page, in case you didn't notice:

[...], Corsica needs to be painted dark blue on the map.

I also found out that the deutsche bank research publishes periodically an update to what has happened with the fiscal compact so far, which also includes a table with the progess of "debt brake" laws, i.e. the implementation laws in each country. The latest one can be found here: [3] and we can use it accordingly. Newer versions will probably be posted here: [4].

If you can, please update the map, and let's discuss on the article's talk page about the implementation laws? Or, you can be bold and add some table or column about them being enacted in each state or not. Heracletus (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

edit

Hi, regarding your edit[5] there is clearly no consensus for your variant as well, since you reverted another user edit to get, more importantly your variant was un sourced, since both sources didn't mentioned the application from 2011 at all, which is why I added a sourced variant. I don't mind discussing it where you'll provide your source/variant, but please restore the sourced material, you can a dubious tag to the discussion.--Mor2 (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The 2011 membership application is mentioned in the first source, which is linked after "largely symbolic". If you'd like to add another source, that's fine. But please don't change the wording until there is a WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page to make this change. TDL (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your edit summary at United Nations General Assembly observers."Israel maintain sovereignty over Palestinian Territories according to who?" - according to everyone! If they didn't then those Territories wouldn't be occupied ...--Mor2 (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what the term sovereignty means? Military occupation specifically says: "Military occupation is effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity." By definition, they can't occupy it if it's under their own sovereignty. These are two entirely different statuses. TDL (talk) 20:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I doubt that you won't agree that Israel maintains 'independent authority over the area', so IMO they key issues as presented in your quote, lies in the "Under 'formal sovereignty" part i.e. much like the Jordanians beforehand they are have sovereign powers, but they never was recognized as such, which is why they are dimmed an occupying power.

On an unrelated note, thanks for fixing those grammar mistake at 194. --Mor2 (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree with most of your comment. However, given the vagueness of the term "sovereignty" I still think that it's oversimplistic to state without qualification that "Israel maintain sovereignty over Palestinian Territories". For instance, Sovereignty#De_jure_and_de_facto says: "It is generally held that sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power..." Do we really want or need to get into all these details? It's better to just remove the statement entirely as you suggested on the talk page since it really doesn't add anything to the topic of the article. TDL (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that it's better to just remove the statement entirely. I commented on the point of sovereignty, because I am involved in a similar discussion about the ottoman being the 'last recognized sovereign' and wanted to make sure that I haven't missed any counter arguments. Sorry for the little of topic.--Mor2 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

latvian euro coins

I uploaded this files from latvian national bank website when design of coins was updated. i am unable to upload pictures with better quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aight 2009 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The original images on the Latvian national bank website seem to be broken as well. However, I've managed to figure out the problem and fix it. TDL (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Withdrawal from the European Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TEU (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Latvian euro coins

Design of 1€ and 2€ coins has been changed again. Could you upload this picture in right way? http://api.ning.com/files/tk14k37sb1K0xXQ-*m6DdtE1lwleqyCnrEfqFZKhYXvj8aRCiDgJ8hO*AvnodmoEXcUM0u1lwNE6El5KYTgv9n6KjSSMEseW/latvianew2euro.jpg http://api.ning.com/files/ZkPg*VLW4CxNmJl7Jvmxhx4ac7w4VVI4a6rmanv3Y9hVisi5YsdfIuKbOAarBArFXM4oTpC20nZL-Tq3ffykrOGsN7mzmW4*/latvianew1euro.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aight 2009 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Thanks for letting me know about the update! TDL (talk) 01:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

EU seccessionist scenarios

Why did you undo my edit? Lucinda Creighton's comments, regardless of whether or not they're mentioned in another article, are just as relevant to the Future enlargement of the European Union#Secessionist scenarios article as any of the other viewpoints listed there. Don't be selective; if the ones that are already there are relevant, so are Creighton's. Zcbeaton (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Because the controversy over whether her words were misrepresented or not by Better Together has no relevance to the topic of the article (what would happen if they separated). Future enlargement of the European Union is a WP:SUMMARY article about the topic of states adopting the euro in the future. All the details are covered in more depth at Scottish independence referendum, 2014. TDL (talk)

Turkish accession to the EU

Thanks for your last edit. You spared me some work. (I was just on it. :-) --E4024 (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem! TDL (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Typos

Apologies if you feel like you spend all your time correcting my mistakes. I'll have to try being less careless. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

My thoughts precisely. No one likes to be put down for a simple typo after investing lots of hard work and thousands of edits into the project. I'll drop it, but please try to be more considerate in the future and think before calling other editor's typos "terrible". We're all here doing are best to improve the project. TDL (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Serbia's reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kosovo declaration of independence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sentence

This is quite ok. Former version is very much not ok. Thank you for your help. --WhiteWriter^speaks 10:19, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem! Glad we could find a compromise. TDL (talk) 18:04, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your message

Hey Danlaycock, sorry I missed your message on my talk page (this is User:Ryan Vesey by the way). As you can see from my most recent message on my talk page, I'm fairly busy and am taking an extended script enforced wikibreak. I'll try to address your issue when I come back, if you want someone to look at it in the meantime, I'd suggest Drmies. I doubt he's not busy, but of the competent administrators I know, he's the least busy. His talk page is well watched as well, so you'd be sure to find someone who could address it.165.123.232.169 (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not necessarily looking for administrator action (that's one of the reasons I messaged you), just a fresh voice to help emphasize WP:NOT since my efforts in the last 6 months have been completely unsuccessful and I'm getting quite frustrated dealing with it alone. It's not urgent, so I'll probably just wait till you're back if you're willing to help out. TDL (talk) 03:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion about the flag of Western Sahara

Hello there. Seeing as you took part in this RfC in December 2011/January 2012 about the contents of our article Flag of Western Sahara, you might be interested in this ANI discussion on the subject, or on the latest thread at the Flag of Western Sahara talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

I give you this Ukraine Barnstar for your successful efforts to make Ukraine–European Union relations a better Wikipedia article. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 22:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition! TDL (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Montenegro recognition

I've noticed your hidden note that certain states are "missing from both main sources". Can you clarify this? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

It just means that they aren't listed on Montenegro's MFA master list of recognizers which we link to at the top of the column, either in English or Montenegrin: [6], [7]. Presumably this is just because they haven't been keeping good records, as the English list especially is missing a lot of countries. TDL (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, Ghana and Swaziland are certainly on the Serbo-Croatian one, though they lack dates. Look for "Gana" and "Svazi". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Well yes of course they're ON the list. EVERY state is on both the lists. They just aren't listed as recognizing/establishing relations with Montenegro on either list. TDL (talk) 11:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Latvian euro

Let me rephrase - I was suggesting you reword the sentence, because prime minister cannot offer to hold a referendum. Under normal circumstances referendums are held either by popular request or request of half of a parliament. There is some anti-Euro sentiment going and one member of the parliament made unsuccessful attempt to push for referendum, but she couldn't gather enough votes from rest of the parliament. Meanwhile the prime minister, although he is working hard to get into Eurozone next year, hasn't really tried to do anything about it, he just expressed concern that it could mess up his grand plan, which probably is what WSJ refers to ~~Xil (talk) 03:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

But the PM can offer to hold a referendum. Yes, he can't unilaterally declare that there will be a referendum because this offer would need to be approved by a majority in the parliament, but I don't see how that contradicts with what I wrote. That being said, I'm certainly open to rewording the sentence. Take a look at my latest revision and let me know what you think. TDL (talk) 05:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, so can I, the only difference is that more people might listen to him :) But anyways, now it's much better, thank you! ~~Xil (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Accession of Croatia to the European Union

Actually it does not contradict the sources which is why I went for the rewording trying to achieve consensus in first place because we have numerous sources contradicting the one provided by the EU council...are you telling me now that you still don't agree with it even after my last edits? As you can see from the article you quoted to me it says: "only upon fulfillment of that conditions the Accession Treaty can be considered officially ratified". 'Ratification process completed' is referring to the legal process in each respective country and it's completion in each and every of those respective countries legal and executive framewok. Which is why I made the distinction between what is considered 'officially ratified' and those who have completed the process but have yet not deposited the instruments of ratification and thus 'officially ratifying it'. Now I don't see what exactly is the big issue here for you since the distinction is clear and clarifies between the process in each respective country and the overall process within the EU (which are closely tied but two different things).

And I am not sure on what ground do you call upon WP:CONSENSUS since I still see the article being edited by numerous other users who do not only present two different POV's, but at least 3-4 different POV's. Also, WP:BRD is not a policy which can be called upon when reverting someone or discussing issues and furthermore it certainly does not even apply to my changes since I didn't assert anything or made a unsupported claim since we have sources such as this: [8] [9][10] [11]

I am willing to discuss this but not in way where you will dismiss me by basically stating 'You are wrong and I am right'. That is not how Wikipedia works. Shokatz (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that you're new here, so I'll WP:AGF that this explains your misunderstanding of wikipedia's policies. BRD doesn't just apply when you think your edits aren't supported by sources. It applies to ALL edits, even if you're sure your edits are correct. Changes can only be made to the article if they are supported by a WP:CONSENSUS. As your edits have been reverted, this clearly indicates that there is not a consensus to make them. As you are the editor who is proposing a change to the long-term, status quo structure of the article (which has been around for months), it is YOUR responsibility to demonstrate that your changes are supported by a consensus by starting a discussion on the talk page. Otherwise, the long-term status quo version must be restored as per WP:NOCONSENSUS. Continuing to make the same edit, over and over again, without consensus is WP:DISRUPTIVE. Like it or not, that is precisely how wikipedia works.

I'm more than happy to discuss this with you, but when you attempt to bully others by WP:EW your desired changes into the article without consensus, that is hardly helpful to the consensus making process.

And yes, I still disagree with your revision because you are claiming that their "Ratification process completed" when this is clearly false. As I explained to you in the edit summary, the internal procedures are merely a way to give the government the authority to ratify the treaty. Deposition the instruments of ratification is FUNDAMENTAL to ratification. No deposit, no ratification. It seems that you now accept that these states haven't' "officially" completed ratification of the treaty. So are you now arguing that they have "unofficially" completed ratification? Do you have any sources that support your claim that they their "ratification process completed"? None of the sources you've listed above state that these states have completed ratification. I'm not disputing that they have started the ratification process, so of course these sources are irrelevant to this discussion and don't contradict anything.

If you prefer official polices, you should consult WP:3RR, which you are currently in violation of. Please restore the status quo version so that we can discuss your proposed changes. Otherwise I'll be forced to report you for edit warring, for which you would likely be blocked. TDL (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've move the discussion to Talk:Accession of Croatia to the European Union. Let's keep it there. TDL (talk) 02:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all if I am in violation of WP:3RR so are you. The fact is I am not in violation of 3RR as I reverted your edits 3 times exactly. Before that I reverted myself and after that additionally I reverted another user's unsourced claim, both of which do not count toward 3RR as per WP:3RR. Second, there is no WP:CONSENSUS ("status quo") version of that article as can be seen even by your own edits/reverts here: [12] [13]. Now either you are confused or you don't even know what is the this alleged "status quo" of the article you are talking about. So please do not false accuse me and do not post warnings at my talk page anymore. If you have issues with my edits contact an admin to mediate or if you find me in violation (or think I am in one) report me at the appropriate place.

Anyway your statement "the internal procedures are merely a way to give the government the authority to ratify the treaty" is just pure and simply false. The internal ratification process is performed by the government of those respective countries. This is what I am trying to clarify here, there are two different process': 1. the internal govt. process of ratification of each country and 2. the ratification (deposit of the instruments of ratification) confirmation at the EU instruments which then considers the "ratification process completed" (at the EU level). These are two different things.

And finally, my edits have been in good fight, but you seem overly aggressive over this issue so as I don't have the will or the stomach to go through this if you are not willing to discuss it. I will withdraw myself and you can then freely change the article to whatever "status quo" version you want to....if you find out which one that is... And one last thing to reiterate....please do not post warnings at my talk page again pretending to be an admin or whatever.

And one other thing, since you seem to be confused about this as well. WP:BRD is NOT a policy in any sense. You would do well to read Wikipedia:BRD#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not. Shokatz (talk) 03:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not in violation of 3RR as I've only made 3 reverts, which is less than 4. You've made 4 reverts, which is greater than or equal to 4. If it helps, we can count them together: [14], [15], [16], [17]. Here's a hint on how you can tell that they're all reverts: the edit summaries all contain either "rv" or "undid". And no, "I reverted another user's unsourced claim" isn't a valid excuse under WP:3RRNO. If it was, then I'd just keep undoing your unsourced claim that the ratifications are complete.

A quick check reveals that the structure that I reverted to has been around since last year. Yours has been around for a couple hours. If you can't understand which of these is the "status quo" version, then I'm not sure what to tell you. (My first revision, which you linked to above, wasn't to the status quo version because I didn't object to the merging of the "Preliminary" and "not yet" groups. I only undid the part of the edit which I objected to.)

And once again, despite your accusations of bad faith, I'm more than happy to discuss this issue with you. (I did start a thread on the talk page after all...) But you need to respect the WP:CONSENSUS building process and refrain from making your controversial changes until a consensus is established for them. Edit warring your dubious claims into the article against consensus, insisting that your new version is retained in the absence of consensus, and demanding that others discuss it's removal with you, isn't how consensus for change is established.

At your request, in the future I won't warn you about problematic edits, and will instead just directly report you to the appropriate location. Though I'm not sure why you thought I was an admin, because I certainly wasn't "pretending" to be one. TDL (talk) 04:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You would do well to carefully read WP:3RR. As I have pointed out to you both: [18] and [19] do not count toward 3RR, ok? And yes reverting unsourced claims is a completely valid excuse under WP:3RRNO which you can see under #7. WP:3RR applies only when two or more sides are included in the dispute and continue to revert each other. Here we don't even have two different versions of the article. I would also suggest that when you revert someone that you should then at least explain what and why are you doing as you reverting my changes to two different versions of the article seems not just to me, but to any outsider, like a revert just to revert.

And I have already said there is nothing to do discuss. I won't participate in editing of that article anymore and so you can go and bully whatever "status quo" version of the article you want. And yes, I would appreciate you not going around pretending to be an admin posting false accusations and warning on other people's pages. Cheers. Shokatz (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you've claimed that those two edits don't count towards 3RR, but that's just simply not true. Before lecturing me on policies, you should really take the time to read them more carefully for yourself, as you've quite obviously misunderstood them. As #7 at WP:3RRNO makes clear, it is ONLY applicable to articles falling under WP:BLP restrictions. So unless you're seriously trying to argue that either Croatia or the European Union is a homo sapien, then this obviously does not apply to your 3RR violating edits on Accession of Croatia to the European Union. And no, the reverts don't have be reverting to the same version: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material".

Also, I've quite clearly explained my rational for reverting in my edit summaries and on your/my talk page numerous times. I get that you don't understand my rational, but to suggest that I didn't explain it is just plain silly. You are welcome to review my explanation above, or on your talk page, if you still don't understand why I object to your edit. TDL (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Fiscal Compact, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simple majority (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The source is very clear Serbia says Kosovo is eligible for EU

EU is for independent countries! http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/19/us-serbia-kosovo-eu-idUSBRE93I0IB20130419 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty786 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

No they haven't. Please read the discussion at Talk:International_recognition_of_Kosovo#Erm.2C_brace_yourselves_for_the_eS_to_hit_the_fan... and get a consensus before continuing to add this disputed content to the article. TDL (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Please follow this, i am afraid that it must be reported. But i dont have any time, please you do it. I am off wiki... --WhiteWriter^speaks 17:41, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Unhappy with your Domination!

Romania has dropped their 2015 goal as it is untenable. I don't know what supporting documentation you are talking about as I have not found it but the documantation within this article supports dropping the 2015 goal as I have indicated. Please see my reference which you have deleted for proof of the new goal for Lithuania. I dont's think you should have exclusive rights to change other peoples work if you cannot substantiate it. Briefzehn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle (talk • contribs) 21:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

The source I'm using as a reference is the one at the very top of the column in the template: [20]. It still lists these old dates. I'm not sure which source you're referring to, as I've never deleted any that you added. Just because a country has admitted that their target date is no longer realistic, doesn't mean that it isn't still formally their "official target date". And while Lithuania has an unofficial goal of 2015, there is no evidence that this is their official "national target date". Until we have sources to show that the "official target date" have changed, we should keep the old dates. I'm certainly not trying to dominate the article, I simply disagree with your change. You're welcome to start a discussion on the talk page, or follow one of the steps at WP:DR such as seeking a WP:3O, if you disagree. TDL (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Stop labeling information you don't like as copyrighted material

Stop labeling information you don't like as copyrighted material. That one sentence you edited out is not copyrighted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilaljshahid (talk • contribs) 03:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether I "like" the material or not. The issue is that you've WP:PLAGiarised the text from [21]. That's a WP:COPYVIO. If you continue to add the plagiarised content to the article, I'll be forced to report you, and you will likely be blocked. TDL (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The sentence you are editing out does not appear anywhere in the article you linked to as the "source". It is not plagiarised content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bilaljshahid (talk • contribs) 04:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

What you wrote:

• "...makes sense for a country with limited nuclear resources and limited capability to fight a conventional war against a larger adversary not to renounce the option to use nuclear weapons first."

What the source says:

• "...makes sense for a country with limited nuclear resources and limited capability to fight a conventional war against a larger adversary not to renounce the option to use nuclear weapons first."

That's quite clearly been plagiarised. Plagiarised content is not allowed on wikipedia due to the possible legal implications. I'm going to remove it one more time, please don't restore it. If you do, I'll be forced to request administrator intervention at WP:ANI. TDL (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Koov

I don't have time to file a SPI right now, but Kooparupa (talk · contribs)? Yeah. Cheers... Doc talk 23:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup, it's definitely him. I'll submit a report (not that it ever slows him down much). Nice to know I'm the resident Koov expert on wiki! TDL (talk) 04:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Heh! Yeah, the usernames are just another thumbing of his nose at us all. He's not going to stop; but we're not going to give up on stopping him, either. See you next time! Cheers :) Doc talk 06:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello

I have a personal user talk page where you can raise your concerns of feeling patronized, analyzed (as you wrote I act as your personal psychologist) or stalked by me (even though I was not aware of or involved in your initial report on Danish Expert and only got involved in ANI because you asked me to consider doing this on my talk page), and preferably do so in a few sentences and not a wall of text with "relevant examples". On the other hand, you just obviously feel you have an issue with me and came here to raise it. I don't really know what triggered this sore feeling, but, you should either let it go or go report yourself, according to wikipedia's policies you already are so aware of.

I will even provide you, even though I don't have to, with another explanation as to why I happened to be in the Latvia and the euro article. This article used to be the Latvian euro coins article, and I am personally interested in euro coins as a collector, so, I was there because I enjoy looking at them. Then, I noticed the extra non-coins section, which led me to the talk page and your most recent, at that time, dispute with Danish Expert. Now, please, stop harassing me (you even kind of acknowledge you're doing it). You may keep arguing on wikipedia against any arguments I make debating anything, but, stop doing so because you feel there's some personal issue or involving some personal elements. You know you don't own the Treaty of Accession 2011 article and that my edits there had nothing to do with your editing it for a year. I don't think I reverted you there or engaged with you in some other way, until you first decided to reply to me in the article's talk page.

Please, also, reply, if you wish, on my talk page. Heracletus (talk) 08:52, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Heracletus, as I've explained to you several times now, I did not go to that article to raise issues with you. I've been regularly editing the article for over a year now, with my last edit to the talk page only 3 weeks ago in the thread directly above the one you started. You, on the other hand, had never edited Latvia and the euro, were not previously involved in the dispute, but showed up out of the blue to continue harassing DE and I and to push the personal issues which you clearly have against us. I fail to understand why you think the former is unacceptable while the latter is perfectly appropriate.

I've attempted to ignore your persistent nagging and personalizing of debates for the last 6 months, but it really isn't appropriate. If you disagree with the content of my (or DE's) edits, then tell us that. But there is absolutely no need to make each and every one of your responses an opportunity to tell us how bad we are for not agreeing with each other 100% of the time. Comments like this and this in response to content disputes are disruptive to the consensus making process and do more to antagonize the participants then resolve the issue.

Please follow the advice at WP:WIAPA: "When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." While I often disagree with DE, I do try to focus on the content of his contributions, rather than the contributor, unless the issue is serious enough that it warrants further investigation (as did the ongoing ANI case). If you have an issue with my (or DE's) behaviour, you are welcome to take it to he appropriate forum, but lecturing us about how we are "bad boys" in every one of your responses isn't the appropriate way to deal with the situation. TDL (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for NOT replying on my own talk page. I explained to you how I landed on that page, and I gave a link (on the ANI you opened for Danish Expert) proving my interest on the general topic. I admit I was a bit not too happy with your constant online arguments\debates\fighting with Danish Expert, that's why I raised my issues with both of you, again and again. Anyone who will read this, in conjunction with another 5(?) arguments between the two of you, of which at least 2 are really long, and at least one restyling battle over the style of a simple phrase ("The treaty entered into force on 1 January 2013 for the 16 states which completed ratification prior of this date\that completed ratification prior of this date\which had completed their ratification\having completed ratification prior of this date."), example here, will know enough to understand why I made comments over who owns the article and pop corn.

However, I never came to another article to declare "That belongs on the WP:LAME hall of fame.", then be told that I have irrelevant personal issues, and then reply "When you repeatedly stalk and personally attack editors (not just me) you shouldn't be surprised if they take it personally." This probably proves you were indeed there for the personal issue. However, TDL, even though this may frustrate you, I think I must stop feeding you with replies, as it clearly leads to even more conflict. Feel free to disregard this comment and have a nice time. Heracletus (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you explained your general interest in the topic, but in spite of your tall tale above about just happening to come across the discussion by chance ("..so, I was there because I enjoy looking at them. Then, I noticed the extra non-coins section, which led me to the talk page and your most recent, at that time, dispute with Danish Expert.") it's pretty obvious to any uninvolved editor how you discovered our discussion on that specific article. The discussion had been going on for nearly two weeks, during which time you were actively editing many other articles, only for you to suddenly show up out of the blue a couple hours after I left a message on DE's talk page about the dispute. You obviously saw that message, and saw an opportunity to continue stalking us and lecturing us on how we are "bad boys" (your words). You seemingly admit above that you have negative personal animosity towards us ("not too happy with your constant online arguments.")

I fail to see anything wrong with the message here. You may think the issue is minor, but obviously DE felt it was important enough to revert my edit. Instead of repeatedly edit warring to try to force my minor change into the article (as you did with insulting edit summaries at Treaty of Accession 2011: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30]) and instead of leaving a condescending note on the talk page suggesting that editors who disagree with my minor changes are irrational (like you did at Talk:Treaty_of_Accession_2011#Rationality_issues) I left a polite explanation on the talk page detailing why I thought the change was necessary. That's precisely how disputes are supposed to be resolved, and you could really learn some lessons from how I dealt with that situation, instead of using it as some sort of "evidence" in your WP:BATTLE to prove that I'm a "bad boy". Anyone who saw all the WP:LAME edit warring and attacks you made at Treaty of Accession 2011 would understand why I responded to your behaviour in the manor that I did.

I really think you should move onto more productive things. When you focus on content, you arguments are usually pretty well thought out, though you should try to be less verbose. (WP:MWOT responses like [31] or [32] pretty much guarantee you won't get the response you are looking for. Even though I supported your position in that discussion at the beginning, I couldn't be bothered to read all that.) But you take things far too personally. Wikipedia is a massive social environment, and people aren't always going to get along 100% of the time, but it's not your responsibility to play "bad boy" police. While DE and I have had our disputes, in the grand scheme of things it really isn't that serious. We are both acting in good faith trying to improve the encyclopedia, we behave civily when we disagree, and our disputes almost exclusively revolve around content. You've obviously not been around very long, because there are way more serious disputes out there with people that are just trying to cause trouble. Neither one of us has ever even had to be blocked (though I see that you've got some history there) and there hasn't even been the need to protect an article because we work our disputes out on the talk page. You always complain about the length of our discussion, but often it's you who inflames and prolongs disputes with your personalizations of discussion and attempts to blame people. Just because two people don't always agree with each other, doesn't mean they are "bad boys", and doesn't mean someone needs to be blamed. Disputes are a natural part of the consensus making process. TDL (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

TDL, has it really not occured to you that if indeed I was stalking any of you, I would have dropped there immediately and not after 2 weeks of arguments? I gave you a full explanation of what and why and you still keep backing a scenario you made in your mind that just did not happen. And, while at it, you keep attacking me personally and also assume bad faith. I called you bad boys (read it as a more humourous description, unless you are indeed still a boy) in another article and explained why, I found your actions on that article not too good, especially the senseless revert of a phrase from one valid form to another valid form, as detailed above. On the other hand, you instantly dropped into the Treaty of Accession 2011 talk section that I started and started by making it personal.

Your analysis on my edits and edit summaries is wrong according to my opinion, because they are referring to different things edited. In addition, has someone appointed you a wikipedia teacher or you want to assume this position on your own? Because you do seem to be lecturing anyone who disagrees with you with any wikipedia policy you find it may fit, and write here "That's precisely how disputes are supposed to be resolved, and you could really learn some lessons from how I dealt with that situation, ..."

I do understand you may want to provoke me, but, sorry, it will not work. I love how you wrote you and DE behave civilly, while, at least DE has accused you of kinda stalking him. And, yes, you are right, I only joined wikipedia yesterday, please, do lecture me. On a serious note, you can go ask User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise to mediate, he's an excellent administrator and with lots and lots of experience. I'm sorry you found the term bad boy so insulting. I mean, after the movie of the same name, I thought you wouldn't. But, since you did, I hereby retract it.

I'm sorry I got blocked more than five years ago for disruptive actions (edit warring) on Kosovo, a highly disputed article at the time. I assume, you just happened to come across my block log while editing something on your watch list and you're indeed not stalking me at all? If you care so much, since you did mention "You've obviously not been around very long, because there are way more serious disputes out there with people that are just trying to cause trouble.", I've been in wikipedia since mid-2007. I didn't know this was a contest, though. Now, please, stop attacking me. I really did not intend to reply here, but, you keep accusing me of things and you even presented a whole scenario of how and why I got involved in a dispute 2 weeks after it started. Seriously, can you really believe I waited two weeks on Danish Expert's talk page for your comment and did not read Danish Expert's contributions in all that time to intervene earlier? Calm down and think about it again. Heracletus (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you are going to present a scenario so far outside the realm of believability I have no choice but to come to the conclusions presented above. There are currently 4,236,886 articles on wikipedia, and you just happened to be reading this one at just the right time while DE and I were in a dispute on it? Given that your message explicitly references the message I left for DE, it doesn't take a forensic investigation to realize that you stalked us there. Why you feel the need to makeup some story is really beyond me. If I happened to show up out of the blue at some eurovision article you were editing and fed you that story I have no doubt that you'd say it was unbelievable.

I have no interest in lecturing you. My only desire is for you stop stop lecturing and hounding others on how they don't meet to your expectations for politeness. (And you could really do well by trying to edit up to the standards you hold others to.) You will admit that I've been ignoring your stalking, condescending and belittling comments about me and others for months now, but it seemed clear that you were not going stop on your own so I told you to stop. You might find it "humourous" to repeatedly personal attack other editors, but the wikipedia community does not share this view. Such comments are not appropriate. Please comment on the content, not the contributors.

No I'm not a "wikipedia teacher" and I have no desire to be one. But when you demonstrate such lack of understood of policies I have no choice but to try to explain it. If I spot an obvious plagiarism problem, and you claim that it isn't an issue, how else can I respond but to point you to the policy and try to explain why it's a problem according to the policy? Speaking of which, based on your admission here that "it would totally be something I would myself add on wikipedia" and the consensus of those experts on the subject ([33] [34]) you might want to revise your editing practices to avoid plagiarising sources in the future, and perhaps even revisit your past edits to clenaup any instances of this.

As for your block log, while checking DE's to ensure that it was clean before leaving the comment above about our interactions, I also looked at yours to see if you upheld the virtues which you demand of us (and others). I see this is a sensitive issue for you... TDL (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Have a nice day, TDL. Heracletus (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)