User talk:Blue-Haired Lawyer/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with Blue-Haired Lawyer. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

< Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 >

All Pages:

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - ... (up to 100)

Common Travel Area

detail on Schengen cooperation has no relevance to CTA http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_Travel_Area&action=history

this is most certainly not true. Thousands of EU citizens may travel freely to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, however there is no such travel area common to that right, and the possibility for those EU citizens (or indeed citizens of the Ireland Republic) to enter the southern part of the island Ireland. REF: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Common_Travel_Area&action=history -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barentsz (talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 May 2010

I would have responded earlier had it been left on my talk page. I didn't mean that Schengen isn't relevant or something that could be mentioned on Wikipedia's article on the Common Travel Area. It is just that it is unnecessary to go into any detail on the working of the Schengen Area on the Common Travel Article itself as Wikipedia already has an article devoted to the subject. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schengen

You WILL STOP what you are doing. UK and Ireland are same colour because they are Common Travel Area. Stop altering maps or you will be reported. Fry1989 (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Union

In your recent contribution on the talk page, you wrote "But they can create binding rules. " That looks the typical annoying typo that always happens exactly where you don't want it to happen. --Boson (talk) 11:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 12:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UK formation

I neglected to reply to your post on Template talk:UK formation. Sorry about that. I've replied at the TfD. I hope it answers your concerns. --RA (talk) 00:40, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Schengen area etc

He lawyer, could you give your ideas on the use of Swedish ID cards at Talk:Identity_document#National_identity_cards_in_Sweden? Use seems by law to depend on Schengen membership (or cooperation agreement). If I remember correctly you have quite a good overview on that subject. L.tak (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When in Rome...

[1] It didn't even register that the edit was to a proper name. It came up on my watchlist, I saw the spelling change, and ... that was about it. *blush* thanks for fixing. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean spurious?

What do you mean spurious? How you explain naming: Code of Ur-Nammu, code of Hammurabi, Solonian Constitution etc. According to the first sentence of the article? Did you read my paragraf "Why set of people and why agree upon" on the article 'Constitution' Discussion page? --Cleaghyre (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you're right your conclusion is not spurious, it's just our definition that is a canard. All state's have constitutions be they republics, democracies, or dictatorships. There's no requirement that anything ever be agreed. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 22:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public bodies

The Caribbean Netherlands are officially no "municipalities"; they are explicitly referred to as "openbare lichamen" ("public bodies") by law [2]. How else can this be translated to English than as "public bodies"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Styath (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not by using a literal translation which IMHO doesn't really make any sense in English. A far as I'm aware the term "municipality" doesn't have any technical meaning in English and my idctionary just defines it as:

"a city or town that has corporate status and local government."

I take it that each of the BES islands falls within this definition? I also take it, however, that their legal status is different from the Dutch equivalent of a commune? The (probably poor) Google translation of the page you link to says that:

"Through the establishment of the BES-islands as a public body, rather than community, may the BES islands rules that deviate from the rules in the European part of the Netherlands. The Dutch legislation will be introduced gradually. The public bodies fall directly under the central government because they are not part of a province."

All this really means to me is that they are different kinds of municipalities to those normally found in the Netherlands, possibly along the lines of unitary authorities found elsewhere?

This having been said if we have adopted the term municipality as a translation of the Dutch word "gemeente", perhaps we could just describe them as special municipalities? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 21:19, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Openbaar lichaam" doesn't really make any sense to me in Dutch either, yet it is being used in law and "public body" is its literal translation. It is also not that uncommon in English as there is the UK term "non-departmental public body" and there are the Scottish public bodies. Let me give a better translation of that clause:

"Through the establishment of the BES islands as public body, rather than municipality, there can be rules on the BES islands that differ from the rules in the European part of the Netherlands. The Dutch legislation will be introduced gradually. The public bodies fall directly under the central government because they are not part of a province."

So yes, "gemeente" means "municipality", which the BES islands are not because they are not part of a province. The Caribbean Netherlands article already described them as "special municipalities" indeed, a more understandable term which has been adopted by the public and the media etc. Yet, this is not an official type of entity and because there is no other word for it, the Dutch law referes to the islands simply as "public bodies". So we should at least call them special municipalities, although I think "public bodies" should be in there as well. (I'm not a legal expert so I don't know if "statutory corporation" is the right term here.) --Styath (talk) 00:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the term "openbaar lichaam" (which would be "public body" in English) is the general denomination for all kinds of administrative divisions, like provinces and municipalities. I think they use the general term due to lack of a better name, as I already mentioned. Because of this meaning, I also don't think that "statutory corporation" is the right term in the Dutch case, as these are not corporations. --Styath (talk) 00:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Member states of the European Union

You may be interested in Talk:Member State of the European Union#Requested move 3 TopoChecker (talk) 00:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflation and fuzzy logic

You deleted the conflation section from Metonymy and from Treaty. I have restored both. Please work with me to remedy some, if not all, of the problems which caused your edits. My interest in conflation in these two articles is practical, not theoretical. The time we invest in working together to improve these minor sections may help avert or mitigate some aspects of disputes which are already simmering in a range of other articles. In general, my guess is that lawyers tend to avoid fuzzy logic, but it has a certain usefulness in diplomacy.

For example, consider the evolving significance of the following:

Conflation in Simla Accord (1914) = McMahon Line ≥ Line of Actual Control between India and China
Conflation in Northern Limit Line ≠ maritime boundary between South Korea and North Korea

My interest in conflation evolved during the course of editing Japan-Korea Treaty of 1905 (Eulsa Treaty). An investment of time and keystrokes at Senkaku Islands dispute led to a greater awareness of relationships among geographically disparate issues such as those found in the Spratly Islands dispute and in Sino-India border clashes near Arunachal Pradesh. --Tenmei (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Petrb has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Infobox_European_Union&curid=23595082&diff=407157995&oldid=406920879 made my day better :) Petrb (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 01:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted

Mea culpa. My misreading of the IPs edit summary. RashersTierney (talk) 02:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Member state

Extended your stub: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Member_state&action=history, also created Category:Member states by organization. Move requests for NATO and UN. TopoChecker (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Law of the United Kingdom

Yes, I appreciate that my edits were not the best, but they are currently the best available in Wikipedia for guiding readers in understanding there the emergence of the legal systems of the United Kingdom. Do You have a better suggestion? Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As is the sections on each legal system appear to give a reasonable grounding on each system. Why don't we just work on those? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:52, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Primary Legislation

I looked at the article, Primary Legislation, and then looked at all the edits to find a comment that Assembly Measures are secondary legislation. I'm sorry to say that your wrong and it turns out that they were primary legislation. They are gone now anyway, never mind though hey? 82.11.223.222 (talk) 13:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to stand corrected. I fear my knowledge of Welsh devolution appears to have been somewhat stale. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 14:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The system seemed strange and unusual anyway. 82.11.223.222 (talk) 13:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of heads by country

Based on your participation in WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries#Territories, I believe you'd also be interested to share your opinion and ideas at Talk:List of current heads of state and heads of government. 203.198.25.115 (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

corporation

Yo, homie, why you fussin' wit my edits. What, you think corporations can only be formed by states? I shoulda copped to it in the explanation, but fo got. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buddylovely (talk • contribs) 16:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Euro coins‎

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. Please note that we take very seriously our criteria on non-free image uploads and users who repeatedly upload or misuse non-free images may be blocked from editing. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 19:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even more silliness given I've never even uploaded any images of euro coins! But don't let this stop you templating! — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the actual message, it states or added to an article which you did do. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 20:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Federated state (disambiguation) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Federated state (disambiguation) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federated state (disambiguation) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Rennell435 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Body Politic

Sorry about that. It showed up on new page patrol and I thought it was a vandal target title. I restored it less the vandal edit. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nation

Hi. I've started a discussion at Talk:Nation#Opening statement regarding our disagreement on the opening statement of the article Nation. You boldly made a change, I reverted it, so now I suggest we need to discuss is as per WP:BRD and get a consensus before you can make the change again. Please do join in the discussion. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Singular "they"

Regarding your recent "correction" to my earlier edit to Irish nationality law, in which you stated that ""they" is plural": the use of "they", etc. as a gender-neutral singular pronoun is well-established. I don't insist that you accept it in your own English, but you should recognise that it's accepted in others'... it even occurs in that bastion of sloppy English, the King James Bible! Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thou shalt forgive me for being a little bit pedantic. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Watch out for those petards!

Andrew Gwilliam (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

June 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Absolute majority. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. ╟─Treasury Tag►presiding officer─╢ 10:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may have noticed that my edit summary was actually "and yet..." as I was referring to my previous edit summary. In order to delete an article you can try speedy deletion, wp:prod or wp:afd, but you can't just replace it with a redirect not more that you can complete "cut and paste" moves. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 10:16, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is perfectly common practice to redirect (not 'delete') crappy unreferenced articles, especially where they violate WP:CONTENTFORK and there is no reason not to. Please see WP:BOLD, WP:IAR. Since I do not think the article should be deleted, but merely redirected, nominating it for deletion would be inapplicable. ╟─Treasury Tag►Subsyndic General─╢ 12:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parsifal EU

Please be so kind to notice that I didn't want to "pushed away" but show you a discussion which tells you that I am not going for a deletion review. - Are you the one who spoke about popular media and winning a prize? I still wonder about that comment, but not too much so, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That quite ok. I take your edit in good faith. My point about prizes and popular media was and still is that as Parsifal EU had neither won any prizes nor been reported in the popular (ie mainstream) media that it failed to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria and should be deleted. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 17:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got that completely wrong, sorry, understand it better. But I don't see the popular media going for topics the German Institute of Standardization considers, smile. Do me a favour and read the Crusio thread also. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Convention travel document.

A tag has been placed on Convention travel document. requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might have given me a minute. I was in the process of nominating it myself, only to find an edit conflict. I'm not a bot and needed to look for the appropriate template. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Common face of one euro coin.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Common face of one euro coin.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Nomination of Schengen Area

Hello, I have nominated the page Schengen Area (talk|GA discussion)

A reviewer has begun to review it. Since you are a big contributor, would you like to join in improving the article to GA standard?

– Plarem ^{(User talk contribs)}

15:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FAR

I have nominated Law for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Ironholds (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote popups

I boldly made a few updates to User:Blue-Haired Lawyer/Footnote popups. {{Listref}} is now compatible with this very useful script. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 15:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on ArbCom resolution - Ireland article names

There is a poll taking place here on whether or not to extend the ArbCom binding resolution, which says there may be no page move discussions for Ireland,Republic of Ireland or Ireland (disambiguation), for a further two years. Fmph (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

European Union law

I think you have created two sections for the Court of Justice of the European Union in the European Union law article under the heading "case law". Will merge the tow as they are dublicated.--SasiSasi (talk) 13:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re-republic usage

The agreed term isnt "the Republic" even if it needs to be used on an article in the lead of an article named REPUBLIC OF IRELAND and the fact that "the republic" would be considered colloquial language . I have read IMOS ans MOS and nowhere does it state call it the republic. Murry1975 (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipéire nice to see that you're around again! No it's just a short form of a longer name: like referring to "the Union" in an article about the European Union. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 00:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strike the first part of that comment - an apology would be nice too. You stated "Republic is an agreed ambiguator for instances where the word Ireland is ambiguous" and agian there is no such agreement . Also yourself and the other edit only edited on instance where you considered it ambiguous , but one point how the hell is it ambiguous on an article lead entitled , just in case you missed it "REPUBLIC OF IRELAND" .

According to IMOS if the island and state are talked about the same context its the island that gets disamiguated

An exception is where the state forms a major component of the topic (e.g. on articles relating states, politics or governance) where Ireland should be preferred and the island should be referred to as the island of Ireland, or similar (e.g. "Ireland is a state in Europe occupying most of the island of Ireland"). So where do you get an agreement for a "republic" being used as a short form? Murry1975 (talk) 10:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivil

If you want to bring an SPI do it, I have nothing to worry about as I am not Wikipéire or any of his socks or anyone else. I take it you dont AGF by your comments. If you have any issues with my editing let me know in a civil way not with empty accusations in the edit summary. The edit on the Republic of Ireland is now explained on the talk page.Murry1975 (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Union

I do not appreciate the fact that you twice completely blanked my edits on European Union. I am more than happy for editors to modify my contributions but abrupt reverts are not acceptable. The word "currently" belongs hardly anywhere (only very rarely - not here) and my versions were shorter. In other words, you have re-introduced a non-encyclopaedic term, made the passage longer, and added nothing new in the process. With politics comes exactitude. DRG (East) came to an end and the land was annexed by an existing state (FRG). Whilst the DRG authority faded out, the government of the FRG continued. Simply speaking, East Germany never entered the union at all. Its land was incorporated into it. Those are the facts behind the unification, see all sources on that. If edits need to be made, please feel free but can I ask of you not to blank my contributions again, thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you are reading on - accept my apologies if you would, it seems you did not make a blanket revert. I am having terrible problems with my laptop and further confusion arises when I have tabs open left, right and centre and many with out of date material, trying to get things done while other windows are loading. I undid my last restoration to put yours back - this is as a friendly gesture. Concerning Maastricht and the EU: I think it's good to say like "Maastricht established the EU from 1993" and leave it at that - especially as you rightly point how the EEC continued to exist for some years yet. So no "current name, this name. that name" - you're right that "to date" and "now" and equally bad and sometimes it is best to avoid them outright. I admit though that it can be clumsy to exclude them totally. Even "current" carries some weight now and again. Look at the following (fictional):

as opposed to the current constitution (for something pertaining to an older statute)
as opposed to the constitution (but which when there have been more than one?)

So I am not a bitter opponent of that word. For Germany, I'd like to expand the section slightly just to explain or deliver a link to the fall of the east and that membership was confined to the existing member whose territory had expanded. Unification on a sovereign level is inaccurate. Unlike Yemeni unification when Ali Salim al-Beidh (formerly of the south) became head of government and Ali Abdullah Saleh remained president, I fear there was no place for Erich Honecker in Helmut Kohl's cabinet. Not even the president's role flickered. So the land and people were only as united at the Kingdom of Serbia and the Kingdom of Montenegro were after their "unification" of December of 1918 with Montenegro's absorption into Serbia, with the Karađorđević dynasty continuing to rule whilst the Montenegrin monarchy fled to France (where titular rulers remain today). I hope you can see my point here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 01:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My turn: Sorry if I was overly zealous in reverting your changes re Germany. I do understand the technicalities involved. Just note that Federal Republic of Germany redirects to Germany, and German Democratic Republic redirects to East Germany, and that the section is intended as a brief summary of EU history and not a detailed account of German history which is dealt with in great detail elsewhere. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 01:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right. It's no outrage either way so I'll draw a line and keep the presentations in question as they are. If from this point you see edits from me there, it will just be minor tidying. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 13:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Egyptian-Hittite peace treaty, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abydos (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) 10:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bare url and minor edit

Thanks for pointing out refs shouldn't be a bare url, and that putting in a ref is not a minor edit. Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of states with limited recognition

I've moved the page back to it's old title. There's a discussion on the move here. It might be a good idea to file a WP:RM if you still think the page should be moved. TDL (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Competition law, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public service (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) 10:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European Community Regulation

Hello. Thank you for correcting my mistake in procedure with the merger for European Community regulation to European Union competition law. I was following the steps that you linked to, but didn't appreciate that it was immediately required to move the text to the new page with no intermediary move to a sandbox permitted. Am I to take it from what you have done so far that European Community regulation will not be deleted as an article and a redirect setup? If this is the case, then I think the article should be renamed. Connolly15 (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me if you feel I was giving you a lecture on procedure, it's just that there's copyright implications on merging articles which I don't think can be resolved by moving to userspace. The articles are now merged. I wasn't trying to stop you doing this yourself. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:07, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no problem! I actually appreciated it, I've followed what you've done and now know how to do it better next time! Thanks! Connolly15 (talk) 11:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EMU, other links

At risk of exposing it to reversion, I'll say I was glad to see the link to the debt crisis still there, alone of mine I believe to have survived your "partial revert" here.

I knew I was climbing a new tree with the linking-type edits I made, particularly the Euro links which were already in the info box. My main venue has heretofore been said debt crisis article and related individuals and institutions. But to have no use of the common acronym "EMU" (at least as common as "Eurozone" where I read) in the EU article seems strange. And the currency reference in the body of the intro seemed also to add another, perhaps more familiar, reference in amongst (at the right point in amongst) the complex bureaucratic description; for the lay reader (whom we hope is) trying to figure out how it all fits together.

I'll say by way of background I now recall there was a smart but ultimately too technical, I think, proposal I responded to on the debt crisis article to change it, in the title, from "European" to "Eurozone". That did alert me to the important distinction and I hope the article if not the head deals with it clearly now (and of course the debt problems are not totally confined to the Eurozone). My work today on the EU article was in the same spirit, trying to make sure the large complex of articles knit together and best serve interest generated by heavy media coverage.

I'd be curious as to your reversion rationale. I'll check back. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a matter of prose. Saying "[t]he eurozone or EMU ... has since grown to 17 countries, the most recent being Estonia which joined on 1 January 2011." is simply bad writing. It's better to stick with one name and go with that. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:24, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CTA 2011 agreement

Just to note that I've copied part of the section you added to Common Travel Area, to Republic of Ireland–United Kingdom border. I trust I've attributed correctly but feel free to adjust. --Red King (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 16:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on cleaning up the CTA article! --Red King (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 19:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EUR, Rome

Even though I agree with closing it, since you're an involved editor, it's not appropriate for you to close that discussion. But I suppose if no one complains, no harm done. Just an FYI in case someone does revert - that would be justifiable. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'If the nominator wishes to withdraw a proposal about which no one has yet commented, or which is unanimously opposed. In this case, the nominator may close the discussion as "withdrawn".' Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Conflicts of interest — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 15:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I failed to notice you were the nominator. Thanks for clearing that up! --Born2cycle (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I was the one who proposed adding that wording to WP:RM, and added it, back in 2010! Discussion[3]. Diff adding the wording[4]. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-:) — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 18:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. When you recently edited Schengen Agreement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Schengen (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) 17:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 23:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]