Jump to content

User talk:Danlaycock/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 9

Vandalism

If I enclose all your posts in hatnotes of "Trolling", will you consider it vandalism? Because you just did something like that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEuropean_Fiscal_Compact&diff=593789342&oldid=593787388 . I understand you need to provoke me to argue more with you, but that is exactly what I accused you of. Heracletus (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

No, because it's quite obviously not vandalism. In fact, removing personal attacks is encouraged. You really should read WP:VAND so you stop using the word incorrectly. TDL (talk) 03:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Your Username

I Noticed Your Username, Danlaycock, is Profane 54.226.24.180 (talk) 01:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

European integration

Norwegian Directorate of Immigration is more reliable than you. ;) http://www.udi.no/Norwegian-Directorate-of-Immigration/Central-topics/Work-and-residence/Work-and-residence-EUEEAEFTA-citizens/

--78.0.238.10 (talk) 11:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Look what the source says: "Last updated 19.06.2012". A lot has changed in a year and a half. The agreement hasn't even been signed yet, so it isn't "pending ratification" because there is no agreement yet to ratify. Croatia will almost certainly sign their EEA accession agreement in 2014 and provisionally apply it, but it will take years for it to be ratified. It took 17 months to ratify Croatia's Treaty of Accession 2011, and that only required the consent of 27 states, while the EEA Agreement needs to be ratified by 31 states. Romania and Bulgaria signed their EEA accession agreement in July 2007, but it wasn't fully ratified until November 2011: [1]. If it took 4.5 years for Bulgaria and Romania, how could it possibly be done in 10 months for Croatia with MORE states to ratify? Given that Croatia's agreement hasn't even been signed yet, there is just no way 31 parliaments could possibly ratify the agreement so quickly. Rather than trying to guess when ratification will be accomplished, it is better to say exactly what stage in the process they are at, that is they have initialled their agreement. Once it has been signed, perhaps we should mention that it is undergoing ratification. But until there is an agreement to ratify, it is premature to claim that their membership is "pending ratification". TDL (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

2014 Toronto FC season

You know very well it wasn't blanked. You personally deleted a properly sourced paragraph about pre–season. The match templates you added in violates MOS:COLLAPSE. Kingjeff (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

No, you are clearly mistaken. I did not delete anything. The paragraph was simply moved back to where it was before you had moved it. And I see you have since moved it back to where I put it. If you don't like the template I used, then replace it with another (and nominate the old one for deletion.) That's not a valid reason to delete the content. TDL (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Your match reports show why I deleted the match reports to begin with. Two of the sources are not proper sources and the "goalscorers and disciplined players" section is blank for the match against the Philadelphia Union and doesn't "Trialist #25" have a name? You should familiarize yourself with featured article criteria since I plan on nominating it after the article is completed. With the information you provided, it fails point 1b which states, "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context." Missing goalscorers and disciplined players from a table is definitely missing "major facts or details." As far as your two bad surces go, "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate." The policy on verifiability states "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published." WP:THIRDPARTY states that "every article on Wikipedia must be based upon verifiable statements from multiple third-party reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A third-party source is one that is entirely independent of the subject being covered, e.g., a newspaper reporter covering a story that they are not involved in except in their capacity as a reporter." So, it is not possible to fix anything to the quality that featured article criteria requires. Kingjeff (talk) 21:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the lecture, but no that's just revisionist history. There was no "Goalscorers and disciplined players" in the original table. (And it is blank for the Union game becuse (gasp!) there was no goal scorers!) It was only after you complained about the format used for the table that I converted to the one used for the regular season. But if it upsets you so, I will drop the "disciplined" from the heading. And the information in the table is contained in sources linked in the prose (which I presume that you have deemed to be of sufficient reliabliity), so if you were so concerned all you had to do was repeat the refs in the table.
And are you seriously trying to argue that omitting the goal scorers (as your revision does) is MORE "comprehensive" and that the revision that does not omit this information is less comprehensive? That's a rather incomprehensible argument.
I've gone ahead and fixed these issues for you, and added some more refs just for kicks. So how easy that was? Please in the future if you have a concern either fix them yourself or raise the issue on the talk page rather than blindly reverting.
PS: If you really want to get this to FA, I suggest you familiarize yourself with 1a: "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" As it stands, the article is written so poorly it is painful to read. It is going to need to be completely rewritten if you ever want to get it to FA. TDL (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome for the lecture. Hopefully you will be more mindful about the information. You are the only one who stated that "Goalscorers and disciplined players" was not in the original table. I never said which revision it was in. Not adding what isn't sourced. Not all sources were in the table. You added sources to from the Toronto FC website and Olando City Website. These are illegitimate sources. It doesn't matter if the matches were scoreless or not. You leave a — in each column for column. Omitting the goalscorers was in the best interest since there were not enough info in the sources to ad all goalscorers and using the goalscorers template. PS: Feel free to add to the prose. Kingjeff (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

"Your match reports show why I deleted the match reports to begin with" - If it wasn't "originally" in the table then that couldn't possibly be the reason why you removed it "to begin with" now could it? Unless you have some sort of alternative understanding of the word "begin" than "to start"?
Primary sources are certainly not "illegitimate". As per WP:PRIMARY: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". Do you not accept that a list of goal scorers is a "descriptive statement of facts"? And yes I agree, not all the supplementary secondary sources were repeated in the table. But that doesn't change the fact that the content was indeed sourced.
But I'm glad we've finally got to the bottom of your beef: I didn't use a "—". Is there some sort of policy or consensus discussion I am unaware of that requires a dash? 2013 Toronto FC season doesn't use dashes. 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season doesn't use dashes. 2013–14 F.C. Internazionale Milano season doesn't use dashes. If you think these articles should start using dashes, then fine. But aside from you unilaterally imposing a rule on editors of the article, I don't see any reason why this is necessary. All of this over two dashes that could be easily fixed with two keystrokes! As you can see, when you explain your concerns I have addressed them, but since I am not a mind reader, unexplained content blanking does not help. Nor does saying things like "it is not possible to fix anything". Had I known this was all over two dashes I could have added them in 2 seconds! (Or you could have added them faster than it took you to mash the revert button 3 times.) Please be mindful to explain your concerns in the future rather than blindly reverting so we don't have to go through a whole song and dance before you finally get around to elucidating them.
PS: No, I'm not going to waste my time rewriting an article for you which is WP:OWNED to the extent that any contributions are blindly reverted over minor stylistic objections without any sort of explanation. TDL (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't blindly revert. You took out the portion that stated "disciplined players." So, when you have "goalscorers and disciplined players," who is to know the difference between an incomplete row and a row with legitimately nothing there? Kingjeff (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

And again, to begin with there was no "goalscorers and disciplined players" heading so that isn't a justification for your first two reverts. A properly written article won't have a "incomplete row" so I don't see this as a problem. But if it bothers you, then as I said above go ahead and add dashes to heart's delight.. TDL (talk) 13:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Template:Country data Abkhazia

Hello Danlaycockh I have no permission to edit Template:Country data Abkhazia so please see talk page and my proporsal here: Template talk:Country data Abkhazia. Thanks. --g. balaxaZe★ 11:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palestine 194, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vienna Conventions (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) 08:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Toronto Argonauts

slakr\ talk / 17:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of treaties by number of parties may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • have force for the new state. Such a declaration is regarded as a "ratification" by the new state.{{efn|Similar declarations may be made by states that result from the division of a defunct state

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:14, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

euro

my addition on the euro that you disliked, was merely to explain in layman's terms the word circulation. as the euro existed prior to then i thought it explained the term clearer, and the significance of the 1.1. date. abelljms (talk) 08:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reworked it in to the paragraph. Does this work for you? TDL (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Toronto sports may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ], who renamed them the Toronto Shamrocks in January 1915. Later that year, Livingstone] purchased the Blueshirts giving him ownership of two NHA teams, but after the [[Pacific Coast

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Enlargement of the eurozone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bloomberg
Romania and the euro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Bloomberg

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

RE: Romanian Euro Target Date

I was under the impression (your rules) that the only time we put something in the Target date column is when the official EU website (ec.europa.eu) posts the date as official. Do you have different rules to follow than we do? Or is this an oversight? Julien Houle Briefzehn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle (talk • contribs) 19:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Well then you've failed to understand our past discussions. The rules are quite simple: don't make things up. It's not my rule, it is one of Wikipedia's core policies: WP:V. If you want to claim that a country has formally set an "official target date", then you need a source that says they have formally set an "official target date". Last year, you were attempting to make entirely unsourced changes (ie [2]) or changes supported by sources that only mention an informal goal, not formally setting an "official target date" (ie [3] which is sourced to an article which only says "We’ve agreed to seek the ambitious goal of joining the euro zone in 2015"). If there are no sources that say an "official target date" has formally been set, we can't say that it has. Articles need to be based on what the sources actually say.
In the case of Romania this year, had you looked at the linked sources I added, you would have noticed that one was from an "official EU website (ec.europa.eu)". We have an official Convergence Report submitted by Romania to the EC where they formally set the target date as 2019. We also have a secondary sources which explicitly says "Romania’s government set January 1, 2019 as a target date for euro-zone accession." That seems plenty good for me, but if it really bothers you, feel free to revert and we can wait until [4] is updated. I'm sure it will be within a few weeks tops. TDL (talk) 19:43, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess I just do not think this whole thing is worth getting accused of my making things up. I am sure the sourcing I had found was every bit as good as the one you present here in this article which is not an Official Target Date as it has not been accepted by all parties but is just a "plan" being submitted. Is your problem that others may get to update things you regard as your own Personal Territory? Then I do not think it is worth my efforts to help. I give up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle (talk • contribs) 21:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

  • "I just do not think this whole thing is worth getting accused of my making things up" - And yet... you seem to think the issue is worth WP:HOUNDing me for over a year about. If you don't think it's that important, then perhaps you should WP:DROPTHESTICK and start helping to build the encyclopedia, rather than being WP:DISRUPTIVE just to try to make a WP:POINT.
  • "I am sure the sourcing I had found was every bit as good as the one you present here" - No you didn't, that was the entire point. Did you even read my post above? Your addition was UNSOURCED. How can no sources be every bit as good as high quality sources? I repeatedly requested that you provide sources for your changes, but instead you chose to WP:EDITWAR to try to force your unsourced changes into the template rather than providing sources to support your claims.
  • "..my making things up" - I asked you several times to support your changes with sources. You refused. If you can't or won't support your changes with sources, what else am I to conclude except that you're making it up? I'm not a mind reader you know.
  • "...not an Official Target Date as it has not been accepted by all parties" - I suggest you spend some time reading about the subject as you seem to lack sufficient familiarity with it to engage in this debate. Official target dates are dates unilaterally set by prospective eurozone states. Other parties do not need to accept the target date and never have.
  • "Is your problem that others may get to update things you regard as your own Personal Territory?" - No, not at all. I greatly appreciate when others help to update things. In fact, had you bothered to look at the template history before you came to my talk page to continue your rant, you'd have noticed that it was Nightstallion, and not I, who updated Romania's target date. I merely added some sources. Nightstallion's update was very helpful because they provided sources for their update. Your update a year ago, on the other had, was not helpful because you either could not or would not provide sources for the change. Once again, wikipedia is not the place to make things up. Without sources to WP:VERIFY claims, they are merely WP:OR. Please provide sources for changes you make in the future. TDL (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

You are not worth my trouble. I do not need this aggravation or demeaning language from you. I earned respect for my degrees long ago and for your information, I do know what I am talking about. It is you I am worried about. What makes you so great! So I retire as I am in life. Hope you can find someone else to plague! Briefzehn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle (talk • contribs) 23:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You have repeatedly shown up on my talk page using demeaning language while I have tried to politely explain why you must back up your personal opinions with sources. If you would like to be treated with respect, you should try treating others with respect rather than demanding it of others while behaving disrespectfully yourself. (As a side note, I as well have multiple advanced academic degrees for which I have earned respect. But here on the internet no one cares what degrees you have. We aren't here to prove we are smarter than one another, we are here to improve the encyclopedia.)
If you want to contribute to wikipedia, you need to accept that this is not a forum for you to publish you personal opinions on a subject. That you believe you are knowledgeable about a subject is irrelevant. All that matters is whether you can verify your claims. If Albert Einstein first published his theory of General Relativity on wikipedia it would have been deleted in a heartbeat. Everything you add needs to be reliably sourced, no matter how WP:TRUE you insist that it is. Others have pointed out identical concerns about your edits ([5]). Unfortunately, you seem incapable of comprehending these basic wikipedia policies and you quite often either misconstrue my comments or just don't read them.
The EEA article is a perfect example.
As I have said to you over and over again, if you want to claim that the Faroes is a state then you need a source that says that the Faroes is a state. The insistence that it is true by some anonymous editor on the internet who claims to be an expert is not convincing. The WP:BURDEN is on you to WP:PROVEIT with sources. As you have failed to provide any such source, this claim was rightfully removed by multiple editors. TDL (talk) 04:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Montenegrin currency

Hi there.

You made this good faith edit[6] and as you can see, I've not touched it. The reason I said "rejection of the dinar" is because from the regime's standpoint, that is what it was. The Dinar wasn't abolished and it continues to be used in Serbia, they only essential outcome was that with Serbia being the lone entity to use that currency, the notes and coins soon became replaced by identical tender containing the words Narodna Banka Srbije (National Bank of Serbia) in place of Jugoslavije (Yugoslavia). We need some agree on a way to rephrase it so it reflects this notion. Do you suggest anything? --Khorax (talk) 19:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this on my talk page. The reason I changed the wording is that "rejetion" comes across as slightly WP:EDITORIALIZING since the word has overtones of "to discard as useless or unsatisfactory".
I'm not sure that I understand your concern. How does "replace" suggest that that dinar was abolished? However, I'm certainly open to other formulations. I've had a go at rewriting the section in question. Does this help address your concern? TDL (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Top marks for your amendments, it is perfect now. I'd forgotten about the phase-out period when DM and dinar were joint-official from 1999 onward. Yes I now see 'rejection' was an inappropriate term given what it meant. All I was trying to relate was that the word 'replace' on its own may have caused a less knowledgeable reader to assume that the dinar came to an end - such as Malta adopting the Euro to replace its pound. Since you have extended the passage, I think it now explains everything. So thanks once again. --Khorax (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Great, I'm glad we could find a compromise! TDL (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to National Football League in Toronto may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • forces to buy the Bills|first=Tim|last=Graham|date=2014-08-16|accessdate=2014-08-23|newspaper=[[Buffalo News}}</ref><ref>{{citeweb|url=http://www.torontosun.com/2014/08/18/bon-jovi-reached-out-to-
  • Kelly won’t partner with Bon Jovi in Bills’ bid|date=2014-08-17|accessdate=2014-08-23|newspaper=[[Buffalo News}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Association of Caribbean States may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • >http://www.acs-aec.org/PressCenter/NewsReleases/2006/nr0132006_en.htm ACS Membership increases]</ref> The convention establishing the ACS was signed on July 24, 1994 in [[Cartagena de Indias]], [

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Userpage

Hello, I ask you to provide userpage for further discussions. Your actions in English section of Wikipedia are tending to flip facts [7]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Khimich (talk • contribs) 09:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying to say. How does that diff, in which I add a quote from the Serbian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "flip facts"? And what does "provide userpage" mean? TDL (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I cannot talk with person even not knowing where are you from, that's why I asked to provide userpage at least with minimal facts. Believe, knowing where you're from really matters. For now I see you pathologic interests to pro-Russian propaganda, so when I'll have some time I'll study your work more closely. At the moment, since you do not introduce yourself, apriori means something is wrong. Usually, really engaged person into wiki has its userpage. Alex Khimich (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is open to editors from all cultures, and they should be judged by the quality of their edits, not their race/ethnicity/nationality/religion/sexual orientation/etc. If it is so important to you to know such details that you won't even engage in a discussion without it, then you really should be asking yourself how your prejudicial views are relevant to the strength of an argument. Wikipedia is not WP:NOTFACEBOOK. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, not social network, and have no interest in sharing my personal details online. Besides, usually only pretentious narcissists (and WMF employees) post their photo on their wikipedia userpage (though there is a significant overlap between those two groups).
If you think that I have a "pathologic interests to pro-Russian propaganda" then your are either trying to compensate for your own biases, or lack sufficient competence at the English language to actually understand what I have written. However, I do encourage you to report me to WP:ANI if you really think there is a problem. Otherwise, please cease with the attacks. TDL (talk) 01:25, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Serbia membership in the UPU

I don`t understand why you try to forgery a Post History. In the page Treaty of Bern you can see that Principality of Serbia is founder of General Postal Union later rename to UPU . And what is your source that Serbia is member from 2001 ??? This is simple forgery . This is a Official History page Post of Serbia. [8] Read and learn. If you try to forgery next time I will report you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.180.83.48 (talk) 23:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary? The source is [9]. The same date is given by [10]. Yes Serbia had previously been a member, but modern day Serbia is not considered to be a legal successor to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia by the UN. Hence they were forced to reapply for UN membership. Based on the date given by the UPU, that appears to be the case here as well. The same goes for the Czech Republic and Slovakia. TDL (talk) 00:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Template

Hi mate, I noticed you reverted my edit because I inadvertently broke the link on Numrec/Kosovo. Anyway, what I was trying to do was fix the redirect of International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo to International recognition of Kosovo. Do you know how we could sort that out? Regards IJA (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, your edit changed the link from International recognition of the Republic of Kosovo to International recognition of the Kosovo. The way that I had written {{Numrec}} is to assume that there is a "the" before the state name, since this is the usual structure (ie. International recognition of the State of Palestine, International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic). Cases which do not follow this convention are handled by redirects (ie. International recognition of the Republic of South Ossetia).
Since redirects are WP:NOTBROKEN it didn't seem like a big deal. But I've now rewritten it so that there is an optional parameter to indicate the presence or absence of a "the". So there should be no redirect for Kosovo any longer. TDL (talk) 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, I'm not sure if it is working properly. Perhaps we should get an admin super nerd to fix it? IJA (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
@IJA: what doesn't seem to be working? When I open List of states with limited recognition for example I get a direct link to International recognition of Kosovo without a redirect. Perhaps you need to WP:REFRESH or WP:PURGE? This is what it produces now: 114. Does the 108 not link to International recognition of Kosovo for you? TDL (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
It is working now, sometimes these things take time to register across wiki. IJA (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Great. TDL (talk) 18:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Euro lead

Listing the French territories could be helpful in that they are the only regions outside Europe and Cyprus where euro is in use. 147.8.45.157 (talk) 05:15, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added a more general sentence on usage outside Europe to the lead with a link to Special member state territories and the European Union. Perhaps that is a good compromise? TDL (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks!147.8.104.128 (talk) 05:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Geneva Protocol reservations

Brilliant work putting together the reservations to the 1925 Geneva Protocol. You quote the SIPRI list, which I compiled some years ago. I put together a more recent list that appears in a Briefing Book for the Seventh Review Conference of the Biological Weapons Convention in 2011 which can be found at http://www.bwc2011.info that might be of interest. Richard Guthrie — Preceding unsigned comment added by R-Gut (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the kind words R-Gut! I've updated the article to link to the newest revision of your list.
One thing I was never able to reconcile with your list was that you list reservations for Thailand, but not for Syria. Do you recall where you read that Thailand made a reservation? I wasn't able to find anything on the official depositary website at [11], though the site is not comprehensive so I could have missed something. TDL (talk)

euro

re the euro. i believe it existed as a currency before the day it became the daily use currency, that is why i used the word "circulation" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abelljms (talk • contribs)

@Abelljms: I'm a bit confused as to what this message is in response to. Are you referring to this discussion? Does this edit not explain your point sufficiently clearly? If not, what is it that you think is unclear? TDL (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Football League in Toronto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ted Rogers. 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) 11:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ireland and Palestine

Are you sure its a symbolic motion? This article says that Ireland has officialy recognised Palestine and is now number 136 [12]. --Ahmetyal (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure. See [13] . TDL (talk) 08:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Member states of Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Economic Times. 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) 09:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment

The article Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Danlaycock!

Happy New Year!

Danlaycock,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
Thanks very much Iryna Harpy! Best to you as well. TDL (talk) 03:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danlaycock/Archive_4&oldid=998748968"