User talk:Wester/1

Hello

I've responded at my talk page. --Dweller (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert van Kerckhoven

You've made an absolute mess of the page move, especially as there is already an ongoing RM about this article. I've requested assistance from an admin to recitfy it. Giant Snowman 18:04, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't. The page is now at the correct destination. See official sources. --Dreynner (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is not your decision to make - it is up to an admin following community consensus reached through discussion on the talk page. Please feel free to join in the discussion, but don't just jump in with both feet. Giant Snowman 18:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly a mispelled title. Why prolong the procedure? Ignore all rules!--Dreynner (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's about more than just 'Kerckhoven' vs. 'Kerkhoven'; it's also 'van' vs. 'Van' and 'Robert' vs. 'Bob' - we need to have a proper discussion. Giant Snowman 18:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, van is almost always spelled 'Van' in Belgium.--Dreynner (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about 'Robert' vs. 'Bob'? This situation is obviously not simple, and I'm afraid you're adding to the difficulty with these edits. Giant Snowman 18:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It think it's good the way it is. Robert vs Bob is a chose. I thought Wikipedia gives a preference to the simple names (see Bill versus William). I do not think many users will care about this. It's both correct.--Dreynner (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PRC infobox

You are the only user who objects to my change to the infobox's language field, and since this is a small matter, we take it here...1) Putonghua, and only that, is stated in the PRC government source as the official language, at least in terms of the speaking component. 2) Mandarin technically applies to mean all dialects of that language, not only the standard, which is Putonghua. 3) Using the common name is a must only for article titles, as described in WP:NCON. It is commonly accepted, as in the case of naming disputes, to list one name first and then the common name in parentheses. For example, articles related only to Korean topics would use "East Sea (Sea of Japan)". Similarly, I had listed PTH first and then Mandarin, the more common name that still retains a degree of precision (as opposed to simply "Chinese"), in parentheses. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 19:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In English the language is called Mandarin or Standard Mandarin, almost never Putonghua. Putonghua is a Chinese word comparative by naming French 'français'.

You'r Sea of Japan example is odd because on Wikipedia only the common English name Sea of Japan is used.--Wester (talk) 20:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have decided to bring this matter to the article talk itself, I have responded there. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 21:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bundeswehr Kreuz Black.svg

Hi, Wester. I'm taking German battleship Bismarck through FAC, and it came up that the image doesn't have author or source information. Can you add whatever source you used to draw the image to the description page please? Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I forgat. I think I've copy-pasted from a flag. --Wester (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be a good source, right? Parsecboy (talk) 12:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I definitely used a Wikipedia-image. But it's a long time ago so I don't exactly know which. But I think a flag or a local image at the German wikipedia. The more I think about it the more I think I simply transfered an image from the German wikipedia to commons. Hence the German title. Because I would never use a German title.

Isn't their an archive of deleted images at the local wikipedia's?--Wester (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There should be, but you'd need to be an administrator on the German wiki to see the deleted files. Regardless, the link I provided should suffice as a source, since it's an image of the cross, and it doesn't have to be the specific image you used (what you used was a derivative of the German Army image anyway, since they created the cross). Parsecboy (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Augustus F. Hawkins, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early Netherlandish painting

Did you consider bringing up the issue of the name on the talk page before you unilaterally moved the article? A whole bunch of arts editors have been intensively working on this article for several months now- the title wasn't picked out of a hat. Please show some consideration next time. Lithoderm 01:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the reasons why it is not at that title are covered both in the article and on the talk page in the past. It is simply not the correct term in English. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Early Netherlandish painting is simply not a correct term since Netherlandish to modern usage is meaning Dutch eg. The Netherlands. Flemish primitive is the most common term.--Wester (talk) 02:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NOT in English. Johnbod (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Flemish Primitive is a common term in English as well. See this talkpage. Early Netherlandish painting is just a snobbish name used in some scientific circles. But the name used by everyone is Flemish Primitive.--Wester (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, Talk:Early_Netherlandish_painting#Title is the section you want. The other single guy complaining is Dutch or Flemish like you. Find a major Anglophone museum that uses FP in the last 50 years. Plus the Dutch rightly complain that though most were Flemish, many were Dutch, German or even Estonian. Other Flemings complain that in a medieval context only things from the county of Flanders should be called Flemish. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See eg [1], [2], [3] and [4]. And yes 'Flemish' because its mainly concentrate around the Flemish cities Ghent and Bruges. Calling it Netherlandish while it has nothing to to with The Netherlands is silly. --Wester (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

These are all Belgian/Dutch sources who, like you, insist that the terms in Flemish and Dutch must also work in English. See also Netherlandish in the OED, which long precedes modern political divisions, and also the direct translation Low Countries. What you are forgetting is that the English can usually never tell the difference between the Flemish and Dutch anyway. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the work where we talking about IS Flemish. So I think Flemish should have the right to name their art whatever they like. I've proven that Flemish Privitive is not a uncommon term in English and moreover the most common used term in English publications of Flemish sources. That the English never tell the difference between the Flemings and the Dutch is irrelevant (the difference is gigantic BTW, larger then the difference between eg Ireland and England). I think however that most people picture The Netherlands when hearing 'Netherlandish' instead of Flanders or moreover the cities Ghent en Bruges which were the centers of Flemish Primitives.

But ok. Although I still think the term 'early Netherlandish painters' is a misleading term it seems sadly enough common in English as well. So I won't change it again since both names are correct.--Wester (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks (I'd be cautious about arguing that "difference is gigantic BTW, larger then the difference between eg Ireland and England" in Dublin though!). Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baffin Island

What's wrong with listing only the major ethnic group? There are a lot of islands on Wikipedia that have something similar in that not all groups are listed. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 12:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examples? And in the cases were this is true ALL ethnic groups are mentioned and not just one. What's the point of mentioning it anyway.--Wester (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angola

Hello Wester: please have a look at the infobox of, e.g., South Africa where you will find the name of the country in all their national languages. This makes full sense, given the importance of these languages - which occasionally is symbolic, but mostly policial and practical (as in the administration and in schools). By analogy, having at least the main national languages in the Angola infobox is more than justified. -- Aflis (talk) 11:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In South Africa all 11 languages are official. That's not the case for Angola. See how things are done at Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo or Zambia.

Plus, it's selective to only select a few of them. --Wester (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notify

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mo ainm~Talk 22:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 22:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you put that template at the talk page. Now the redirect is not working because of the template.--Wester (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting page

Maybe you'll enjoy reading Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars. Basically everything that has to do with nationality, religion or politics is "controversial" on Wikipedia. Arcandam (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Higgs boson. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Need a few sources for that name NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See eg [5]. It's also the most correct name since Englert and Brout were the first to discover. Not Higgs.--Wester (talk) 21:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't revert again if you add the source in. But I wouldn't be surprised if someone else does though, as CERN itself uses Higgs boson. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Öpik-Oort

Greetings,

I do agree that the Estonian pronunciation is irrelevant; however, I suppose the name Öpik is Estonian in origin, and that is why there was a pronunciation note there.

I am currently at the office and can not verify this. May I invite you to please verify and put the proper pronunciation, removing the note that it is Estonian, or putting a note to this effect?

Best regards,

CielProfond (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How it's pronanced in Estonian is irrelevant. It's how it's pronounced in English that matters. I know it's a persons name. But persons name's in English are not always the same as in their native country. Like Einstein is not pronounced the same way in English as in German.--Wester (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Please stop edit warring as you are on Higgs boson. If you have a contribution to make please discuss it on talk page and/or get a WP:3O before further edits to the article itself. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 22:32, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did that. See the talk page of that article. Although I find it a bit unfair. There is northing wrong with my edit. It's factually correct, even more correct than the current version.--Wester (talk) 22:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For resolving your differences on the talk page and foregoing edit warring Woz2 (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan al-Saud

Why did you move this page? (But I reverted.) It seems that you are not aware of Saudi name conventions. Firstly, al-Saud is totally wrong, it should be Al, you may find related discussions in some talk pages. Secondly, in accordance with the Saudi name conventions, the name of father should be given after that of the person. I could not understand your motivation.Egeymi (talk) 05:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article of a persons name should always be the short one, the one that is actually used when describing the person. The long name can be used for the intro. Eg, the article on Nicolas Sarkozy is not titled 'Nicolas Paul Stéphane Sárközy de Nagy-Bocsa'.--Wester (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan bin Salman is Saudi Arabian, N. Sarkozy is French. Once again, Sultan is his name, you could not give it without his father's name, Salman. Al Saud is his surname. It is not so long. "An article of a persons name should always be the short one" is your rule. I suggest let's follow Saudi name conventions instead of our rules. Thanks, Egeymi (talk) 16:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's what used in English that matters (see Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names) and nobody would use such a long name when refering to that person. Eg. here (were I got the short name from) it states simply 'Sultan al-Saud'. But now that I think of it 'Sultan bin Salman' is probably better. That's also the name used in the first line of the article.

And what the al-Saud vs Al Saud thing matters: you know well their is no standard for that. It depends on how you romanize the name.---Wester (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care for their standard, but I care for Arabic rules and meaning, al is definite article in Arabic, i.e. the in English. I think an encyclopedia should give correct info.Egeymi (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 2

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

City states

Your edit is vandalism. This sentence does not have sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability) and also the sentence is controversial: only three? and this three? This is also Original Research (see: Wikipedia:No original research). Your editing was withdrawn, again. If you remove the "fact"-template again, your edit will be undone again (or this sentence will be removed according to Wikipedia:Verifiability) and you will be reported to administrators. Thank you. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three city-states left. Easy determinable facts don't need a source. So it's not vandalism.--Wester (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three city-states left? What? Easy determinable facts don't need a source? What? This is joke? This is not easy determinable facts. There are five city-states. Your opinion is controversial and not supported by sources. Always, if there are controversies and disputes about text in Wikipedia, the text must have a sources. Otherwise, such content will be removed. Subtropical-man (talk) 17:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Claims like 'the grass is green' don't need a source. Only controversial facts/quotations are generally given a source. See:

All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.

This type of information is just basic. Not controversial, contested or whatsoever. And yes: it's simply true that there are only three sovereign city-states. If you state there are 5 I wonder what the other two are. Macao and Hongkong are not city-states since they're not independent but part of China (since the handover in 1997/1999). There are numerous sources that support the claim: [6], [7], ...

BTW: I haven't inserted that fact. I only removed the unnecessary template. --Wester (talk) 18:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First: Yes, this quote is from the Wikipedia:Verifiability: All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material... and Wikipedia:Verifiability is main rules of Wikipedia, one of three, see: Wikipedia:Core content policies.

Second: the term of only "three" is disputed, there is no doubt. Also this comes close to the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. It's not original research to simply state that there are three city states left. And you still haven't clarified what are the names of those 5 city states. What are the other two then? It seems to me that you are the only one that dispute this claim but that says more about you than about the claim.

And I did provided some sources (although I don't think that necessary).--Wester (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please. It has long been said about San Marino, Malta, Hong Kong as city-states, there are a separate and reliable sources for this data. There is no definite number of three or five or six. Also, Monaco with Monte Carlo as capital is disputed. Your term of "three" break three main rules of Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. PS. your sources is not reliable, this is private page and blog. According to the Wikipedia:Verifiability, this sources is not reliable. Conclusion: if there not in 100% reliable and not disputed sources, according to the Wikipedia:Verifiability to this sentence and term of "three", this sentence will be removed. So it will be better, this is very controversial issue and the dispute about this can go on forever. Thank you for the discussion. Subtropical-man (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again: I haven't inserted the sentence. I only removed the template. And the examples you are given are not city states. Hongkong and Macau were never independent and San Marino is bigger than the city of San Marino. The same goes for Andorra and Luxembourg. Malta is definitely not a city state since it consists of multiple cities and localities (and there is no city called Malta). Don't mix up microstate with city state.

Who is disputing the fact that there are three city states beside you? --Wester (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scream & Shout

Hi, I need some help. The source for Scream & Shout's chart position in France shows a link where the song is #2. Can you help me to change the link for the one with S&S at #1? ( http://www.snepmusique.com/fr/pag-256084-Singles-Fusionnes-%28physique-et-numerique%29.html?cid=495592 ). Thanks.--Albes29 (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Mother Teresa does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! Use of an edit summary in your first edit would perhaps have prevented the occurrence of a revert. Elizium23 (talk) 05:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC) [[File:Rajesh|12px|thumbnail|center|very --117.212.200.23 (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)--117.212.200.23 (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)--117.212.200.23 (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)--117.212.200.23 (talk) 03:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)Bold text]] this is vertical of new comment of america biografhay//[reply]

Christopher Columbus

If you have source to refuting those in the article please bring them to the talk page of the article. We have basic conduct expectations from our editors - so I have started the talk people have asked you to start. Moxy (talk) 10:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See previous comments of other users as well. It's nonsense to state 'nationality = Italy' since Italy didn't exist back then. "Republic of Genoa" would have made more sense.--Wester (talk) 11:01, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No guess work please - Could we get you to read the sources in the article and about the history Italy - Italian Renaissance.Moxy (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See this e.g.--Wester (talk) 11:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

European Union

Hi, since you are moving the article Location of European Union institutions around, please do not remove valid information as you did here, otherwise it's vandalism. Thank you very much! Cheers, Insert coins (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remove valid information? No, I add valid information and remove out of date information. The council is not based in Luxembourg any-more.--Wester (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The move may have been inadvertent, and I agree with the move, but it would have been better to discuss it with an RM. Apteva (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this disputed move properly, at Talk:Seat of the European Union#MNove?. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you reverted edit of user Oliszydlowski on article -Copernicus-?

Could you explain why you reverted edit of user Oliszydlowski on article -Copernicus-? Please read the talk page and the context of the article. Although Copernicu’s mother had German family name and Copernicus was speaking German beside Polish and Latin, it has no meaning. It is because the Watzenrode family was in Polish territories more than 100 years earlier, were intermarried with Polish families, the family was loyal subjects to Polish Royalty and Polish nation interests. Copernicu’s mother was at least half Polish, her mother was from well known Polish family Modlibog. German language was commonly used as trade language in Polish cities at that time since the bourgeoisie were commonly recruited from German countries by Polish Kings and Polish Dukes. Speaking German does not mean to be a member of German nation even presently. The German language is the main and/or official Language in Austria, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, Lichtenstein and Luxemburg, so speaking German does not mean to be a German. Copernicus was born in Poland, educated in Poland and later in Italy not in any of the many German speaking kingdoms or duchies of that time. He was also loyal citizen of Poland in the wars against (German) Teutonic Order. Thus it is the German nationalist markup and German done edits war which set the inappropriate form of the article.--Huronton (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be he is not just Polish. The truth is more complicated. --Wester (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously he is. The point that his mother was from family of German name means nothing. I have some people in my family whose names are German and one of my grand grandmothers was from German family. How you argue that Copernicus is not Polish. Let me know. If you say "The truth is more complicated" is too vague. Look for how many of major Encyclopedias have no doubts. Look on Google search results provided by some other editor no long ago. This offence for Polish culture to claim otherwise. --Huronton (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read this. As I said, the truth is more complicated. In his time, they were no countries the way we know hem today. And calling him Polish is misleading. He was no 'etnic' Pole and certainly not only Polish, just subject to the Polish crown. You're last remark is exactly why I hate those discussions. Nationalism should not matter in this.--Wester (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This are private sentences about the argue. The fakt is if Leonado da Vincy (contemporary to Copernicus) was Italian thus Copernicus is Polish, even more since Italy at that time did not existed but Poland did. Also Germany was partitioned but Poland existed in consitsend form all the way from 966 up to 1794, just check it. Absolutely you are wrong. What do you mean 'etnic' Polish, his father was Pole, his mother at least half Pole, we do not now in fakt how much Polish was his grandfather from mother side but Watzenrode were in Poland long befor 1360. So who Copwernicus was a Pole with some drop of German blood? The stugle was started by German nationalists see the bigining of the article. On base of major World Encyclopedias is Polish, as well as Google search mentioned in above by some other editor setup Polish. I think if you realy hate nationalism you should see who press the nationalism.--Huronton (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, you are right taking for consideration different sense of belonging in XV/XVI century the person would say: "I am loyal subject of Polish Crown" not simple I am Pole as it is today. And I am not against to introduce the equivocal form -- that Copernicus was loyal subject of Polish Crown,-- it would be OK for me. However does not seem to be for Germany hegemony lovers. Finally, from the point of view of equality for all historical and scientific biographies what should we do with Leonardo da Vinci, Michael Angelo and so many Italian Renaissance figures. Not mention about the German figures of that time, where was so many German speaking Duchies, Kingdoms etc.--Huronton (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion needed for Angel of the North in Cultural icon

I see you wish to delete all mention of The Angel of the North from Cultural icon on the grounds that it is not "a world known icon". Your second deletion in the face of my reasoned restoration of the item is already on the verge of edit-warring, which is of course deprecated here on Wikipedia, and I note you have been challenged on similar matters by other editors.

Let us therefore consider the evidence.

Firstly, being "a world known icon" is not the criterion for this article, which is not a "List of World Known Icons" but a general introduction to "Cultural icon". There is no doubt that the Angel of the North is however a famous cultural icon:

The Gateshead council ref is actually titled " Angel of the North an English icon"

and explicitly writes "Gateshead's famous Angel of the North is now one of 12 official ‘Icons of England’."

The Future matters site explicitly writes "The development of cultural icons such as Sage, Baltic and The Angel of the North have shown that iconic projects can go a long way to improving external perceptions of an area".

The Guardian article says it is "Britain's most famous piece of modern public art".

The additional Creative Clusters website says "the borough’s two most famous cultural icons, the Angel of the North and the Gateshead Millennium Bridge".

The Angel of the North is thus explicitly stated to be a famous cultural icon. It is a striking monument and is now certainly one of the best know icons of the Northeast of England. There is no objection to the addition of some more examples to illustrate the article, but there is no sense in removing correctly-placed and well-sourced material from the article.

It is possible that you personally are not familiar with this particular cultural icon, but personal knowledge is not a valid criterion - reliable sources are, and this item is more than adequately sourced. Your action would be entirely appropriate if the claim were poorly sourced, but with (now) four good sources, two of which actually say the word "famous" in connection with the "cultural icon", the item cannot reasonably be removed on these grounds. I would like therefore to reinstate it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on PlayStation 3 and PlayStation 4. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please discuss this issue on the talk page before reverting again. Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 17:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 10

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain...

Could you please explain why you renamed Charleroi Metro to Charleroi Pre-metro? Geo Swan (talk) 13:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-metro is al typical Belgian term denoting a light metro system in which trams travel partly underground. See Premetro for the general article and Antwerp_Pre-metro for the sister system in Antwerp.--Wester (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your edits using the edit summary rather than on talk pages. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm Transcendence. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Gordon Heuckeroth without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Transcendence (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a small incident. Wikipedia is spending to much attention to it. It's not in accordance with the rest of the article.--Wester (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Euro without thoroughly explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit summary. I only gave it a cursory look & didn't realise that it was pointing to a conspiracy theory. Nice catch! Happy editing (and a Happy New Year)! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clipperton

Hello Wester,

With regards to your edit on Clippperton being part of the EU, what are the sources for that? I've been unable to find much information on clipperton and its relation with the EU (and its relation with France for that matter), so if you have some that would be interesting.

Thanks, CMD (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This states: "Due to reorganisation in the French overseas territories Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin leave Guadeloupe (with France retaing EU law application in the new territories) and Clipperton is moved from French Polynesia administration to direct Government of France administration".--Wester (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's also unsourced sadly. Although it is true Clipperton is under direct French central government administration, that doesn't mean it's part of the EU. CMD (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no exception made I think it does.--Wester (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason to assume it came in while administered by French Polynesia while French Polynesia stayed out (there's no reason to assume it came in in spite of this either). For it to join the EU, the EU would need to authorise this. For comparison, Mayotte became a full French region/department in 2011, but was only accepted into the EU this year. CMD (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Mayotte had a special statute. If nothing is mentioned about an exception then we could assume that's is part of the EU like 'mainland France' since France as a state is member of the EU.--Wester (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Clipperton is not part Mainland France (or even an overseas region). The EU has never made a legal statement either way with regards to Clipperton (although the commission did write than unless explicitly noted non-European territories were not covered in 1984, which is tenuous and not backed up in EU law), and we should reflect that greyness rather than making our own interpretations. CMD (talk) 15:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, perhaps your right. --Wester (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does moving it into the third column, with Northern Cyprus, make sense? CMD (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Situation unclear' is exactly what it is. ;)--Wester (talk) 15:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, I've shifted it. Your userpage says you speak good French; perhaps you'd be much better at finding sources on this than me. Perhaps something's been published in French that never made it to English. Regards, CMD (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I found this here that states that the Treaty of Rome and the Treaty of Maastricht (and it's amendments of course) do not apply on Clipperton. But the Euratom treaty does. However our colleagues on the French wikipedia say that Clipperton has to be considered as part of French Polynesia in the treaties. However that's seems to be a personal interpretation. This is also relevant (page 3) and it refers to article 355 in the 'Treaty on the functioning of the European Union'.

So in conclusion: I think the official source is the most reliable. Despite the answer given there is actually based on a written question of 1985 (and the statue of Clipperton changed in 2007). When the treaties were sign Clipperton was part of French Polynesia. No wonder that it's not mentioned directly in the treaties. But since 2007 Clipperton is not longer part of French Polynesia but directly administrated by the Ministry of Overseas and the official position is that Clipperton is automatically excluded from the treaties because it is not mentioned directly in article 355 of the 'Treaty on the functioning of the European Union'. --Wester (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. I was under the impression Clipperton was never officially part of French Polynesia, just administered by them for convenience, much like the Scattered islands and Reunion (Scattered islands need more sources too).

So to clarify, the official French position is that despite being not mentioned in the treaties, Clipperton remains outside the EU (an OCT presumably?). I don't think Euratom matters, as France could apply some EU law if it chooses to. This still doesn't explain why they didn't ask for a change in status, as they did when Guadeloupe broke up. If you want to add this to the Clipperton subsection of the article, it'd be great if you in the reference provide the short French quote and your translation, if that's possible. CMD (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article 355.3 of the 'Treaty on the functioning of the European Union' is also relevant here: "The provisions of the Treaties shall apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible." I think this is the main reason why the two treaties that are the foundation of the EU do not apply on Clipperton. --Wester (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]