User talk:Tomeasy/Archive2

date autoformatting

Tom, thanks for your message. Yes, I boldly acted at Netherlands, whereas I usually post a notice at the talk page for up to a week. I guess I'm lulled by the overall acceptance of, and in some cases enthusiasm for the removal of DA. You may be interested in reading the capped list of the disadvantages of DA at one of the talk pages (this would have appeared at the talk page). Please let me know how you feel about it.

Interestingly, I arrived at that article from the Dutch WP (I don't speak Dutch, but am interested in the langauge). There, DA is never used, of course, although I notice that the Dutch WP has lots of linked years, which engWP now firmly deprecates. Tony (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, This is relevant, I think. There are other places, too. Tony (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure whether you're thinking of linked chronological items, including single years, and date autoformatting (DA) as one thing. They're really quite separate issues, but commonly misunderstood as a single one because the DA mechanism is, sadly, entagled with the linking mechanism, one of the worst programming decisions ever made, IMO. DA merely switches day and month, month and day, which is trivial for all its disadvantages. The MOSLINK link I provided does point to the deprecation of 1980 and the like, in the second bullet point. For DA, it's better to go to WP:MOSNUM, where there are two relevant sections (easy to find in the ToC). Please note that there are proposals to loosen the long-standing demands of MOSNUM for consistent date formatting throughout entire articles, which is widely ignored by editors. See MOSNUM talk for that. Let me know if we're still not talking about the same thing. Tony (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Il y a longtemps que je t'aime

I reply of your comment on the discussion page (that I remove because it's one clue of the movie) : He had a leukemia with any chance to survive... French Wikipedia Talk Page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freb-en (talk • contribs) 18:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A new task force under wikiproject Europe

Hello,

I've noticed that you are active in the area of Europe. I just wanted to let you know that a European Space Agency task force has been set up to improve the presently very poor condition of articles about ESA and related topics. If you are interested, please join the task force here. We sure could use your help. Thanks.U5K0 (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia introduction

HI Tomeasy.

I see you tried to improve the introduction to Georgia(country) article. Although I think what you are trying to do is nice, you have to agree that certain things that people put in the VERY introduction of the country page is not supposed to be there at all. In the very beginning there was a mentioning of NATO, then Geography of Azerbaijan and some criteria of qualifying as European. I find it outrageous that a country introduction begins with notes about NATO and Geography of Azerbaijan and comparisons between the geographies of two countries. Therefore, I reverted everything to status quo before certain people started disrupting the talk pages with their POV. I think it is unacceptable when a country is introduced in terms of it Geography and its qualifications for being European. There is not another article that begins that way.

Also, you must pay a lot of attention to the fact that during this Russo-Georgia conflict of 2008, there are a great number of "internet warriors" who try their best to deface the article and make it as confusing and less appealing as possible. Please keep that in mind. --Satt 2 (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with you. That's why I proposed to take these things out of the lead section. Therefore, I am a little bit irritated by the rude tone you use on my talk page. I do not see why; after all you should have been happy that someone opened a talk page section attributing the things that you do not like. Perhaps you should have better opened that section yourself. Tomeasy T C 19:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rude? I don't know how anything from what I said could be considered rude. And I did not know that you opened a separate section on the talk page either. I guess there is not a lot of opposition on this abandoned Georgia article and everyone does pretty much whatever they want. That is probably why every opposing thing is considered "rude." I am not sure.
However, I am sure that there are some anonymous IPs that do not hesitate to vandalize the page. The article was pretty much undisturbed and was under so called consensus that Georgia is transcontinental. However, after the above mentioned Russo-Georgia conflict began, certain people became very active and went on with putting country as middle eastern , and as one of the users told me in an email, to do it as means of "isolating it." I do not want to get political but what was happening in here for last week or so is not a news to anyone.--Satt 2 (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollingback

Hi there,

You might be interested in WP:RBK, it does help me to fight vandalism, so it might help you too.

Regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expressing your trust. I will let you know... Tomeasy T C 08:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome, enjoy it, I know it will be usefull the same it has been to me. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, thanks on the tip of the infobox, I did not know about the template, it is in my home page now as well. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags at European Union‎

I think the editor is a newbie, I left him a msg in his talk page, but seems like no attention ... I think is a nice idea, shame he did not finish his own work. Miguel.mateo (talk) 09:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Georgia

Fear not, this article is on the spotlight and any POV pushers will be quickly reverted. By the way, you may revert the same content 3 times in 24 hours, only the fourth reversion will activate WP:3RR. Regards, Húsönd 14:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xizer has been blocked for transgressing the WP:3RR. If the article starts to increasingly attract POV disruption, perhaps someone may ask the Arbcom to extend WP:ARBMAC to Caucasus-related articles. Anyway, everything's under control for the moment. Regards, Húsönd 16:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Spain

You are right. --Ignacio (talk) 09:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europe

The image "One way to define the regional groups of Europe" is more sensible than "Regional grouping according to the UN", because e. g. Austria does not situate in Western Europe (but in Central Europe), Czech Republic not in Eastern Europe (but in Central Europe) and Ireland not in Northern Europe (but in Western Europe).
--PKo (talk) 22:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, you find your personal way of grouping European countries more sensible than that of the UN. Well, then publish it in your personal sandbox. To the rest of the world the UN grouping is more relevant. It's not a question of what is more sensible.
Imagine, I am going to post my personal interpretation of the grouping, and 10 more people post their personal interpretations, all of which differ slightly. Would that still be sensible? Wikipedia says no, and therefore has implemented a strict policy against original research. Please read this policy.
If you do not agree with the policy, start a discussion at its talk page. Should you agree with the policy, but still think your map needs to be incorporated in the Europe article, then please start a discussion on the article's talk page. You may then also post your map at this talk page when you start the discussion. Nobody will revert it and many will perhaps appreciate that your grouping is quite sensible :-) Thanks. Tomeasy T C 07:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of the day

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jews in the so called 'western territories' annexed from Germany

If you're still intrested in the topic. Organizing Rescue p.283, 284. I still haven't found anything on the German Jews that originally lived in the areas, but the Polish government obviously settled large number of Polish and Soviet Jews there, pity about widespread popular antisemitism though.--Stor stark7 Speak 19:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal?

Sorry, it was a mistake... I just wanted to add the interwiki for ms and did not want to change any other data. --Tikar aurum (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Tomeasy T C 14:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel laureates and "countries"

I mentioned the article on Nobel laureates by country and the system you explained on the talk page, at this discussion (Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry), in case you are interested in participating there. Carcharoth (talk) 13:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comment on moving Maskawa

Dear Tomeasy, I do appologise for my action. However, please consider that spelling Maskawa does contradict the rules of Japanese transliteration. With all do respect to the wikipedia talk pages, please consult reliable sources. Japanese language does not have "s", only syllabi of s (su, sa, etc.). Indeed, "su" is often pronounced softly, omitting "u" (Daiske instead of Daisuke). However, this omission is not permitted in written language. Thus writing Maskawa (especially as a wikipedia article name) is quite same as writing Jon Smis for John Smith. Regards NIMSoffice (talk) 08:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The names guideline of Wikipedia is clear on that one. We have to use the version that is the most common in English language usage. No original research is needed here. As the Nobel committee refers to this scientist as Maskawa, an act that has been multiplied extensively through media coverage, we are bound to this version as it is obviously the one that is most commonly used to refer to him. Additionally, his most cited papers use the same transliteration Maskawa, so he was arguably know under this spelling even before being awarded the Nobel Prize. Also, when submitting those papers it was his own, personal decision to spell his name like this Maskawa in English. Who are we to teach all those people a lesson on the correct transliteration of Japanese syllabi?
If you disagree, please continue this thread at the respective talk page, because it is in deed relevant for the article and a strengthening our consensus there will be helpful for future queries. Tomeasy T C 09:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I destroyed your work without reading the background, but I (and someone else) already fixed this. No, I don't want to discuss freaks. Every now and then people choose to deviate from language rules, and Jons and Johns live happily together :) NIMSoffice (talk) 09:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon, but I do not understand the context of your first sentence. Further, do you call Maskawa a freak, because he uses an English spelling for his name that you consider wrong? Tomeasy T C 09:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant you were fighting for giving that page proper name, but I changed it without reading your efforts.. I would be happy to see discussion with Maskawa himself on this, because that is the only answer. My guess is he choose Maskawa in order non-japanese people pronounce his name correctly (indeed, "Maskawa" is closer to how japanese would call him than Masukawa, and even English dictors on NHK, the biggest Japanese TV network, often make a popular mistake by stressing "SU" in Daisuke (Matsuzaka), Kosuke (Kitajima), etc.). "Freak" here refers to a fact of deviation from grammar, not to a person. Cheers NIMSoffice (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated NBI

Have a look @ Nation branding all the best Lear 21 (talk) 19:04, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw it. It's improving steadily. Particularly, I am happy to see that the criteria for the index become clearer. Who knows, one day even the information the countries' score in the individual categories and the weights of these scores upon computing the final index will be disclosed. However, I think the current article provides a good picture of what the index is about. Congratulations! Tomeasy T C 06:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are seriously interested, I have a complete report. Send me an e-mail-address (I´ll delete it afterwards). all the best Lear 21 (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why so secretly? Can't you introduce the content on the article and put the reference as a note? Tomeasy T C 12:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it´s not an official document you´ll be able to find in the www right now. Lear 21 (talk) 14:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were the last two comments from you Lear? I am asking, because to you I would disclose my email ID. To an unknown IP rather not. Tomeasy T C 14:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was me. The NBI-Report is waiting for you.... Lear 21 (talk) 14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you receive my email? Actually, i am waiting for the report now. Tomeasy T C 12:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. Just found it in my mailbox. Tomeasy T C 12:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an official website with results I sent you [1]. This should be credible enough to cite the data when included in the article. So it seems to be in line with any Wikipedia policies.

Maybe you like to expand the Brand Dimensions a bit with adding the specific questions to the categories. The scores could be added as well.... Lear 21 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article is high on your priority list, I can imagine you would like more contributors, and I appreciate you are requesting my help. However, my time is also limited and, as probably most of us, I am already spending too much time on Wikipedia. So, I do not want to exclude my involvement, but it is likely that you will not see to much of my engagement at this article. After all, I still quite skeptic about it. Just look at the world map they use in the report that you sent me (p. 41). I mean the report is from 2008 and still shows the USSR borders. It's hard to take the rest serious. Tomeasy T C 15:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Please stop adding images to List of Nobel Laureates in Literature. The article is currently undergoing a FLC, and adding images that have inadequate sourcing or assertions of permission is not helping the article. I realize you wish to improve the article, but further attempts will be construed as disruptive. Regards, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 06:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, I was just trying to improve the article. Accordingly, I find the tone of your comment on my talk page a little bit disturbing. Anyway...
  • What's wrong with Orhan Pamuk's picture, it is public domain.
  • What's wrong with Saramago's picture, it is creative commons.
  • What's wrong with Le Clegio's picture, it qualifies for fair use on the English-language Wikipedia.
Excuse me for not being the copyright expert that you seem to be. Unfortunately, I really do not know which of the three qualifications above discourage use of media and which ones are OK. To me they all sounded fine, and I just added these three pictures to the already existing entries. Observe further that the biographical articles to these people make use of exactly these images and of course they are in wiki commons. Tomeasy T C 10:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image:Orhan pamuk u02 72 lg.jpg has deadlinks to the source of the image and the assertion that it is public domain. The public domain tag means absolutely nothing unless it is backed up with an assertion of why it is public domain.
  • Image:Josesaramago.jpg has deadlinks to the source of the image as well and no assertion of permission of where it is licensed under CC. Again, the tag is meaningless without adequate permission.
  • Le Clegio's picture is fair use, which means it must abide by WP:NFCC, which states that images cannot be merely used for decorative usage, such as in lists, where it is not the subject of critical commentary and especially for people who are living, a free alternative can likely be found instead.
It's fine that you don't know copyright policies, but after someone reverts you multiple times, you would think that you're doing something wrong or inappropriate. The images are currently used on those articles because no one has gotten around to checking the proper copyright on the images, and they are on Commons because someone uploaded them and didn't put a full or adequate permission. There are hundreds of images on Commons like those that do not satisfy our image use policy, and which the editors on Commons are doing their best to rectify. As the list was at WP:FLC, it is expected to meet all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, the image use policy included, and is held to a higher standard than other articles that have not gone through a similarly rigorous process (WP:FAC for instance, where all of these images would be asked to be removed or rectified during the course of the review). Again, I appreciate your efforts to improve the article, but if you're aware of your faults in image copyright, then I would recommend against adding images unless you are fully familiar with the relevant policies. Regards, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"multiple times"?? I have visited this article once and added each of these figures once, you have reverted me once and I have not touched the article since. You have put this harsh note on my talk page and when I was asking you for clarification you did not react until I touched your talk page three times and 10 days have passed. Now, I receive your reaction with this false accusation which depicts me as a stubborn ignorant. Are you open for recall? Tomeasy T C 10:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holland Infobox

Hi there. Thank you for your comments. Yes, I see now the problem, which I confess I missed when creating the infobox, which was rather sloppy of me. I just copied the infobox template from other similar articles, and didn't realise the code would be incompatible. I used the thumbnail to try to get both flags into the infobox, because the region of Holland is rather unique in having two political provinces within. When I saw it accepted both flags, I thought it would work, but had failed to notice the visible line of code. These things are out of my usual editing areas, but i was adding the box to Abel Tasman as I work on a lot of Tasmania articles, and realised Holland didn't have one. I like to see them on articles, as it makes it easier to read summarised info without reading the whole text if you are just trawling for information. I am happy to try and re-do it in a format that works. I guess the only issue, is to create an infobox that accepts two flags?? Thoughts? Robert Fleming (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, i think it would be nice to have an infobox for this article. The Holland article however is tricky. It is about an historical region that coincides largely with the two provinces of the modern Netherlands. The article attempts to capture all this, often causing confusion and discussion, as to what the article is actually talking about. I support your idea to create an infobox, as if it was one entity (like in the very past), and strictly use the combined data of the two modern provinces. We should appreciate that this is not 100% correct, as the borders of Holland in the past were different, and even today, people in neighboring Utrecht province might identify as Hollands. However, we need a clear cut solution and it is a pragmatic approach to refer to what is called Holland today, namely the two provinces.
Which brings us to the other problem, the technical one. We need two flags and two coat of arms. Unfortuantely, i have little time this week, but fortunately we are not in a hurry. The article is in its current state for a long time. I know two staring points to look for a solution. It was around March when I was involved in a very (very, very) long discussion on the Scotland article, which was about the locator map. I remember that one editor was very happy when e could present us a solution showing two maps in one infobox. In the end this was discarded, but I remember that the was presented as a mayor technical advantage. The second point of entry would be the village pump, where we could ask for help. But at least for today, me input will be restricted to this comment. Tomeasy T C 11:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! I tired a few different variations for an infobox for this article, and frankly, none of them looked right. I decided as it was about a geographical entity rather than a single political one, it was better to just leave the flags and arms out of the box, and keep it to regional style info. I then put the flags and arms in a separate gallery box further down. I think it works best this way. Have a look, and give me feedback if you think it needs further attention. Robert Fleming (talk) 12:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

Thanks for correcting my mistake. I was tracking down an editor who was editing against consensus elsewhere and failed to see that this time the edit was correct. I should not have reverted. --Snowded TALK 12:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback. Tomeasy T C 12:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Consider to contribute here [2] and here [3] if you are interested in the subject, otherwise the situation will be stuck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.158.50 (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you; don't you have an account? Tomeasy T C 20:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Hello and best wishes from your friend in California. I hope that you and those near you are happy and fulfilled and I also want to extend a year-end thank you for your support and encouragement during a time in mid-year when I was quite at sea with Wikipedia and wondered if this project was worth the unpleasant forces I was dealing with at the time. Because of you and others such as User: SilkTork, I realized that it is very much worth it and I have had much enjoyment since. Cheers, Nick Lantana11 (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Lantana11Lantana11 (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late Happy New Year !

Dear Tomeasy, I wish you as a fellow EU editor a successful, healthy and happy new year. I hope you keep up expanding high quality EU content at Wikipedia while also maintaining achieved standards. Keep up motivating others to contribute or to correct EU-European content. Viva Europa Lear 21 (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you want to support this: EU inclusion in lists. Would be much appreciated. Even a short comment helps to keep the longterm established version [4]. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 00:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

Hi there,

Is a bit long, but can you comment at Template_talk:Euro_adoption_future#I_propose_to_change_the_name_and_the_structure? It will be very much appreciated.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about deletion of your intro changes in Netherlands

Oops I forget to reinstall your intro changes after taking out the zillions character addition in the history section. Sorry about that. Arnoutf (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and thanks for the notification. Tomeasy T C 18:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Historian19 seems to have stolen almost everything from Britannica. I set it back to Jan 8 (so the intro changes are gone again) just to make sure we reset it to the last truly safe (ie legal) version. I left a note on the Netherlands talk page. Arnoutf (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. We had to do this, I was away for two days and could not edit. Thanks for taking care of that. I will have to check the material on Military of the Netherlands, because I once moved parts of his lengthy material to this page.
I am quite content to see that my initial suspicion about this material was correct. His writing style in main space was just too different to the language on the talk page. Tomeasy T C 16:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to share my thoughts

i just tought that Kingdom of the Netherlands doesnt got anything to do with dutch empire cause thats all history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Questchest (talk • contribs) 17:10, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not forget, we are talking about the section History of the article Netherlands. According to me, the Dutch Empire has its place in there. I guess, you would agree.
The issue I see is the following: There is this weird subsection called Kingdom of the Netherlands. I call it weird, because it talks about much more than the subject of the article Kingdom of the Netherlands, which is a modern state founded in 1954. I think, here lies the mistake and here's also how our opinions come together.
I wanted to keep the Dutch Empire in the subsection that spans more than 200 years of history, because it matches the content of the subsection.
You want to remove it, because it does not jive with the title of the subsection.
Please, let me know whether I understood you correctly and whether you see the problem as I described it. I am sure we can solve it. Tomeasy T C 13:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i will let you know if someome wants to check out the dutch empire they just check out there selfs and about the history of the netherlands thats suxx (boring) history suxx would you please let my page the next time and dont revert it

Did I upset you somehow? Why does everything suck now? And what's the problem with your page?Tomeasy T C 13:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt say that everything sucks i sayt history sucks who wants to know about the past anyway it's about the future AMERICA

If you think so, then why do you edit the history of the Netherlands??
Stop removing my signatures behind my posts. Instead, please sign your own comments in the future.
If you agree, let us abandon this thread here. I do not think this discussion leads anywhere. For me it is fine, if you think that history sucks. I will just keep an eye on the main space articles and wish you happy editing. Tomeasy T C 16:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spitfire

If you want to copyedit the text to the Spitfire image and improve it, please do. I have also added a little bit of information on the UK standing alone. If you feel more information is needed, once again, please feel free to do so. I just quickly put the info in, so I'm sure its not perfect. Cheers. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re!

I edited the list to show the correct wikipedia article name of the individual. Mario1987 09:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should not do so.
When we report noble laureates, the authority is the Nobel Committee [5] and not Wikipedia.
I would propose you revert your edits, or better check in which cases you introduced deviations from the official website. Thanks. Tomeasy T C 10:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting entries from List of Nobel laureates by country

I see you undid an edit of mine to the List of Nobel laureates by country article (this edit: [6]). I simply added John Hume to the list for Ireland, which I believed would be the country specified, I also specifically asked anyone editing it after me not to remove his name from the list, but to put it in the UK entry if that is what is decided. Yet you immediately just deleted his name from the article, and didn't bother to relocate it to the UK entry, exactly what should not have been done (this edit: [7]). Can you explain why you did this? You even listed a link to the Nobel Prize's website detailing his peace prize, yet you did not place him in the UK category as would be expected, you deleted his name from the page. According to this page, John Hume never got the prize. From taking a quick look at the talk page for the article, I can see there are ongoing and complicated debates about this issue, but to remove names totally is surely wrong. I won't change anything yet, as I don't know the intricacies of this case, but can you at least explain why you wouldn't simply move the entry rather than deleting it? --Hibernian (talk) 04:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments on talk pages. You can do so using 4 tildes.
This is the only authority for the listings that are recorded on List of Nobel laureates by country. What I am trying to do is simply to keep the information in line with this.
Accordingly, John Hume must not be listed under Ireland, as was your edit.
John Hume must be listed under the UK, which is what I just re-installed.
Please, let me know if there are remaining questions. Tomeasy T C 20:24, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to sign my post. I wasn't particularly taking issue with what country he was under, I was stating the fact that John Hume was not on the page when I looked at it the first time, so I added him, not knowing what rules you guys were going by, but just so that he would be on the page and not mysteriously absent. I was taking issue with you deleting my edit wholesale without instead transferring Hume to the UK category, which I see you have now done. That's fine, but you need to be careful when reverting edits that you do not entirely delete a name from the list, my guess is that there's probably a lot of names not currently on there due to being constantly added into disputed categories and then removed completely. --Hibernian (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understood already your first posting, no need to repeat. From the fact that I added John Hume under the UK listing, you can see that I certainly did not want to remove him completely.
If you find more laureats absent, please add them. All contributions are appreciated that are in line with the information published on the official website. And do not feel offended by an erroneous revert. Thanks. Tomeasy T C 14:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus GA

As someone who's worked on the Cyprus articles, you might be interested in following the GA recommendations at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cyprus/GA1. Best, Vizjim (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


File:Spanish presidency of the EU 2010.svg

Thank you for uploading File:Spanish presidency of the EU 2010.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Hungarian presidency of the EU 2011.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Belgian presidency of the EU 2010.svg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The three files are taken from this website, which also allows its use. The website's only purpose is to host the files for public download. I have given the link to the source when uploading the files. So, I really do not understand why I all these messages here. Isn't the case obvious? Tomeasy T C 21:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

European Union institutions

Thank you for your careful edits. I really appreciate your cooperative spirit. – Kaihsu (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive feedback. Tomeasy T C 01:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]