User talk:L.tak/Archives/2018 1

Independent Olympic Athletes
Hey, I just reverted your Intro on Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2016 Summer Olympics, because it was confusing. I had already written a small paragraph explaining the difference between the Refugee and Independent teams. Your intro gave the impression that they are competing as the same team, when they are completely seperate. Basetornado (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC) You removed the Refugee information. They are two separateBasetornado (talk) 16:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC) teams, but I added information to show that. Please do not remove it again.

Hi. Your clarifications on the IOA page seem unnecessary. On e.g. Vietnam's page it is not pointed out that other athletes had won lesser medals previously, as first gold medal is the information the article should convey. On e.g. Fiji's page it is pointed out that it was both a first gold and a first medal. In IOA's and Vietnam's case there is no implication that the gold is also a first medal, so there is no need to point it out. The quotation marks are clearly not required, as the sentence was true without them, regardless of whether other independents have received medal. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems you are right. I thought former Yugoslav participants already had gold, but they didn't... L.tak (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's easy to get confused with these non-standard teams. 62.249.160.48 (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Russia Olympic Team re final intro sentence
Hi L.tak, I disagree with you re final sentence of the intro. I think that based on the July 24th decision, if an athlete is accepted by a federation and this acceptance is affirmed by the CAS arbitration, the IOC has to allow the athlete to compete. It does not have a last say after arbitration. This is from the July 24th decision:

4. The IOC will accept an entry by the ROC only if the athlete’s IF is satisfied that the evidence provided meets conditions 2 and 3 above and if it is upheld by an expert from the CAS list of arbitrators appointed by an ICAS Member, independent from any sports organization involved in the Olympic Games Rio 2016.

So if the expert upholds then the athlete is accepted. Thanks Rybkovich (talk) 02:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Good point; so it is merely a technicality and can be left out in the lede... L.tak (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just to make sure - there is no issue with me deleting "after which the IOC will make a decision about participation."? PS it is always great updating an article as a big issue is developing. Rybkovich (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope, no issue at all; you were right! (and good fun indeed keeping this updated and consistent ;-))L.tak (talk) 08:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, I made some pretty extensive edits to clarify the athletics subsections in doping and competitors. My head is spinning and i'm sure i made some writing/format (hopefully not content :) mistakes. It would be awesome if you could look over that edit. Thank you Rybkovich (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You left an extra 18 in the date edit you made. I did not fix it because not sure how you wanted it. Do you usually do dates 18 July 2016? I do July 18, 2016. Rybkovich (talk) 07:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Rationale for your preference for the longer title for the Malhuer article
Hi L.tak, I noted that you prefer a lengthened title for the Malheur article. I have opened a discussion regarding the best title for this article at the article's talk page, and I was wondering if you might be able to explain there specifically why you believe that the longer title is better. Thanks, Scott P. (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the discussion. I have converted it into a proposed move, so other can weigh in. I do prefer the longer title as a good descriptive title. But if reliable sources describe this as a standoff mostly now, I'll change my opinion... L.tak (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thoughtful reply. I've tweaked and commented some more in the new discussion section.  Just thought I'd let you know, in case you might have any further things you might want to add there.  (Please especially see my new second paragraph of the original request about history teachers.)  Scott P. (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that. I responded as well (I think I will refrain from further commenting in order to give the floor to others to weigh in.). Have a good evening (let's see if NL can beat US in the Olympics now..), L.tak (talk) 16:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

.bq
Perhaps you should create a category Communications in the Caribbean Netherlands?Rathfelder (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That maybe a good idea (or the cat link should be deleted), but other solutions are also possible. Created after its dissolution, BQ and .bq have at least nothing to do with the Netherlands Antilles... L.tak (talk) 18:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Trout


RightCowLeftCoast has given you a WikiTrout! Trouts promote WikiFun and hopefully this one has made your day more fun. Spread the WikiFun by giving someone else a trout, especially when they are doing something silly. Happy slapping! For your efforts to remove reliably sourced content from the article International child abduction in Japan, I hereby reward you with this trout. May it remind us all of the content removed which has been determined by this user to be "fully dispensable."

Spread the fun of trouts by adding {{subst:Troutalt}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!


 * Thanks; for reminding me of an edit of over two years ago (... those were the days .... ;-)). In retrospect I wouldn't have used the word "dispensable" in the edit summary (but I still stand by the argumentation provided in the rest of the summary; even RS sources of international child abduction are personal stories in family matters; and often only show of a single viewpoint; I felt at that place they were more troubling then they were helping... L.tak (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo Algemene Waterschapspartij.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Logo Algemene Waterschapspartij.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) 02:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the previous editor to the page where it was used changed logo-->ogo, and thus preventing the image to be seen. It's all solved now... L.tak (talk) 18:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

About your question on Heracletus
Hello dear L.tak, you asked Vanjagenije why he blocked Heracletus claiming he ran a sockpuppet named Absinthia Stacy 13 and then unblocked him saying that Absinthia Stacy 13 impersonated Heracletus, but Vanjagenije refused to explain you how he came to the erroneous conclusion that Absinthia Stacy 13 was Heracletus. I know how he came to that conclusion and I can tell you: Absinthia Stacy 13 copy-pasted most of the userboxes of Heracletus from his userpage and edited articles about Hellas (Greece, which is the country Heracletus claims to be from) in a manner which attracted admins' attention because of an ongoing sockpuppet investigation which is focused on articles about the Hellenic Republic (Greece) and usernames similar to that of Absinthia Stacy 13. The various Absinthia-named sockpuppets were using different IP addresses from different countries and different user agent identification strings so it was impossible to identify them as sockpuppets based on technical means such as Mediawiki's (Wikipedia's software) CheckUser sockpuppet-finding tool, and the only way to identify the sockpuppetry was if the admins used behavioural profiling such as noticing similar edits or similar behaviour. Another admin was banning every new username whose first edit was putting a random number on its userpage and talkpage (a behavioural mark noticed in the sockpuppet investigation) so the sockpuppet master decided to use userboxes to make her sockpuppet accounts look more legitimate, and thought that copying the userboxes of another user would be a funny way to incriminate innocent and unrelated users, albeit she didn't believe that her attack would be successful because only a very stupid admin would actually ban users on such weak "evidence". When Absinthia Stacy 13 used Heracletus' userboxes on her userpage Vanjagenije noticed this (perhaps by searching the list of users using a particular userbox) and was quick to conclude that Absinthia Stacy 13 and Heracletus were the same person. When he informed Absinthia Stacy 13, she falsely admitted by saying that she was in fact Heracletus, hoping that Vanjagenije would block Heracletus, but still not believing that he would be stupid enough to actually do that. Vanjagenije indeed blocked Heracletus, which was a surprise to Absinthia Stacy 13, because admins using so broad behavioural "evidence" to accuse users of sockpuppetry and actually banning them without any other evidence means that Wikipedia is really vulnerable to such attacks and such attacks are very easy to commit, and indeed the sockpuppet master has already used the same method of attack to cause other innocent users to be blocked (and in some occasions the admins have not found out their mistake yet and innocent users are still banned). You may wonder why this information is revealed to you and why it is done in public and not via e-mail, this is done to create a public record (and thus usable for us in the Wikipedia Review forums) of the Wikipedia admins' incompetence and the great risk innocent users face when admins go wild in their sockpuppet witchhunts. Hope this answers your question on Vanjagenije's talk page, and don't be surprised if an incompetent Wikipedia admin blocks you simply because your self-portrait appears in a sockpuppet's userpage! If the community (and this includes you and every other common user) doesn't held the admins accountable for violations of Wikipedia policy (which clearly states that blocks should happen only if sufficient evidence is present) such witchhunts are bound to happen. Kisses, HelJiChoo (talk) 13:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Maps
Hi L.tak. I was thinking about what you want for blank maps. How you want to make it easier to show or not the subdivisions. I'll look into how to make a tool for this in the coming months. Might take a while though! Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:18, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * He Abjiklam, actually you both convinced me that just copying in the text from those countries from which I want subdivisions from the map you just made, into the "general" blank map is not that complicated. Indeed the full subdivision map with all countries gives rise to big file. In other words, with the things you did, I can create the maps I want now... However, I'd love to be able to have the European Union as a single entity (without borders), as they are sometimes party to treaties. So if you could create a map with (instead of all 28 eu states) creates one entity upon calling .eu or #eu, that would be really helpful (maybe by creating a class euborder that colours with the eu internal countries involved or -better- that can be set to either the default colour of borders, OR the colour of the EU?). I'd use it (as an example) on the Hague Maintenance Convention-site and many others... L.tak (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

EU/Ukraine
I can see the point of your summary here. But if this is the case, where does the EU per separate listing come into things? At the moment it just looks as it Euratom and the EU have been listed twice each. --OJ (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd prefer the original statement, but that was apparently lacking clarity... Let's see what can be done.... L.tak (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)