User talk:L.tak/Archives/2014 1

Accession of Croatia to the European Union
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Shokatz (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

IIMSAM
Dear LTak. Please refer to the recent news report about IIMSAM- http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/19/mystery-organization-with-un-ties-issues-diplomatic-ids-except-arent/ IIMSAM should not have a raison d'etre as the countries signed to form a body called CISRI. More so the IP addreess 216.213.210.14 and 91.73.183.233 are making unsubstantiated changes on the page. I tried to correct them but to no avail as my knowledge to edit wikipedia is extremely limited. While the first one is in Texas, US, the other one is in Dubai, UAE. One can only speculate on their motive which most certainly does not look sanguine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackflash2013 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I am following up and sincerely trying to get facts there. Hopefully some reliable sources are presented. For me, there could be 2 reasons for IIMSAM to have enough notability to have a page on its own:

If I don't get that (1 of those 3) in the next week or so, I might consider proposing the page for deletion. But in the eyes of of "due process" I am inviting anyone involved to see if we can get the sources and see if the org is notable. Thanks for the info! L.tak (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If they are currently performing at the UN-ECOSOC as NGO (and this is not done by CISRI)
 * If they are established by treaty (as their website claims) and if that treaty is in force...
 * If there are notable sources describing their activities

IIMSAM and CISRI
The claim that IIMSAM is governed by its 2008 Charter-Treaty is wrong. According to the Charter 102 of the United Nations- Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it. Why is the claimed 2008 Charter-Treaty of IIMSAM not in the United Nations Treaty base ? (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/01/13/protecting-phony-treaties/)Similar article was written by the same fox journalist in 2010 this is the same type of yellow journalism that has stated that president Obama is muslim and not born in U.S. So anything written by this journalist must be taking with a grain of salt, same journalist has history of attacking UN and other organization that do not fit the political environment of fox news.

Also the Constituting Treaty of CISRI i.e. Registration Number I-37542, dated-07/06/2001 submitted by Collaborative Intergovernmental Scientific Research Institute (CISRI) with the Treaty Section of the United Nations is the very foundation of the organization. The very fact has been invkoed time and again in Diplomatic LPs issued by IIMSAM ( http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/06/19/mystery-organization-with-un-ties-issues-diplomatic-ids-except-arent/ ) Similar article was written by the same fox journalist in 2010 this is the same type of yellow journalism that has stated that president Obama is muslim and not born in U.S. So anything written by this journalist must be taking with a grain of salt, same journalist has history of attacking UN and other organization that do not fit the political environment of fox news.

Please access- http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd/dsd_pdfs/ECOSOC_IGOs.pdf ,Page 21

The IIMSAM website which is owned and managed by Mr. Remigio Martin Maradona himself refers to him till 2nd August 2010 as Director General; and on 16th October 2010, he is referred to as the Secretary General. Please access- http://iimsam.org/director2.php

the iimsam website is registered in accordance with the procedures of the web.host accordingly.

the iimsam organisation although part of the cisri-isp treaty became an autonomous diplomatic entity of its own in 2009 the republic of kenya became its first member state to sign the iimsam autonomous treaty recognising iimsam which led to the establishment of the iimsam spirulina distribution centre in kisumu, kenya which has saved thousands of lives from the scourges of malnutrition since 2009. with its own tready-charter- identity-secretariat and its own member states that have recognised iimsam through signing the iimsam treaty or providing the secretary general of iimsam ambassador remigio maradona with official diplomatic adhesion letters. (We will provide these upon request along with signed treaties to wikipedia.)

On 21st December 2010, Mr. Farhan Haq the spokesperson of the United Nations Secretary General Mr. Ban ki Moon provided clarification that negate the claim of Mr. Remigio Martin Maradona to represent IIMSAM as its Secretary General. Please access- http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs/2010/db101221.doc.htm A response was sent to the UN to Mr. Haq and about the above claim and was rectify to the satisfaction of IIMSAM.

How did Mr Remigio Martin Maradona suddenly become the Secretary General of IIMSAM in two months time from August-October in 2010 is anybody's guess ? The iimsam organisation although part of the cisri-isp treaty became an autonomous diplomatic entity of its own in 2009 the republic of kenya became its first member state to sign the iimsam autonomous treaty recognising iimsam which led to the establishment of the iimsam spirulina distribution centre in kisumu, kenya which has saved thousands of lives from the scourges of malnutrition since 2009. with its own tready-charter- identity-secretariat and its own member states that have recognised iimsam through signing the iimsam treaty or providing the secretary general of iimsam ambassador remigio maradona with official diplomatic adhesion letters. (We will provide these upon request along with signed treaties to wikipedia.)

IGOs like IIMSAM, is an organization composed primarily of sovereign states (referred to as member states) and IGOs are established by Treaty that acts as a charter creating the group. Treaties are formed when lawful representatives (governments) of several states, minimum three, go through a ratification process, providing the IGO with an international legal personality of its own.

An Amicable De facto Detante has been prevailing between IIMSAM and the CISRI-ISP since 2009 there has never been any legal battles by neither side.

A state of Ipso-Facto remains for both sides. Both sides have move on with their own mandates with no conflict respecting each other turf.

The UN does not and cannot interfere in the sovereignty of an autonomous diplomatic entity in this case an igo for it is not an official organ of UN.

International law allows sovereign governments to scrap any prior treaty. The US signed an anti-ballistic missile treaty with the USSR during the Cold War. But subsequently the US scrapped the treaty, with impunity. The Maastricht Treaty, setting up the European Union, mandated a fiscal deficit ceiling of 3% of GDP for member states. But several members, including Germany and France, have been running deficits far higher than this, with impunity. When political and economic conditions change, treaties hardly matter. If one looks through history, treaties have been junked if they become politically inconvenient. Countries are free to join in or move out of a Treaty under International law. Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) are an important aspect of Public International Law.

Treaties in general are not required to be registered by UN it is done entirely on a volunteer basis.

According the the UN archives and considering the fact that charges of larceny and fraud were alleged against Mr. Maradona in 2003 for USD 350,000.00 of a non-existent project of USD 1.4 million when he was with WAFUNIF- an NGO in New York, and that he is not a citizen of any country that is a member state of IIMSAM, and not to metion his other questionable practices; the basis on which he was annointed or claims the title of the Secretary General of IIMSAM is a matter which is not only very interesting but also worth exploring.

The so call alleged charges of larceny and fraud was nothing more that a letter that was sent to UN from a man who was trying to extort the organisation the letter by the way was address to thepresident of wafunif at the time who made all decissions bilaterally mr. maradona was not involved in decission making process i know i was there as a member of board the un never pursue any further for they new it was non sense. SG Maradona has never been brought with any charges of fraud or larceny if there was any truth to it the UN would of intervene or the WAFUNIF organizatin its self. I was there. with maradona in wafunif in 2003 i was part of its board of director and still am it is total rubbish.

Mr. Maradona has an impacable reputation among his peers for i know him more than 22 years. You may contact our WAFUNIF and speak to the present president of wafunif. you will see no one there will back up the non sense statement.

The IIMSAM page should be merged with CISRI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polio-of-upper-extremity (talk • contribs) 09:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Polio-of-upper-extremity, please make your points on the talk page; as that is the main locus for this disucssion, and only do so when it is substantiated with sources. I advise you not to make this a personal thing against Mr Maradona, and only repeat your claims on the talk page, if backed up by proper external sources... L.tak (talk) 11:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it's a bit worrying to me to see you and other user names on the same subject having similar points to discuss. If you are using multiple accounts, or if you are working in coordination with other users, it's best to let that know, because it obscures the discussion and is very much frowned upon... L.tak (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

TO WHO IT MAY CONCERN: WIKIPEDIA

please be advised that former member of the iimsam organisation have been self-proclaimed vigilante cyber-stalking the organisation for months with hundreds of emails miss informing the public at large about the iimsam organisation. this individual has also written most of the non sense about iimsam in wikipedia in trying to discredit the iimsam organisation by creating stories and conflicts between cisri-isp and iimsam where none exist as well as distributing mal fide materials on wikipedia as some of the context above and attacking the secretary-general of the organization and other sr members on a personal basis. This individual goes by few aliases and proxy emails in some cases even impersonating official authorities. He was dismissed from the organization for unethical behavior unbecoming of his post. He has been declared by IIMSAM Persona non grata. some of the context above was written by this individual. Please be guided accordingly. we will be happy to provide wikipedia with this individual dismissal letter.

the iimsam organisation although part of the cisri-isp treaty became an autonomous diplomatic entity of its own in 2009 the republic of kenya became its first member state to sign the iimsam autonomous treaty recognising iimsam which led to the establishment of the iimsam spirulina distribution centre in kisumu, kenya which has saved thousands of lives from the scourges of malnutrition since 2009. with its own tready-charter- identity-secretariat and its own member states that have recognised iimsam through signing the iimsam treaty or providing the secretary general of iimsam ambassador remigio maradona with official diplomatic adhesion letters. (We will provide these upon request to wikipedia.)

International law allows sovereign governments to scrap any prior treaty. The US signed an anti-ballistic missile treaty with the USSR during the Cold War. But subsequently the US scrapped the treaty, with impunity. The Maastricht Treaty, setting up the European Union, mandated a fiscal deficit ceiling of 3% of GDP for member states. But several members, including Germany and France, have been running deficits far higher than this, with impunity. When political and economic conditions change, treaties hardly matter. If one looks through history, treaties have been junked if they become politically inconvenient. Countries are free to join in or move out of a Treaty under International law. Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO) are an important aspect of Public International Law.

Treaties in general are not required to be registered by UN it is done entirely on a volunteer basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.182.152 (talk) 13:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Civil union in colima State
Hi! I'm HEttore93. Read this: http://mexico.cnn.com/nacional/2013/07/04/congreso-de-colima-aprueba-uniones-civiles-entre-personas-del-mismo-sexo HEttore93 (talk) 9:45, 100 July 2013 (UTC)

Same-sex marriages in Mexico
I already brought the discussion to the template, it is in Template_talk:Same-sex_unions. Cheers, --Xocoyotzin (talk) 23:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

not blank...
Thanks for your finagling on the Farhaidi pic. You rock. MezzoMezzo (talk) 09:48, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

A misplaced post
I think this may be misplaced. I'll let you handle it. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: ISO 3166-1 alpha-2
Seriously, check the source: "we are now using ”XK‘ as temporary country code for Kosovo", "The European Commission and many other organisations are using ‘XK‘ as a temporary country code for Kosovo", "GeoNames will switch to the official ISO code as soon as it has been released. In the meantime we will use ‘XK‘." The only original research going on is your trying to insist it's somehow not temporary. Please stop. Anomie⚔ 00:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I will make a proposal on the talk page regarding this… I am sure we can work out something acceptable for all of us sourced on something not-geonames…. L.tak (talk) 08:46, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you edit this?
What does your comment mean here, with respect to how to edit the map? Where do you place the geocode? Is this done on commons somewhere? (Sorry, I'm useless with files/images.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * - If you download the file from commons (commons:File:Arms_Trade_Treaty_status.svg) and open it up in any old text editor, near the top you'll see things like:


 * The first line is country codes which are generally taken from ISO 3166-1. The "fill" line specifies the colour.  So the example above is a list of all the states that have ratified the agreement, followed by a statement colouring them all green.  There is a second set of statements for signatory states later on in the file.  So, if you were to replace   with , the United States would be coloured green as well.  (Just make sure to delete them from the list of signatory states.)  This formatting is handy because it keeps all the states in the same category the same colour, it is smart enough to automatically colour all the islands and non-contigeous parts of a country, and you don't have to mess around with paint.  I've added a bit of documentation to the file so it should be clear where you need to add a state.  TDL (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Thanks, that's very cool. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Conflict of nullity laws


The article Conflict of nullity laws has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * The article is ultimately a piece of original research.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 212.50.182.151 (talk) 00:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I support your idea (and didn't start the article). It's not the only one in this area. L.tak (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter
Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by , Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter ''Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)''

The Wikipedia Library Survey
As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 15:07, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

European Fiscal Compact
Can you explain your vandalism here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=European_Fiscal_Compact&diff=next&oldid=587411165

You removed a source leading to the law project, a commented out source which would clear out the voting and replaced them with a source leading to the pdf of the law, which states nothing about the vote, and indicated the vote was carried unanimously for the law, which was not supported by your reference to the law pdf. You commented on this edit of yours as "spec on consent". Heracletus (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

And, you used the same source both for the region and the community, whereas not only they vote separately, but they vote on two different law projects, which have the same content, but are different projects which lead up to different laws. Heracletus (talk) 21:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I must have used the wrong link… Will sort it out tomorrow. I am quite disappointed at calling my edit vandalism; thought you'd know better. L.tak (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At first site, your link seems right; must have mixed up some parliaments (or a commission vote…). L.tak (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It was indeed the commission vote that I mistook for the vote of the body, this one, where it is stated that "L'ensemble du projet de décret est adopté à l'unanimité des membres." for both law projects. L.tak (talk) 02:18, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I call your edit vandalism, because you speculated on the vote. Also, the sources showing what happened with the vote were there, but, you just replaced them with one of the two laws. Anyway, not such a huge deal, as you provided the Brussels info. But, please, don't speculate on vote results; it's better to leave the cells empty until we find out what happened, rather than fill them up with speculations that may be wrong, because future editors will notice the blanks and may be able to fill them up, but no one will ever remember your edit was just a speculation. :P You almost got away with it. Heracletus (talk) 01:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * no, i made an honest mistake and explained thatt. i have struggled with getting the cite templates right in the same Time. I never speculated on a vote, and never will. I also thus didn't get away vwith it. It is a big deal to Be accused of vandalism, i am a long standing editor and we have worked togetger a lot. --L.tak (talk) 09:24, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I just noticed your reply. Well, let's call it unintended and move on. My arguments were made in the initial post. It never was a really big deal for me. Heracletus (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Linkrot
I'm generally too lazy to fill in the cite template... Same goes for edit summaries... Heracletus (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You do understand that nobody pays me to do this... :P And that what you request is just something extra. Heracletus (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I don't think it's so severe as to actually be able to do anything about it. :P And the cite template is not so easy to use, not to mention that reflinks fails on pdf's and other stuff... :P Heracletus (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok... Heracletus (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Fiscal Compact
I did think of posting it as an IP, but, whatever: http://www.minbuza.nl/en/key-topics/treaties/search-the-treaty-database/2012/21/012705.html .Heracletus (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * verdragenbank copies statements from depositary I'd say; what's your point? (4. How up to date is the Treaty Database?

The content of the Treaty Database comes from Pacta, the internal treaty information system of the Treaties Division. Pacta is updated every day, and the new information is available in the Treaty Database after 8:00 the following morning. The most recent treaty information is always promptly integrated into the database. For this information the Treaties Division is dependent on written and/or electronic notifications supplied by the depositaries. This means that there will always be a delay between the adoption of a change, the communication of the new information by the depositary, and the moment when this information is accessible on the Treaty Database. From time to time, certain information does not reach the Treaties Division; nor is it accessible online. This can lead to more serious delays and, in the most extreme case, the absence of a piece of new information regarding a treaty.) L.tak (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the first point is that it supports TDL's opinion, even though I don't like it. At least, it's clear what the depositary thinks. The second point is that the provisional application column is empty, even for Title V. The third point is that nobody else looked for such a/this source.
 * An unrelated point is that your reply follows a retarded format and had to look the history log to understand that you copied this 4. probably from the FAQ section and posted it to prove that it indeed follows the depositary.
 * The final point is that although the depositary service is almost too stupid, I don't think there will be a source questioning them any time soon, so, let's use this one, even though it supports mostly the opposite of what I wrote for.


 * Basically, my point is I found a source that shows what's the situation. It pretty much is against my arguments. But I thought I shouldn't just keep it hidden and keep arguing over the whole thing theoretically. Heracletus (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * However, on the other contentious issue of when Bulgaria signed up to the Unified Patent Court treaty, not only they follow the February 19, 2013 date which is not true, but they also completely fail by messing up and stating March 19, 2013 for Lithuania, probably because an employee picked the wrong month... which pretty much discredits them completely, but, ok... I really wonder some times if people are getting paid for doing this stuff... Heracletus (talk) 23:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that clarifies a lot; your post was so short that I had no idea what you meant… I follow the Dutch site a lot, as I think it is one of the best indeed; although they certainly are fallible (they corrected within 2 hours of my request the unified court page) and "just" follows other depositaries… Thanks for sharing it… L.tak (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that you've been dragged into this, but I've started a discussion on WP:ANI to try and get Heracletus to calm down in which I mentioned you. TDL (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you're dragging me no-where in that sense that I have decided not to respond, because I think that wouldn't have been helpful. I would appreciate a solution though! L.tak (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Second opinion
Do you think this is Sockpuppet investigations/Camoka4/Archive? This looks like a giveaway (ie ) as does the history of commons:File:TurkeyVisaFreeTravelMap3.png and commons:File:Countries by most used web browser.svg/commons:File:Countries by most used web browser (update).svg. TDL (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Quite clear to me. Indeed the odd combination of EU-turkey maps and world map by browser is telling. L.tak (talk) 16:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I've reopened the SPI on our old friend Camoka.  Feel free to comment if you like.  TDL (talk)

Can you explain your revert on unitary patent?
Hi. From just your edit summary, I can't understand your revert on the unitary patent article. Can you explain on the Talk page? The term "classical European patent" is widely used (including by the EPO itself: ), and unitary patents are European patents. If you have improvements to suggest, that would be very helpful, but I don't think the reverted edit was incorrect. Gronky (talk) 16:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * maybe it wasn't incorrect, but I try toavoid that the unitary effect is interpreted as altering the european patent granting system. And therefore like to highlight that it is an after grant procedure; anyway, you are right that i could have achieved the same without a hard revert probably and hope my changes are in the spirit of what you wanted... --L.tak (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. Is there a web page with the details for how one will apply for a unitary patent.  I didn't know it was necessarily a post-grant procedure.  I thought it was a box one could tick during the initial application, and that there as also a way to later turn a non-unitary patent into a unitary one. Gronky (talk) 09:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sailing at the 2012 Summer Olympics – Men's RS:X
Hi, I'm working to get all Olympic sailing articles to the 1972 standard. I'm appreciating your changes like moving an heading to a different level. I will appreciate it even more when you do not limited your action to just one article but then do this in all 250 similar situations:-) Otherwize there will be a discrepancy between one article and 249 others. NED33 (talk) 19:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No big deal… I think the banners will otherwise stay forever, and that will only make the pages more of a "database" rather than an article… Is consistency really that important? L.tak (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * JUst give me the time to make it consistent. After that ... fine if it divert. When I started there was a huge difference in depth of the articles. Lets not breake down the house while it is build:-). Thanks for your help.NED33 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Just take care not to remove depth in your wish for consistency (as you did in the lede); or to add references that say nothing about the article (as with the link that didn't link to 2012…)… I will let the empty sections in for April, so we can see if they get filled; then afterward it's best to see if they should be renamed to a descriptive title or removed… For you next set, it might be good to propose on the relevant wikiproject and gain consensus on how to do it; because the inability of other users to change your format is de facto a bit of ownership and that's not helping… L.tak (talk) 19:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Were did I removed depth?
 * You removed depth when you removed the info that the winner was already known before the medal race. That is relevant lede info, which people can of course also get from the table, but it helps if it is here... --L.tak (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The further reading section contained information to ALL official Olympic documentation (1896 - ). Within the near future the documentation for 2012 will be added on this link. Meanwhile it contains relevant info to previous Olympic editions were the same sailors were active or the same boat/board were used. I do not claim ownership but I do like to have the chance to build. When I stared in about 2010 these articles were quit a mess.NED33 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate that you get the pages to a higher level and appreciate that you build. But that doesn't mean everyone has to agree with the chosen style; or even with the need for consistency. I personally think that empty sections to not add much to wikipedia; and it is easy enough to add them, once there is sufficient information... Anyway, as said, I will leave the empty sections alone for a month to see if they get filled; and will see if I can help by adding some extra info to the article in question. I think something should be said about the notion that this was the last time the event would feature on the olympics; andhow that was overturned after the event... In that way we are improving most. Rgds! --L.tak (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, That kind of help is really much appreciated.NED33 (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Your question
The answer to your question: "is a national application "converted" into an international application?" (in this edit summary ) is no. Rather, an international application may enter into national phase in a particular Contracting State. The word "conversion" is generally not used in that context, rather the term "entry into national phase" is generally used. --Edcolins (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that was not what I meant... I was looking at the procedure of applying for a local patent; and within 12 months filing an international application using the PCT and Paris conventions using the priority date of the local patent. It's the most used way I guess and this an important pointer of how from any of the 140-odd countries, one can end up in Switzerland/Liechtenstein; either via the international application of PCT [or via direct filing after 12 months via the Paris convention]. L.tak (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, I see what you mean now. But I really don't think that it is necessary to refer to the concept of claiming priority of a previous application within the article about Unitary patent (Switzerland and Liechtenstein). This would confuse the reader IMHO. --Edcolins (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Our edits crossed as I just made a short explanation on the unitary (CH+LI) page. IMO it is relevant as I think it is the most common way in which the intnl application is used as it buys 12 months; and it is short enough not to be much disturbing... L.tak (talk) 21:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Since any patent application -national, EP, PCT- can claim the priority of an earlier application, I think it is confusing to add this remark after the reference to an international application. The topic of priority right is better dealt with (or introduced) in the general article "patent", with this sentence:
 * "The most significant aspect of the convention is the provision of the right to claim priority: filing an application in any one member state of the Paris Convention preserves the right for one year to file in any other member state, and receive the benefit of the original filing date."
 * Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * It's clear we disagree here. Wether it is any system or not; national/regional-PCT-regional/national is the most common way of obtaining patent if you want a bit more than a single country as it simply buys some to consider options; and when reading this article separately it is thus a relevant characteristic. That's why it is relevant to me. But I am ok to leave it out for reasons of formal consistency... L.tak (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The fact that most patent applications claim the priority of an earlier application could be explained in the section Patent application. There should indeed be some reliable sources out there discussing such statistics. --Edcolins (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Precious again
  understanding

Thank you for handling difficult topics factually and with discretion, for listening in discussion and acting on questions, and for making foreign words understood with a feeling for nuances, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Two years ago, you were the 116th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)