User talk:Danlaycock/Archive 7

I'm sorry
Hi Danlaycock, Well spotted! Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Commonwealth of Independent States observers
Hi i'm very sorry for all of this. But Mongolia and Afghanistan are CIS observers https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BE%D0%B4%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B6%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%9D%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%BC%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%80%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2 here is Russian Wiki page of CIS and here you can see it. Today i updated GDP (PPP) to 2016. and population on 2016. For this i used Wikipedia. I was using calculator. Again i'm very sorry for my stubbornness. Pls can you update "Economic data" beacuse i have just updated template. Have a nice day ;)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boban457 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for joining the discussion.
 * Unfortunately Wikipedia is not a reliable source (because any anonymous person can edit it) so it can't be used to verify this.
 * That being said, looking at the text/sources it says that Afghanistan is an observer of the CIS Interparliamentary Assembly (which is supported by https://iacis.ru/eng/parliaments/) not the CIS itself. Membership of the two is not synonymous (ie Uzbekistan is a member of CIS but not the IPA).  Likewise, Mongolia is listed as an observer of some CIS structures, not the CIS itself.
 * This is much like the situation of Iceland, which is an observer of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, for example, but not of the European Union as a whole. TDL (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I added up population of all CIS members (including Ukraine and Turkmenistan) from Wikipedia and that numbers are correct. Pages like Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine... are protected and they can't be edited by anonymus person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boban457 (talk • contribs) 07:53, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Toronto Raptors, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC. 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) 09:52, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pearson Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC. 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) 09:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

GCC
You reverted my edit, I didn't redirect Gulf Cooperation Council! this was distinguish template please revert your revert you misunderstood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorpzn (talk • contribs) 11:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes I understood that. But Gulf Cooperation Council is not ambiguous.  No reasonable person would type that in and expect to land at GNU Compiler Collection.  I presume that your concern is that they both share an acronym, but GCC does not redirect to Gulf Cooperation Council hence a distinguish hatnote is not appropriate.  See WP:HAT for further details on proper hatnote usage.  TDL (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Ankara
This is the edit that requires a source. The EU was created in 1992 and therefore cannot have entered this treaty. The EEC did this and that existed alongside the EU for many years while the latter replaced all of the institutions of the former. Turkey's candidacy for EU membership is based on a more recent application. The term "expired" refers to the EEC. Now if you know for a fact that a treaty of some kind continues to exist for the EU based on what Turkey did with the EEC years earlier then it may be helpful if you add this information to the article. I don't claim to be an expert but I couldn't find anything on the page that dealt with the European Union and the modern day. As such it looks to me like a dated contract. The category you inserted may yet have to go. Even so, the category appears on more than 100 articles and there is no way it belongs on every single one of them. Any treaty that the EU has entered, the EU is party to. Anything it has inherited from the EEC (or EC) needs to be sourced and declared on every article where it is the case. --OJ (talk) 02:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the EU didn't enter into the treaty, but it succeeded the EEC. I've added some sources to the article which shows that the EU considers the AA to be between it and Turkey now.  TDL (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes that's fine. So long as the two constituents (EU & Turkey) recognise the validity of the Ankara Agreement then there is no problem with the category, even if it lies dormant indefinitely. Cheers. --OJ (talk) 19:28, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

FYROM
The article you quoted for undoing the edit clearly states with common sense and some exceptions. Does it make sense to have an article about Greek embassies to indicate a name that is in dispute? This is where common sense must pervail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.72.148.54 (talk) 03:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Czech Recognition of Israel
Why did you revoke my edit, when Czech Republic no longer recognizes Palestinian's statehood. It voted against Palestinian upgrade to non-member observer status and revoked it's recognition of Palestine after the fall of communism and hasn't to my knowledge ever re-accepted Palestinian statehood 46.135.73.3 (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)Adamgerd
 * Do you have any sources that the Czech Republic has withdrawn their recognition?
 * As mentioned in my edit summary, voting against a resolution which contained 7 paragraphs (only 1 of which related to their observer status) does not imply recognition has been withdrawn. They could have objected for a number of other reasons.  This is a clear example of WP:SYNTHESIS to draw new conclusions.  Conversely, a number of states which don't recognize voted in favour.  That does not imply that they now recogize.
 * If you want to write that they have withdrawn recognition, you need a source that says that, not implications you've drawn of other facts. TDL (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MISL Labelled Map
Template:MISL Labelled Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

You know the drill
- LouisAragon (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will keep an eye on the case page. TDL (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss the soon to built, Interaction Timeline
Hi Checkusers and Checkuser clerks,

The Anti-Harassment Tools team is seeking input about building the Interaction Timeline feature.

We’re inviting you to join the discussion because you use similar tools such as the Editor Interaction Analyser and User compare report during sockpuppet investigations.

You can leave comments on the on wiki discussion page or send an email to the Anti-Harassment Tools team.

For the Anti-Harassment Tools team SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

TFC CONCACAF CL
Hi there. So it says the 2018 CONCACAF Champions League starts in February-May 2018, so that will be part of TFC's 2018 season then I guess? So in the Seasons section of List of Toronto FC seasons should the "Qualified" block under CL go for the 2018 season and left blank for the 2017 season, because I mean they did qualify in the 2017 season, but will be played under the 2018 season? Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 23:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd say that yes that's a sensible approach. The 2018 tournament is functionally part of the 2018 season, and leave the 2017 CCL cell empty, because they effectively skipped the tournament this year.  Eventually the "qualified" will be replaced by the stage they advanced to, so it won't seem so strange to have in 2018.  TDL (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:MLL Labelled Map
Template:MLL Labelled Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 22:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NLL Labelled Map
Template:NLL Labelled Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. - Mnnlaxer &#124; talk  &#124; stalk 22:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Numrec/Kosovo
In the template Template:Numrec/Kosovo, N stands for countries that are currently recognizing Kosovo as an independent, and W for withdrawals. Your logic to look at it at historical highest number is wrong.-- AirWolf  talk  16:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Forgot to respond to this, but the template was built and has always been used with the number of states that have ever recognized, an the number of those which have withdrawn recognition. TDL (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Air Canada Centre logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Air Canada Centre logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Relations of SADR and Chad
Hallo Dan. I want ask you on our assessment of relations of SADR and Chad International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. I was going through our sources again and reading the discussion on this cause. I think our assessment of the situation is wrong, is based on a wrong translation. I quote the most eloquent comment about:
 * What the Chadians are upset about, if I get it right, is that the newspaper Alwihda has published a story saying that a deal was signed at the meeting between the SADR Minister for Foreign Affairs and Chad's Prime Minister.

"Aucun Acte de rétablissement des relations diplomatiques entre le Tchad et la RASD n’a été signé au cours de l’audience", writes the Prime's cabinet in their sharp communique.

In English that means that no form of agreement of reestablishing the diplomatic ties between Chad and RASD was signed at the meeting.

Fair enough. No deal was signed.

In the press release however from the Chadian Prime Minster's office, after the meeting with the Saharawi Minister for Foreign Affairs, it says:

"A cet effet, les deux parties ont décidé d’élever leurs relations diplomatiques au niveau des Ambassadeurs dans les meilleurs délais".

This means that the two parties agreed to raising their diplomatic relations to ambassador levels, as soon as possible.

Now they haven't done this yet, but they will as soon as it's possible. And that is also what SPS writes:

"The Saharawi Arab Democratic Republic and the Republic of Chad decided on Tuesday in N’Djamena to raise their diplomatic relations to ambassadorial level as soon as possible".

What SPS published is merely a re-write of the press release from the Prime's cabinet. So, what is the lie from SPS here? Someone please enlighten me?

See discussion on this cause here:.

I think we should edit the text from: to:
 * diplomatic relations at the level of ambassador reportedly launched 17 July 2007, but this was denied by the Prime Minister of Chad 20 July 2007.
 * 17 July both countries agreed to raising their diplomatic relations to ambassador levels, as soon as possible.

We do not know, however, if realization of this subsequently occurred. Maybe Chad continues as nonrecognizer. Thanks! Jan CZ (talk) 21:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * If states NOW agree that in future to raise diplomatic relations, I think it means, that they NOW recognise each other?

From text is certainly does not seem that Chad did not recognize the SADR at the time of the Oulek visit (10 July 2007) and press release (17 July 2007). Greetings! Jan CZ (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Just looking at the sources now. The title of this is a bit misleading, but I think we can write that off.  But otherwise, it seems the Chadian objection is to the fr:Alwihda news organization, not to the SADR.  So I agree that there is really no diplomatic dispute.
 * Here Chad denies the "the signature of an agreement of recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic". So I'd say they didn't recognize in 2007.
 * Therefore, I'd drop the sentence on 2007 all together. TDL (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Chad denied the signature (on July 2007) of an agreement of recognition, but did not deny the recognition as such. On the contrary, if two parties agreed to raising their diplomatic relations, I think its proof of existence of recognition? Jan CZ (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah I understand your point, just not comfortable that committing to future diplomatic relations implies current recognition. It probably does, but I think we really need a source to confirm that to avoid WP:OR.  TDL (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right. But here is not written (as in other cases like Panama, Mauritius, Burundi and many others) reestablish relations, but raise (dipl.relations) to ambassadorial level. It is written in official Chadian press release. This implies that dipl. relations exist?
 * If there are relationships, there must be recognition. Jan CZ (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No I disagree. For example, many states which have informal relations with Palestine do not recognize it, ie Austria: .  Generally these are described as something below ambassadorial level.  In the linked article, the mission to Palestine is called a "VERTRETUNG" (REPRESENTATION), while to Afghanistan a "BOTSCHAFT" (EMBASSY).  It is only diplomatic relations at the ambassadorial level which imply recognition as I understand it.  TDL (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No, this is a different situation. Dan, here are the relations between the PLO and Austria, not between SoP and Austria (as SoP and Afghanistan). Diplomatic relations every time means recognition. Diplomatic relations with state means a state recognition, relations with PLO means recognition of PLO as a national liberation movement. In sources is nothing about the relations of Chad and Polisario Front, but here is relations of Chad and SADR. Jan CZ (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

RFC on List of Sovereign States
Hello. I just wanted to inform you that I have moved a discussion thread from the survey section to the discussion section, in an attempt to make the survey section a clear and readable list of individual comments from different editors. If you object to this move, then please go ahead and revert. Have a good day. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 02:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

YGM
~ Rob 13 Talk 17:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how infobox ship is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Champions League final attendance
Hi. Tough loss to Guadalajara, it always stings to go out in penalties but Delgado really should’ve finished it off right there before it ended. Anyway, so I saw you changed the attendance for the final game in Guadalajara from 60,000 to 36,977. At the 2018 CONCACAF Champions League Finals page references this https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbymcmahon/2018/04/26/after-remarkable-comeback-toronto-fc-falls-short-after-penalty-kick-decider-in-champions-league/ for the 60,000 figure. I also questioned it because the stadium doesn’t say it even holds that much. Do you have a source for your attendance figure? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 03:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I got that from the MLS MatchTracker boxscore which is linked from the article: . TDL (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MasterCard Centre logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MasterCard Centre 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:Numrec
Hallo Dan, disc about your made template is here: Template talk:Numrec. What do you thihng about? Thanks, Jan Jan CZ (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Banking union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Banking_union check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Banking_union?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited European Union financial transaction tax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/European_Union_financial_transaction_tax check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/European_Union_financial_transaction_tax?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

UNASUR
I deleted "de Naciones" from the extended name of CAN since the official name of the grouping is "Comunidad Andina", not "Comunidad Andina de Naciones" as it is usually referred to. You reinserted "de Naciones" arguing that it was in keeping with the article title, but the article is about UNASUR (where "de Naciones" is correct), not to CAN. "de Naciones" should appear in UNASUR's name but not in CAN's. Mantineo (talk) 11:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can you point we to what you are talking about? Not following.  TDL (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Member states of the Union of South American Nations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages El Nacional and El Tiempo ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Member_states_of_the_Union_of_South_American_Nations check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Member_states_of_the_Union_of_South_American_Nations?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

SPI clerk activity
Hi, I've moved you to temporarily inactive because you haven't clerked in a very long time. If you recommence clerking, you can move yourself back.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Toronto Shooting Stars logo.gif
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Toronto Shooting Stars logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Toronto Shooting Stars logo.gif. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Toronto ThunderHawks logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Toronto ThunderHawks logo.gif. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:42, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

File:Ontario Blues logo.png
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

File:Toronto Shooting Stars logo.gif
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Czechia
Hi there, Czechia is the official short according to the EU list of countries, I do not see any reason to convert it back to the Czech Republic. Helveticus96 (talk) 06:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm aware, but Czechia has not yet become the WP:COMMONNAME of the country in English. I don't see any reason that the list shouldn't follow the title of the article.  TDL (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * A possible compromise might follow the precedent of the Member states of the United Nations. On that page countries are listed by their officially registered UN designations, but the links are directly to the page as it is actually named. That is, the list shows "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (note exact capitalization and the fact that it is alphabetized under T), but the link is to "Republic of Macedonia" (our actual article title). Under that precedent the Member state of the European Union could have Czechia. Note: my personal opinion is that the UN page should be changed to utilize our article titles, with the UN designations being only footnotes, but I offer this as a model of an existing practice. --Khajidha (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ontario Arrows logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ontario Arrows 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Alex Cohn (let's chat!) 00:34, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Toronto Arrows, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brian Burke ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Toronto_Arrows check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Toronto_Arrows?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Toronto Raptors Training Centre logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Toronto Raptors Training Centre logo.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Alaney2k (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

https://rmx.news/czech-republic/czechia-joins-fiscal-pact-last-eu-member
https://rmx.news/czech-republic/czechia-joins-fiscal-pact-last-eu-member

Happy now?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:130E:811B:7DF8:C992:E3C6:99AB (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The source doesn't say what you purport it does. Agreed that Zeman signed it, but the source says "The agreement is to be counter-signed by PM Andrej Babiš as well."  Has that happend yet?  Can you provide evidece?  Has the Czech Republic depositited their instrument of accession with the Secretariat, as required by the treaty to enter into force?  Can you provide evidece?  If not, we should't be reporting things that are not (yet) true.  Please self-revert until you can find evidence to support the claim, or I will go ahead and do it for you.  TDL (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I am happy that you edited my edit on the Zeman signing piece. I am however skeptical that Babis who was more enthusiastic about the Treaty hasn't signed it yet. On a related note, someone who edited about the Czech accession mentioned that it was already deposited and that's what threw me off. Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominiqueque (talk • contribs) 02:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

I see a very confusing statement by the website: "Czechia	-	03/04/2018	-		Adhésion/Accession"

Must be a mistake because Czechia has not signed it until 2019.

And where do you find a source for it depositing the document? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominiqueque (talk • contribs) 01:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

EFTA
Thank you for your copyedit of EFTA. I have given it a thorough spring clean and wholesale restructure so there may have been some unintended collateral damage. I would appreciate you giving it a thorough read to ensure that it hangs together (and correct any errors of course!).--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do when I get a chance. Keep up the good work!  TDL (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Greenland should be blue, too
Topic: MNNA Thank you for adding NATO members to the map. BUT Greenland is a part of Denmark, so Greenland should be blue, too.

Member states of the Council of Europe
Dear Danlaycock,

I kindly ask that we expend the below page with an accurate history of evolution of membership.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_states_of_the_Council_of_Europe

The Council of Europe (CoE) invited shortly after its inauguration countries like Greece and Turkey to join as "founders". As I mentioned earlier, if it was the case that the CoE later on switched such countries from "founder" to "member" category due to various reasons such as the Greek junta, then we ought to further expand with the relevant factual information of the reason and date. Hence, we ought to state either these countries as "founder" or "ex-founder currently member" countries.

On page 378 of the book "Council of Europe" as well as the websites of German state broadcaster, the Italian nonprofit think-thank and Turkish government's official website are four sample independent sources that collaborate this information.

References: https://www.decitre.fr/livres/the-council-of-europe-9780199672523.html http://www.internationaldemocracywatch.org/index.php/council-of-europe- https://www.dw.com/en/council-of-europe-accuses-turkey-of-violating-human-rights/a-37567024 http://www.mfa.gov.tr/council-of-europe.en.mfa

If you think that these three websites and the book to be falsifying the historical records of the year 1949, I would be grateful if you could kindly elucidate the matter.

Thanks in advance for your kind input,

Yours sincerely, — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterGorilla (talk • contribs) 10:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * As explained, these don't reconcile with authoratative sources. For example, the COE states:
 * : Greece became the 11th member State of the Council of Europe on 9 August 1949.
 * : Turkey became the 13th member State of the Council of Europe on 13 April 1950.


 * Notably, Turkey joined after Iceland:


 * : Iceland became the 12th member State of the Council of Europe on 7 March 1950.


 * So are you arguing that Turkey is a Founder but Iceland isn't?


 * Conversely, for France the COE lists them as a founding member:
 * : France became member of the Council of Europe on 5 May 1949. It is a founder member of the Organisation.


 * Other sources:
 * : 10 founder members of the future Council of Europe, as well as Germany, Austria, Greece, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and Turkey.


 * : The Council of Europe was founded on May 5, 1949, by 10 western European countries—Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom.


 * TDL (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Danlaycock,

Thanks for kindly reverting back, appreciate it.

":So are you arguing that Turkey is a Founder but Iceland isn't?"

In regards to your question quoted above, I never mentioned Iceland before, I only stated Greece and Turkey as examples of countries which were technically invited, yet were accepted as founding members. Based on the fact that the four sample references I provided show Greece and Turkey as founding members.

Having said that, if it turns out Iceland is or was back in the day a founding member, needlessly to say, that information ought to be included on the Wikipedia the same way it should be for Greece and Turkey.

In regards to your argument that your references are the authoritative ones and therefore you disagree with the opposing view my references provide is I believe your main point. I beg to differ on this point, not because your references are any less authoritative than what I provided, to the contrary, the CoE website and Brittanica cooperation websites you provided are credible as much as the four sample references I provided.

The book I quoted is by Professor Stefanie Schmahl from the University of Würzburg and Professor Marten Breuer from the University of Konstanz. And the two of the three websites I listed belong to the German and Turkish state and the last one is an Italian nonprofit think-thank. In other words, all references are from reputable sources and I don't think they would maliciously distort the historical facts. But if you think that these three websites and the book to be falsifying the historical records of the year 1949, I would be grateful if you could kindly elucidate the matter.

And as I mentioned before,I don't disagree for a second if it is the case that CoE switched "Greece and Turkey from "founder" to "member" state at some point in its long history. The point I am making is that these two countries started as "founder" status initially and the Wikipedia website ought to reflect history accurately. Hence I kindly suggest these countries should either be listed as "founder" or "ex-founder now member" states. And if it was the case that CoE later on switched their category, the Wikipedia community ought to expand this part with the reasons and dates why they switched from "founder" to "member" status.

Thanks again for kindly taking the time and effort to discuss the matter with me, I do appreciate it.

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterGorilla (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Danlaycock,

I trust all is well.

I kindly like to ask if you have seen my response from 4 days ago concerning our discussion.

I pasted the full text below.

I look forward to your input.

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterGorilla (talk • contribs) 11:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * And I would be grateful if you could elucidate why you belive that the COE is "maliciously distort the historical facts" and "falsifying the historical records" on their own website? If they were founders, why would the COE not list that on their website?
 * Your suggestion that the COE somehow recognized them as founders, but retroactivly revoked their "founder" status to explain away the inconsistencies in your argument with the authoratative sources, strikes me as just adding epicycles to your theory. Do you have any evidence to support this hypothosis?  If so, I would be certainly agree that this should be added to the article.
 * I don't dispute that DW is reliable, but you are reling on a passing mention of this in DW versus the authoratative source explicitly refuting the claim. And the Turkish state website here isn't really neutral on the matter, given that they have an obvious self-interest to inflating their status.  Finally, this does not appear to be WP:RELIABLE.  Additionally, it is riddled with errors and inconsistencies.  For example, where it claims Turkey is a founder it gives the incorrect date for it's joining.  Also, it claims that there are only 10 founders (thus excluding Greece/Turkey) and later that Greece/Turkey "joined the CoE founder members".  TDL (talk) 01:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Dear Danlaycock,

I'm terribly sorry to trouble you again, but I kindly await for your thoughts on the matter below.

Thanks in advance,

Kind regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by MisterGorilla (talk • contribs) 13:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've already responded above. It's hard to follow when you copy and past the thread again, so I've merged it all into a single thread.  TDL (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sports in Toronto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toronto Nationals ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Sports_in_Toronto check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Sports_in_Toronto?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 22:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)