User talk:L.tak/Archives/2019 1

El Wa3ra
I noticed your edits at El Wa3ra and was wondering if you had seen the report at WP:ANI. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: La Course
UCI refer to race as one-day; each race was categorised separately, and can be confirmed via rules links on La Course website. Izoard WWT, Marseille 1.15. Two separate races. Craig (talk)  14:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a bit strange when specific pages, including the La Course element on LeTour.fr refer to it as Stage 1 and Stage 2, yet are two completely different races; one being mass-start, and the other being the pursuit part (La Course Poursuite). As far as I am aware (or I remember reading at some point), it's the pursuit part that stopped it from being fully UCI categorised. Admittedly with the same winner, it's made the showing on the article a lot easier than it could have been. I dread to think how many issues there would have been if there were different winners... Phew. Craig  (talk)  15:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

CJEU and CETA
Hello there. I noticed that in your recent edits on Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement you mentioned that CETA "can only enter into force if a favourable opinion is given by the European Court of Justice following a request for an opinion by Belgium", but by today (21 Sept) CETA is already provisionally applied. I have also read the complaint filed by Belgium and found no such wordings to support this claim. Could please further elaborate on this? Thank you. C-GAUN (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This comes from the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, article 218 (11), which is rather described negatively actually (it can not enter into force if a negative opinion is given) rather than positively as I stated it (can enter into force if the opinion is favourable). About the provisional application, I suppose there are plenty of sources available... Is this answer helping you? L.tak (talk) 21:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. My concern is that this sentence may confuse readers since CETA is already in force (albeit provisionally) as of today. C-GAUN (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Paris Accords Graphic
Hello, Hope you are doing well. I'm messaging here in regards to your graphic on the current Paris accord signatories. As of about 2-3 hours ago, credible news sites have begun reporting that Nicaragua has joined the Paris accords. As a result of this your infographic is now slightly obsolete. I was hoping to reach out to you so an updated version could be made by the time that actual government entities or first hand sources begin reporting on it so it can be updated quickly and smoothly. Have a great day.

Jyggalypuff (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * He Jyggaly, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I updated the chart (but if you have seen it before, you may still see the old version, as you have to clear your browser cash first; or just check it with a different computer), but it turns out Nicaragua didn't sign but acceded. L.tak (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks mate, must have either read it wrong or heard it wrong from the media, either possible. Regardless, thanks for the correction and thanks for the quality updates.  Have a great one. Jyggalypuff (talk) 14:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Expertise
Most experienced editors will be aware that a person who, in his/her own opinion or in the opinion of others, is a good/ mediocre/ bumbling doctor/ lawyer/ mathematician/ sportsman etc. is not necessarily a good or discerning npov editor for articles touching on the topic of his/her profession/expertise, and one who repeatedly and irrationally attacks an editor as a method of defending his own pov may be expected to operate in a manner disruptive of the ongoing process needed to improve an article's content and presentation, whether or not "in good faith". In real life, and in Wikipedia, a skilled editor can do more to improve an article or book than a self-styled expert author. In my view there is a contradiction between a general demand for expertise on the part of others and recourse to Wikipedia guideline question, "Is the knowledge so self-evident that it really does not need to be cited at all?" An article such as common law should be seen as communicating information to the general reader, who may or may not have some prior knowledge, and once an article has been built and become more or less stable with input from editors who have sufficient knowledge of the whole or part of the given topic, it is good to have a fresh look from an experienced and skilled editor to prune or clarify for the general reader, without disruption on the part of garrulous others. Qexigator (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

+ See also discussions: "Three connotations" and "Improving opening sentences" at Talk:Common law/Archive 6  May-June 2016, including 17:15, 3 June 2016 "...pointless to engage..." Qexigator (talk) 09:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Happy New Year, ! All the best, --Edcolins (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, a good 2018 to you too! L.tak (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OPCW logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:OPCW 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) 18:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo NOCNSF.png
Thanks for uploading File:Logo NOCNSF.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) 18:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo of OPCW.png
Thanks for uploading File:Logo of OPCW.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) 19:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)