User talk:Danlaycock/Archive 5

Your GA nomination of Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment
The article Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Post-Soviet states
Just to say a million thanks for the changes you made to Post-Soviet states. I am sorry it has taken me one whole month to notice. As is clear, I just didn't have the confidence to make what could have looked like a sensitive change. I mean you know the facts, I know the facts, but there are many sore points across the entire site with flocks of editors on hand to defend a specific point. Looks like nobody contests your revision which is good. So thanks again. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 11:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I completely understand your point, but I prefer to be WP:BOLD and if someone reverts deal with it on the talk page. Thanks for the appreciation!  TDL (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment
Harrias talk 03:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Flag of New Caledonia
Hi,

I'm happy that we've came to an agreement on the flag of New Caledonia, I will try to do more research on this topic, but the law in New Caledonia is just a nightmare, it's very unique and sometime strange. I have just one question, I've just saw that you help with the creation of a page related to Canada, are you from New Caledonia ? This is just a question as I would like to improve a little bit the article related to the flag.

Best regards, 203.147.79.224 (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm not from New Caledonia, just something that piqued my interest. TDL (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello!
Hiya!

If you come across RoniA20 again, could you please drop me a line on my talk page? Or ping me in the SPI? Going to try keep an eye on this one :)--5 albert square (talk) 20:56, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, will do. TDL (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI reverted
Hi. Just to let you know that a comment you made at ANI was reverted by the user under discussion. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I reverted once, but it's probably simplest to just let him have his temper tantrum and cleanup after he's blocked. I've reported him to Sockpuppet investigations/Bosnipedian, so if you see any more socks of User:Bosnipedian just list them there.  TDL (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, he now seems to have been blocked. Thanks for your help. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem! Now to go through their edit history to revert everything...  TDL (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong WP rationale you're using
Hello,

You reverted my changes I made to the UNSD statistics division articles while linking WP:CRITERIA. However, the rationale you hold per this WP is false, including the saying that it's "overprecisement", as the UNSD is just one of the many departments the UN organ has. Other UN (UNICEF, FAO, etc) departments define the regions of the world differently, and for different purposes. Therefore, putting these articles titled as "United Nations Geoscheme for..." is plain wrong, as other UN departments and definitions deviate from it. Look at the official cartographic UN maps, or the definitions provided by UNICEF, UNESCAP, UNDSP, etc. It needs to be therefore precisely United Nations Statistics Division in the title, as otherwise it's misleading and people will erroneously assume that these definitions are used by the whole organisation comprising the UN, which is absolutely not the case. When common people think about the UN, they usually think about exactly the main organ of the UN, and definitely not about its statistics department of which those articles are actually about, and statements/references rely upon a single page of the UNSD website.

On top of that, the UNSD website, where that whole concept is from, repetitively personally states that it's created by and for the United Nations Statistics Division department.

Regards and awaiting response,

LouisAragon (talk) 17:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, where does the UNSD website state that it's created "for the United Nations Statistics Division department"? I can't see that anywhere.
 * According to the UN, these statistical areas are "used by the United Nations for statistical purposes, developed and maintained by the United Nations Statistics Division." So in fact they are used well beyond just by UNSD, and the suggestion that they are "used only by the United Nations Statistics Division" is not correct. This is supported by the practice of other divisions, for example Population Division, Division for the Advancement of Women, and  various others.  Certainly, other agencies and funds use different regional groupings for specific purposes, but unlike the UNSD divisions they are not used throughout the UN.


 * Note that this link, from UNTERM whose goal is to "ensure accurate and consistent usage" of terminology, refers to the divisions as the "United Nations geoscheme" and not "United Nations Statistics Division geoscheme". I've never seen any WP:RS use the title you are proposing.  We should follow sources and not invent a new name for it.


 * This is analogous to United States primary statistical area, which isn't titled United States Office of Management and Budget primary statistical area simple because the Office of Management and Budget develops and maintains them, even though there are lots of other statistical areas in use within the United states. TDL (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What about as a compromise, renaming it something like United Nations statistical divisions? TDL (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * TDL, thanks for your prompt response.
 * I think we can meet each other perfectly with that compromise. By that way people will understand easier for what reason its used for and what all this stands for. I will start fixing the articles somewhere later today or tomorrow according this agreeing.
 * Oh btw, thus we will name those separate geoscheme articles about the regions of the world "United Nations statistical division for Europe/Africa/America" etc etc.? Sounds good to me.
 * Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that sounds good. The only suggestion I would make is to use the plural "United Nations statistical divisions for Europe/Africa/America".
 * Glad we could find a compromise! TDL (talk) 14:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

International recognition of Kosovo
Looks as if STP does not recognise right now. Would you like to add anything to Talk:International recognition of Kosovo before any changes are made? --Oranges Juicy (talk) 16:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding explanation to already edits
Hi Danlaycock.

I was wondering how to add a brief explanation to already edits. I forgot to do it when i added a tenant to the BMO Field page

(NoArgosAtBMO (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC))
 * Are you talking about an WP:edit summary? Those can only be added at the time of making the edit, not after the fact.  TDL (talk) 02:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation Clerk
I moved this discussion here, so that Danlaycock's request at Wikipedia_talk:Sockpuppet_investigations/SPI/Clerks may be deleted.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  13:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)




 * I'd be interested in training to be a clerk at SPI if there is ever additional need. SPI is so often backlogged. It's quite frustrating when socks are able to continue their disruption for weeks while the SPI case drags on, only to make the cleanup that much worse.  I'd like to assist with non-admin tasks to help speed up the process.
 * I have nearly 10 years of editing experience, with a clean block log and 20,000+ edits.
 * I have a PhD in the sciences, with strong analysis skills.
 * I have significant experience filing reports at SPI back to 2010 which demonstrate my judgement skills and knowledge of sockpuppet and checkuser policy: Rejedef, Koov, Bosnipedian, RoniA20, Naghmehetaati, Xcmpunkx, Soffredo, Kauffner, FallandSpringOlympics, Enciclopediaenlinea, Irvi Hyka, Gbgfbgfbgfb, Diogomauricio3, Camoka4, Evlekis, Cognoscerapo, Sascha30, RRIESQ, BlueJaysMVP, 98.234.208.200, Satt 2, Vovazodessi. I believe my track record at SPI is quite strong: I don't recall any sock that I've reported not be confirmed (aside from IPs that go stale due to the backlog.)  I've dealt with quite complicated cases (ie ), and have been able to link a number of separate SPI cases back to a single puppeteer by noticing similarities (ie ).  TDL (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Are you still interested, Danlaycock? If so, I can probably take you on as a trainee. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Reaper Eternal, yes I'm willing and able to start training now if you want to take me on. TDL (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Danlaycock, alright then, I'll take you on as a trainee. :) You'll want to make sure you are familiar with (i.e. re-read) the policy on what SPI clerks are allowed to do, the sock puppetry policy, the local and global checkuser policies, and the privacy policy. The WMF privacy policy and the checkuser policies cover when checkuser may be used and what information may be revealed. (The most common reason for denying a checkuser request is a user requesting checkuser to link an IP and an account&mdash;this will never be granted except in extremely extenuating circumstances.) The sock puppetry policy covers the several cases of non-abusive sock puppets, so don't request checkuser or blocks for legitimate uses of alternative accounts. Since you aren't an admin (yet), you can't actually block abusive alternative accounts. However, feel free to flag SPIs as "administrator action needed" to block said sockpuppets. As an SPI clerk, you can endorse or decline checkuser requests, you can close SPIs where all administrator action needed has been taken, you can close SPIs where there is no real evidence of sockpuppetry, or when you decide the evidence is insufficient. You can archive closed cases after double-checking to ensure that everything has been dealt with. If you have any major questions, my talkpage, my email, or IRC is always available to ask questions (anybody is allowed in the SPI IRC channel to prevent misuse). Other than that, good luck, and have fun dealing with the mess that is many SPI pages! Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:50, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for taking me on Reaper Eternal! I'll take some time to review all the relevant policies before jumping into the fire, and drop you a note if I have any questions.  TDL (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reaper Eternal: Just to let you know, I've now completed my review of all the relevant policies, so I think I'm ready to get started clerking at SPI. Let me know if you have any feedback on my actions.  TDL (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi! Are you using the SPI helper script when clerking at the SPI? It is very useful. Also the Mark-blocked script is very useful, it marks links to blocked users, so that you can see clearly who is blocked.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  00:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links . I've installed them and will give them a try.  TDL (talk) 03:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Move requests
Hi there. I've done the two moves that you requested at WP:RMT and protected the pages against further moves by anyone but an administrator for the next week. You might want to leave a note on the talk pages suggesting a requested move discussion if anyone disagrees with the current title. Cheers, Philg88 ♦talk 20:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks  I've left a note pinging the user, suggesting an RM.  Could you move the associated talk pages back as well?  Thanks.  TDL (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved one but someone beat me to the other. Should be all sorted now. Philg88 ♦talk 04:31, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! TDL (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Potential Candidate for the future enlargement of the European Union
Tell me my friend what's the difference between having been "recognized by the EU as having a European perspective and been able to apply for membership" and "recognized as official potential candidate"? (85.218.49.212 (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC))
 * Bosnia and Kosovo have been recognized by the EU as being "potential candidates" and are part of the current enlargement agenda.
 * None of Georgia, Moldova or Ukraine are recognized as potential candidates by the EU, and none are part of the current enlargement agenda. The EU parliament merely recognized that: "pursuant to Article 49 of the Treaty on European Union, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine – like any other European state - have a European perspective and may apply to become members of the Union".  The EU's relations with these states is conducted under it's European Neighbourhood Policy, while relations with Bosnia and Kosovo are under it's enlargement policy.  TDL (talk) 00:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

SPI archiving
Dan, there doesn't seem to be an archive link at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Horace the sun lord even though I saw that you just archived an SPI to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Horace the sun lord/Archive. Is this a glitch?  General Ization  Talk   02:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi General Ization. It's just a WP:PURGE issue.  Sometimes it takes a while for the cache to be purged, but you can force a purge by following the instructions at Purge.  I just purged Sockpuppet investigations/Horace the sun lord and the archive link now appears.  TDL (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Aha, thanks.  General Ization  Talk   02:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

سلام چرا شما نام خلیج‌فارس را به نام جعلی خلیج تغییر می دهید
سلام چرا شما نام خلیج‌فارس را به نام جعلی خلیج تغییر می دهید Amin joortani (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I presume you are referring to your edit here? According the GCC's website, it's correct English language name is "Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf" or GCC for short.  See .  TDL (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Seen this?
Hey, how are you doing? Someone changed this page despite the UNSD clearly mentions it as "statistics division".  Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 16:14, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Personally, either title is fine with me. Given that the move has been reverted, I suggest starting a formal WP:RM to propose the retitle because it is obviously contentious.  TDL (talk) 20:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, he has changed everything now. Contentious it is I guess, but I don't have much time right now to go through that whole procedure (I only check wiki to revert vandalisations, etc). Perhaps you can do it, or you also don't really care about the rest of those articles whichever version it shows?
 * Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly care strong enough either way to deal with setting up a RM on the matter. TDL (talk) 18:09, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, it is me. We can discuss here the rationle of chosing one or the other. I believe that in terms of naming in Wikipedia, customary names have more priorty than official names. The official names have more priorities than the names coined "originally" by Wikipedians themselves. Thus, considering the following facts:
 * multiple reliable non-UN sources (especially published academic work) refer to the object (a geographic classification system) as "UN geoscheme", and
 * the historical discussion on the use of "statistical division(s)" was discussed and agreed upon by two Wikipedians (probably more), but till now without any Googlable outside use that does not originate from Wikipedia (Note the citation chain here)
 * we may reach the reasonable conlusion that:
 * the customary cited name for the object/unit of the knowledge entry here is "UN geoscheme"
 * thg name coined by Wikipedians here is "UN statistical divisions"
 * Then it is clearer to see why the change of name is justified. Still, if you have reliable independent sources (i.e. they do not use the phrase "UN statistical divisions" based on Wikipedia article here), we can consider *keeping* the name space "UN statistical divisions", instead of deleting it. In any case where there are no clear signs of significant and citation use of the phrase "UN statistical divisions" when compared to the term "UN geoscheme", a change/move is necessary in my opinion. --(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 02:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A cursory google search with the query -- "statistical divisions" site:un.org -- shows the term "statistical divisions" overwhelmingly refesr to the organizational units which are in charge of statistical work. While there are few cases of "statistical divisions" being used as the genral term/concept of categorization for statistical purposes, they do not specifically refer to the UN geoscheme, the knowledge object/unit we are discussing here. It is clear to me that the name space "UN statistical divisions" is thus ambiguous at best and does not correspond cleanly to the UN geoscheme.   To avoid any concerns of COI, I currently work at a research institute under the UN systems.--(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 02:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I'm fine with either name. TDL (talk) 03:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your position. I merely tried to supply relevant information and my argument here. I am happy to move the discussion elsewhere, including moving it to a formal WP:RM as you suggested. BTW, I forgot to mention that Unicode CLDR refers to the UN geocheme with a techincal term  UN M.49 --(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 03:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey hanteng, just a quick response from my side :-),

Some of the reasons as per why I agreed for a change, is that the UNSD uses the termination "statistics divisions" on several occasions including the too right corner. . Furthermore, many of the groupings are not what, by most people, seen as "typical" groupings. Having a title that once again lays emphasis on the fact that it's purely for statistics, gives the reader more utility, for him to understand that's it's not a typical grouping, which is usually based on geography or geo-politics. "United Nations geo scheme" and "United Nations Statistics Geoscheme" have two different vibes when reading them. By using the first mentioned title, people will erroneously assume as if it's used by all of the UN for every reason (like a de facto UN country grouping for the world), while the second title clearly lays emphasis on the fact that it's only used for statistics and nothing else. It's more to the point, and it's what it's explicitly used for. Many different departments of the UN use different groupings (UNICEF, etc), and so does the official UN Cartographics Centre. So, by these reasons, I believe the previous title was better than the current one.

However, as I already mentioned above, I don't have the time nor will to take it to RM. Might you also agree with these reasons and perhaps see in why we changed the title, then you are obviously free and welcome to change it back. In any other case, thanks for sharing your reasonings with us as for why you changed it. :-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 20:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if I understand your reply above correctly: If so, please allow me to repeat a bit on the following: Therefore, it is not advisable to use the ambigous general term "statistical divisions", or the wrong organization term "Statistics Division" to refer to UN M.49. UN statistical divisions can refer to any agencies doing statisitcal work under the UN system, or imply that there are certain UN statistical categorization schemes in a general sense (not geographical).
 * UNSD uses the term "statistics divisions"  ( I agree, but the term refers to division(s) in the UN headquarter or agencies in different countries, NOT a specific way of geographic divisions of the world.)
 * You still prefer previous title (i.e. "United Nations statistical divisions") to the current one (i.e. "United Nations geoscheme")?
 * The term "Statistics Division"(capitalized singular form) in the UN context refers to the organization of United Nations Statistics Division with the website at unstats.un.org.
 * The term "statistical divisions"(plural form) can mean any categorization schemes, not just geographical ones. Google this: "statistical divisions" site:un.org
 * The term "statistical divisions"(plural form) can ALSO mean any organization bodies who are doing statisitcal work in governments. Google this: "statistical divisions" site:un.org

I agree that UN geoscheme is widely used for stastitcs and ALSO mapping. Natural Earth has region_un and subregion metadata for each country. I use it quiet often. It is why I notice that most of academic work refer this geographic categorization/classification scheme as "UN geoscheme". Try Google BOOK search and you will find at least the following:
 * "The best option to identify the states from Asia could be use the United Nations (UN) geoscheme for Asia. As per this, Asia is subdivided to four broad categories:...."
 * "The UN geoscheme defines the region as all states of mainland North America south of the United States; conversely, the European Union excludes Belize and Mexico from its definition of the region ...."
 * "Country groups are based on UN Geoscheme and World Bank regional classification."
 * "...were grouped into regions and subregions based on the United Nations Geoscheme (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm)"
 * "... that the United Nations Statistics Division would later classify as Eastern Asia, Southern Asia and Southeastern Asia according to its geoscheme. In fact ..."

I also agree that many UN agencies, and in fact, many other reports, consultancies, etc. have different "statistical divisions" (in the general sense of categorization schemes) for research. This is exactly why I believe the term "UN geoscheme" is better. Although it is NOT official term or a technical term (UN M.49), I have not yet found an ambigous use of the term. Correct me if I am wrong on this, so far every online and academic citations that I have found when the term "UN geoscheme" is used, it refers to exactly the regions and subregions as defined in UN M.49.

Moving forwards, since you don't have the time nor will to take it to RM, and if you do not have any further couter-evidence or -arguments with the evidence and claims that I layed out above, I can help by making the necessary editing without going to RM. Of course, if you still have lingering concerns, please summarize your current arguments (preferrably after considering the evidence that I have already presented) and new evidence/citations here, before I bring it to RM. --(comparingChinese Wikipedia vs Baidu Baike by hanteng) 03:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello again hanteng. :) Thanks for summarising your points once again. We obviously did get your reasoning straight away, that wasn't any issue even the first time you elaborated them. :) Could you perhaps however elaborate a bit more about the last alinea, as in what do you mean with "I can help by making the necessary editing".
 * Bests and take care.
 * (Ps, DLC, excuse me for using your talk page here man)
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ontario Blues logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Ontario Blues logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Croatia and Schengen
Hi Danlaycock, I have 2 questions. I hope you could explain them to me:
 * 1) I really do not understand why the text that I added has nothing to do with Croatia since Croatia is mentioned? See Croatia was mentioned - "could negatively affect Croatia’s hopes of joining the passport-free zone". If you want add the other countries as well - Romania, Bulgaria, and Cyprus.
 * 2) I really do not understand why the text that I added is plagiarized content since I added the source/citation from where it comes from?

Thanks in advance. MaronitePride (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the newspaper mentions Croatia because it is a publication targeted at Croatians. But what Davor Gjenero actually says is that "In these conditions, the question is whether there will be an expansion of the Schengen regime, if the Schengen system survives at all". What this says is that the migrant crisis is an obstacle to Schengen enlargement in general, not to Croatian enlargement specifically. It has nothing to do specifically with Croatia, or the policies of the Croatian government. The table lists country-specific obstacles. General obstacles, which impact all countries, should be discussed in general above the table.

With regards to the WP:COPYVIOs, I suggest you carefully read the message I left you, including all the links. WP:NFC can only be used in very specific situations and in very limited quantities. Citing the source does not mean you can copy the source word-for-word. It would be like selling a book written by someone else but claiming you did nothing wrong since you left their name on it. Copyright holders have legal rights, and you are violating those rights.

At this point I strongly advise you stop adding content to articles until you understand Wikipedia's WP:NFC policies. You have already created a big problem that is going to take a lot of work for others to clean up. TDL (talk) 17:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, as you suggested I will stop adding content to articles until you understand the policies. MaronitePride (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't really know if you're a troll or actually well-intented :)
...but what you are doing by archiving discussions in Talk:International_recognition_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic just because you want to is, well vandalism. I am assuming good faith mistake for a third time and therefore I am only reverting your unjustified edit. If you insist on the mistake and unilateral closing of discussions (something that is not up to you), I think we'd better ask for outside opinion and official moderation, don`t you agree? All the best, Allemnisch (talk) 14:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * As you are a WP:SOCK of User:Vhaslhv who is circumventing your indefinite block, you are not permitted to start talk page discussions. TDL (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that it's been confirmed that I do not know what Vhaslhv is nor do I have any connections to him/her whatsoever, I think you owe me an apology :) Allemnisch (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Allemnisch has been blocked as a sock of Vhaslhv. TDL (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of neutral site Canadian Football League games, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamilton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

North American Football League listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect North American Football League. Since you had some involvement with the North American Football League redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so.  Cra sh  Underride  23:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's greetings!


Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Thanks best to you as well!  TDL (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Political status of the Cook Islands and Niue
I must admit that your revert is at least partially correct. State recognition (or not) is a part of this equation however. The UN bit bothers me. The UN does not recognize states as sovereign or not. On the other part of the question; Other sovereign states have no way of interfering with the internal status of territories or associated states of other countries. This is a complicated situation but and apart from the UN situation we should not suggest that other states have anything to do with the internal workings of New Zealand in it's relations with its associated states. That is an internal matter. The notion that many states mentioned in the tables recognize these two countries as entirely sovereign bothers me as well. It's not explicitly supported by the sources given and I believe that that is a problem. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the UN does not extend diplomatic recognition, but it does "recognize" states in the broader sense of the word. It grants certain rights exclusively to polities which it deems to be states.  The sentence doesn't say that the UN granted diplomatic recognition to either associated state, it just points out their status within the UN system.
 * On your second point, the sentence does not claim that any state is interfering with the internal status of the territories, it merely explains what their view is on their legal status. Much like we could say that the United States considers Taiwan to be a province of China.
 * For the final point, I haven't gone through every source, but at least the first ones for China do explicitly support the claim: "mutual respect for sovereignty". TDL (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The UN acknowledges states but, as it is not a state itself, their acknowledgement has no consequences when it comes to state recognition. Also, mutual respect for sovereignty is just a general phrase used in the document. It doesn't specifically say that China regards these states to be sovereign, as it does not state what particular sovereignty they are on about. That is an interpretation by editors and that is problematic when it comes to the things stated in this article. On the other matter you raise I must say you are quite right however... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. How could they respect their sovereignty if they don't acknowledge it?  What different types of sovereignty could China be referring to?  TDL (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * They could be talking about the general principle which entities that have diplomatic relations with one another must acknowledge. I suppose in this case it could just refer to the sovereignty of China and the sovereignty of the Queen in right of New Zealand, to which their diplomat is accredited. Just like the other states with diplomats for Niue and the Cook Islands that apparently do not give state regognition do. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, the document explicitly refers to the mutual respect for the sovereignty of the "two Governments" ("the Government of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Cook Islands"), not the Queen of New Zealand. TDL (talk) 02:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But what is the government of the Cook Islands? It is a body that functions within the sovereignty of the Queen in right of New Zealand. This discussion is a perfect example of the danger of editors interpreting primary sources. I can do it as well as you can and it's problematic. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The actual quote is: "The two Governments have agreed to develop friendly relations and cooperation between the two countries on the basis of the principles of mutual respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity, mutual non-aggression, non-interference in each other's internal affairs, equality and mutual benefit, and peaceful coexistence". There is no explicit talk about state recognition for the Cook Islands and sovereignty is mentioned without any reference to what that sovereignty is about (where the CI's are concerned.) This is a prerequisite to entering into diplomatic relations with either Niue or the CI's according to an understanding between NZ and it's two associated states as I've heard. I'll come back to you on that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The Chinese statement is perfectly clear: they consider the government of the Cook Islands to be sovereign. That isn't an interpretation, it is literally what the statement says.  You may have a different opinion of what the Cook Islands government is, but clearly the Chinese government does not share this view.  If you're going to presuppose that the Cook Islands is not sovereign, then you aren't interpreting the statement differently, you're disagreeing with it.
 * Your argument seems to hinge on the fact that the statement uses the word "respect" rather than "recognize". It would be rather perverse to respect something that one doesn't recognize even exists.  I don't see any other reasonable way to interpret the statement.  TDL (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No, my argument is not about those words. It is about the fact that China does not explicitly state that it awards state recognition to the Cook Islands, and that the editors on Wikipedia should therefore not assume that it does. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Fortunately, it does explicitly say that China acknowledged its "respect" for the sovereignty of the Cook Islands, so there's no need to make any assumptions about whether they think it's sovereign or not. That the statement uses a slightly different formulation without the exact word you want does not diminish the fact that it supports the claim that China considers the Cook Islands to be sovereign.  TDL (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. It doesn't explicitly mention the sovereignty of the Cook Islands. Unless you are quoting from a different document than I am. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. It explicitly says that their relations with the government of the Cook Islands are premised on their respect for its sovereignty.  Besides, if China did not consider the Cook Islands to be sovereign, then the Cook Islands would have no legal ability to respect other states sovereignty.  There is only one reasonable way to read the statement.  TDL (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It says that their relations with the government of the Cook Islands are premised on their respect for sovereignty (not it's sovereignty) and apparently doesn't go into the specifics where the CI's status is concerned. There's nothing strange about that. Also the CI's are of course always in a position to express respect for sovereignty, specially since they have treaty making capabilities, almost undistighuisable from that of sovereign states. Again that's interpretation of primary sources and I find it problematic. The Kingdom of the Netherlands for instance, also on the list, has declared that they do not recognize Niue or the CI's as sovereign. But they are still mentioned as having given state sovereignty here on the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand your point. But I don't see how any reasonable reading of the statement could conclude that it was referring to their respect for Zimbabwe's sovereignty, and not each other's.  The definition of the word mutual is "doing the same thing to or for each other", so the sentence should be read as "respect for each other's sovereignty".
 * Any source to support your claim about the Netherlands? TDL (talk) 16:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I wrote to the Dutch Ministry of foreign affairs about the status of Dutch recognition of the CI's. They wrote back "Thanks for your question dd. 30th of October about the official status of the Cook Islands. The Netherlands do not recognize the Cook Islands as a fully independent and sovereign state. The Cook Islands enjoy a high degree of self rule in what is called free association with New Zealand. The arrangement of which is part of New Zealand constitutional law." Which made me wonder about the care taken in interpreting the sources mentioned in the article. Earlier talk about that can be found here. The original (in Dutch) on my server is lost, but I will ask them to send it to me again. In the meantime it seems to me that, for sources on this matter, we have not been critical enough. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, private communications are not usable per WP:OR. We'd need them to publish something in a WP:reliable source, such as on their website.  In the case of the Netherlands, there is really no interpretation involved.  The source says "the Netherlands had recognised the Cook Islands as a sovereign, independent State".  Perhaps the source is mistaken, or perhaps the Netherlands has changed their position.  We'd need reliable sources that say that to reach that conclusion.  TDL (talk)
 * I am very well aware of that. I also think however that interpretations of primary sources are also WP:OR, as I've expressed before and I do think that this article is an example in which this had gone awry. I also believe that the article lacks internal consistency and that the sources given (apart from primary sources that are interpreted) are pretty poor. Newspaper articles and press releases. I do have a feeling that we're on the wrong way with that article. The point is that we also need reliable sources to reach the opposite conclusion and in my opinion that is the problem with that article, because those sources are not explicit enough, while sources for countries that have diplomatic relations with the two countries that do not give state recognition are explicit. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we should continue this discussion on the talk page of the article. I think that would be more appropriate. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's a good idea to start a discussion there and hopefully get some outside opinions. TDL (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, Thank you so far! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)