Hi. At Talk:List of works by Joseph Priestley you said on May 2 that you had a new version of the "online works" list to be uploaded, but you haven't edited the article since April. I was wondering if you still had that update at hand (or near completion)?
Underneath your thread there, I've suggested that it would be most efficacious to merge that list of external links, into the rest of the article, to prevent duplication (and confusion or missed-information for readers), in the same way that List of works of William Gibson is written. Your thoughts would be appreciated there. Thanks :) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I'm in the process of writing an article on vaping, the use of a personal vaporizer/e-cig, and I was wondering if you could post the references to my talk page for the in depth history you posted, it would be of much help. Thanks. Le rufus (talk) 16:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the point that you are trying to make is that the calculation of points in, for example, Decamber 2006 included calculations based on rankings in, for example December 2005, but those Dec 05 rankings were reached via the previous calculation method, not the one introduced in July 2006. Therefore any false impression about the relative strength of teams given under the old formula still has an influence. Is that a correct reading of your intention?
Assumming that to be the case, I would be uncertain about the merit in including it.
Any system for quantifying comparative performances is open to challenge, and the relative accuracy of alternative formulae is only ever going to be subjectively quantifiable, so there is no NPOV case that previous error is carried forward, in which case the carrying forward of previous results is scarcely remarkable.
By now, the difference in rankings caused by not retrospectively applying new formulae to old results is both extraordinarily difficult to calculate, and, I would suggest, minimal in the difference it would make to October 2010 rankings.
But most importantly for including the claiim in Wikipedia, is this verifiably true? I suspect it is: I'd be surprised if they bothered to retrospectively apply the 2006 system, but is there a source that clearly states that?
Even leaving aside such issues, I would suggest that it can be said rather more simply and clearly than "The updated calculation methods were implemented by FIFA on a forward progress; meaning that they only replaced the previous method starting from a certain month, and never were used by FIFA to calculate new points and rankings for the past. Thus, the historical charts of each nations FIFA ranking since 1993, are drawed upon all three calculation methods; the first from August 1993 until December 1998, the second from January 1999 until June 2006, and the third since July 2006."
Your courage in editing in a language that is not your mother tongue is noted, but phrases such as "implemented... on a forward progress" and "are drawed upon" are not ones that a native speaker would use.
Most people interested in rankings do not access an "historical chart of each nation's FIFA ranking since 1993"
Your desire to state a lot undermines the clarity of what you wish to say: conciseness is desirable in encyclopaedic writing.
The dates of the changes in calculation are already evident in the article: re-iterating them here makes the sentence lengthy and the punctuation awkward.
If we assume that the uncertainties in my second paragraph can be overcome, is there anything essential missing from the much simpler phrasing that I introduced: "The updated calculations remained partially dependent on rankings calculated under earlier forms of calculation. " I'm not totally happy about the repetition of the word "calculations" there, maybe "After each change in the formula, positions calculated under the previous method retained an influence in the ranking." I believe that both of these include the relevant points, ar more proportionate, and better combine clarity and conciseness. Kevin McE (talk) 14:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kevin, the point I tried to add with a few lines, was actualy not related to the "statistical windows", that you highlighted in your reply above. In the article chapter named "Current calculation method", we already have a sentence dealing with the fact, that "opponent strength" to a small degree has been calculated by "old rankings calculated by a previous method". However, FIFA actualy applied the new calculation formula as far back as to 1996, which is already noted with a source in the wiki article. So that particular matter, is in my point of view already covered suficiently by the article. The new point I tried to highlight in the "History chapter", was only to stress the fact, that FIFA never retroactively published rankings for the time frame in Aug.1993-June 2006 based upon their new formula! Instead they preserved all the old data, so whenever you visit their website to look up historical FIFA rankings, then you will find a chart where the ranking positions from Aug.1993-Dec.1998 are calculated by the first method, with ranking positions from Jan.1999-June 2006 being calculated by the second method, and ranking positions since July 2006 being calculated by the third method. I think this info is relevant to add, as ordinary people who are not familair with the FIFA ranking, would tend to assume, that the new formula had been applied retroactively on all data, in order to show both historic ranking positions and the current ranking position, calculated by the same method. This is not the case. Perhaps the point I try to highlight, can be formulated in a better way. You are welcome to give it a try, and of course also more than welcome to continue our talk (either here, or at the discussion page of the article). Danish Expert (talk) 15:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see: I think my point that your effort did not make clear your intention has been illustrated. To be honest, I don't think anyone who has read that the method of calculation changed in July 2006 would assume that the Dec 2005 rankings were calculated according to the July 2006 formula. But if you think that it should be stated, I'd suggest that clarity and conciseness are met by "Historical records of the rankings, such as listed at FIFA.com, reflect the method of calculation in use at the time." or, if you prefer "Historical records of the rankings, such as listed at FIFA.com, reflect the method of calculation in use at the time, as the current method has not been applied retrospectively to rankings prior to July 2006". Kevin McE (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, that my first formulation indeed would be more concise and clear, when being reformulated to the last sentence you wrote. Before I checked back to read your answer here at the discusssion page, I already posted an edit of the sentence in the wiki article, with this formulation: The updated calculation methods were implemented by FIFA on a sequentially basis; meaning that they -publication wise- only replaced the previous method starting from a certain month, with the FIFA website still showing the historical ranking positions calculated by the previous method. Obviously the point of my reformulated sentence is now the exact same, as the one you proposed above. And as I happen to prefer your somewhat shorter and better formulation, I agree to use that sentence instead. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your kind words and concern about my WP:FOOTY status. Indeed, i am a member of the project and edit more than i would like to - :) - at the site, more than 90% in association football. Did not know i had been added to the list of members nor that i had been removed from it but yes, my account name has been changed after an admin thought it could/should be done. I am not aware if it's an indispensable condition that you sign up to that list, if so, what are the necessary steps?
There is no official WPF requirement/policy in place, that in any way would compel you to sign up as a WPF member. It is a free choise, and unconfirmed WPF members, also have full legitimate access to debate at the WPF talk page. So you did nothing wrong. If you add your name to the official WPF member list, it is however a way to confirm your membership of WPF (that you already indicated with the green userbox at your user page). In general, it is allways a good thing, to confirm your membership. First of all, you will become more visible to other WPF members. Second, the confirmed WPF membership also is a sign/reference towards other editors of football related articles, that you indeed, is truely involved and familair with the important content/debate at WikiProject Football. If you want to sign up, and confirm that you are a true WPF member, this is a fast and easy thing to do. You only need to make an edit to the official WPF member list, where you can add your current user name to the bottom of the list. Cheers, --Danish Expert (talk) 10:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During the last couple of weeks you removed much great content from the Greek legislative election, written by me. Always citing it as POV and demanding additional sources. Honestly I think you are way to fast to hit the delete buttom. And your contribution is more harmfull than good, because the way you delete and judge my contributions, tends to be be POV itself. If you disagree about some of my written material, then I will advice you to open up discussions about it at the talk page of the article. I am able to dig up and add references for every single word I write at Wikipedia. In regards of article leads, its however OK just to write a brief summary of the content already provided further down in the article, without repeating the references. For the time being I will undo your deletions, and ask you to open up discussions at the articles talk page, if you feel certain content is in need to be further discussed or provided with additional sources. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 13:46, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your anti-Greek posting is becoming disgraceful. Please desist or I will be forced to leave another comment here. Remember that I am the master, the true master. I have so many skills, and so much skill, that you are doomed to defeat. Hairgelmare (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to leave as many comments as you like. It would however be appreciated if you try to calm down, and try to analyze the situation with a bit more perspective. Just for the record, I actually love both Greece and the ancient Greek history. I also praise how Greek politicians ran the Greek economy in the 1970s. This however doesnt change the fact, that Greek politicians and the Greek Economy has performed terribly both in the 80s + 90s + 00s, and this is all together the root cause behind the current Greek debt crisis. Greece only woke up to reality and started to do responsible economic decisions in 2010, and with the new government you elected in June you are fortunately still on the right track to counterfeit the crisis. So I now predict, that Greece already in 2014 will have a healthy return with positive real GDP growth rates, and start to get rewarded for the high austerity price you currently pay. I would however advice you to stop the blame and hate game against Germany. Instead you need to turn your blame and hate against the Greek politicians in the 80s + 90s + 00s. And praise the newly elected responsible Greek politicians in the 10s, and praise that you have a friendly EU family led by Germany, saving you from bankruptcy (which would have caused more than twize the amount of pain and dispare, that the Greek people so far have suffered). Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Pay attention, lad: I am going to vanquish you with a few deadly blows from my awesome axe. I am going to go wild. Your defeat is unavoidable. Thanks for listening. Hairgelmare (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Greek government-debt crisis. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please either open an WP:SPI investigation so that you can be laughed off the project or retract your clueless message: As a final comment, I am well aware that Hairgelmare and Dr.K is the one and same person. And just as a friendly advice want to inform you, that it is against the wikipedia policy to use a puppet account to back up your own posted oppinion, in any debate at the talk pages. and learn not to attack longstanding, reputable editors. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις20:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He Danish Expert. Just a short note I have reverted the Czech-royal-assent matter and explained why on the talkpage. Nevertheless, I do appreciate your "quest"" to get as much up to date information as possible on the ratification status! L.tak (talk) 13:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The speculative line removed claiming "the president may intentionally delay his assent", was provided by a high quality source (a status report from the European Parliament). We have long time ago solved the matter by reformulating the phrase, making it more clear that the source speculated. This note is just to highlight, that the speculation by the source was subsequently proofed to be absolutely correct, as the president on 7 December officially announced: "I will never sign such a monstrous treaty". Your concern that the info contained a certain element of speculation was justified. But I think this case proofs that when any high quality (reliable) source add "speculative info", then we can as a rule of thumb rightfully assume it is not just unfounded speculation to be ignored, but something they have some sort of sources giving them a relatively certain indication on. So if formulated carefully in the wikipedia article (making sure it is noted to be speculative info made by the source), I insist such kind of info is still worth to add. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 09:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Danish Expert long time no speak, I'm in the process of updating the WP:FOOTY members list which you updated last time. There's just one thing I'm confused over, at the bottom you mark 4 users with stars with the note The 4 inactive members marked with 3 stars, will automatically be removed to the Active member list, if they manage to post minimum 1 football related edit in the second half of July 2011see your version But they've already been removed from Active member list, should it not say re-added rather then removed. Care to explain, please. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 14:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, unfortunately in 2012 I had to cut down on most of my football related contributions, due to limited time and other fields of interest also calling for attention. But perhaps I will return next year with more regular contributions to the football field again. :-) In regards of the WP:FOOTY members listed with 3 stars, it was only ment as a temporary note for the list. So it is OK (and perhaps also preferrable) not to have this note in the future. You are right, that it would be less confusing if I had written "re-added to the Active member list". I welcome your initiative to update the list. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 12:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I started a thread over at WP:FOOTY (see here) & it's now been suggested that a new list be started. Although you feel your football related contribution may have been limited recently, your input on the issue would be greatly appreciated, given fact you updated the list in the past. Regards ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 18:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of deleting talk page content like you did on Talk:Euro convergence criteria, it's better to WP:ARCHIVE it. I've setup archiving for the euro convergence criteria page, so a bot should automatically clean it up in a day or so. If you have any questions on how to set this up on another page, or your talk page, just let me know. TDL (talk) 10:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I was already fully aware of the existence of the archive bot for archiving old and closed debates, but as I wrote in my edit: I removed 3 "stub chapters" from the talk-page, that only displayed one outdated comment (without replies) related to a previous call for a simple edit-correction subsequently being implemented in the article (without replies) - and not in anyway being content for a debate at the talkpage. Because of the fact that the "stub chapters" carried no talk-page value at all, I still think it would be best to delete them rather than archiving them. And I believe WP:Prune actually allow us to make such a deletion. Yet, it is not a high-priority matter for me to delete them (if you want to keep them), and in any case I welcome your decision to activate the archive-bot for old and outdated discussions. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
He Danish, that was me that changed those numbers, because I wanted to make sure that percentage points and not percentages was taken. With 100% that doesn't matter, but with 80% it is much clearer. Could you amend the description to have an example with 80% (or 120%)? L.tak (talk) 16:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar is awarded to especially tireless editors who contribute an especially large body of work without sacrificing quality.
Thanks a lot for your appreciation, which admittedly now injects even more fuel to my engine. Spurred by this, I will soon also add a new extra update for Poland. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 14:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Andorra–European Union relations into Enlargement of the eurozone. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you.
Sorry if I offended you. Indeed it appear that I forgot to provide a copylink in the "Edit summary", of the copy I did of your 1 line recently written in the "Andorra-European Union relations" article. My only excuse is, that I beside of the copied line also had added my own written extra line in conjunction. I very seldom copy other peoples line from other wikipedia pages. If I do again in the future, I will of course be more carefull to remember atributing the copyrighter link in the "Edit summary". Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Arnipallarnason.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that this media item is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media item could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media item is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf.☼13:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Latvian euro coins shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Danish Expert, I have reverted you in that article, for reasons explained on the article talk page. Let me add that I find that in general your edits appear to be problematic. In summary, it seems to me that you are adding original research, that you exhibit ownership over articles, that you have edit-warred, and that you get carried away with adding what really are minutiae (excessive detail makes for unreadable articles). Now, you have skills and passion, and that's great, but some of this energy needs to be rechanneled. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@TDL: In the past four months there have now been a few times, where you and I clashed about the WP:OR policy. In those cases where we have clashed, I admit to have applied a backwords approach, where I started out to state the facts as I knew it was the WP:TRUTH. I have always seen such uploads as part of a process, where we were continously working to find sources and improve the articles. So my uploads were not ment to be unsourced forever, but something where it could be possible for me (or another editor) at a later stage to return and add the needed source. I admit to have been sloppy a few times not to remember adding the {{CN}} tag behind such WP:OR comments, but as all our subsequent discussions have proofed it was in each an every case subsequently possible to find the needed references to back my claims. Just to name the most recent examples, this is true for: 1) When Vaclav Havel had refused signing the ESM amendment treaty, 2) When the Czech PM was not prepared to join Fiscal Compact before such a thing had been explicitly approved by a referendum (which his TOP09 coallition partner refused), 3) When I claimed the Left-Green Movement had changed their policy now to support a completion of EU negotiations. In each of these three examples, I was able subsequently to add references that proofed my finding (which in those mentioned cases at first had been uploaded to the article as a combined WP:SYN of my own research after reading several articles in the field). Again a somewhat backwords process to you (and most editors here at Wikipedia), but this is how I work, which in most cases also should be considered a quality because I never limit myself to accept what a single source have written, but instead do a more broader research in the field on my own to learn what is really the WP:TRUTH. I appoligy to you, that I have been too sloppy to forget adding the CN tag in a couple of few cases, where I did not at first find a single direct reference suitable for the purpose and forgot to add the CN tag. I promise you in the future to improve, so that I from now on always remember to add these CN tags whenever needed.
My reply to you directly here at the articles talkpage, should really never have been posted here, but instead at your/my personal talkpage. But as your insinuated attacks against my moves and work process in general, to a great extend also has been reflected by your replies posted throughout the debate here at this articles talkpage, this now also make it appropriate for me to post my respons here (although another time I will recommend you engage with me more directly on my personal user talkpage, if you for whatever reason continue to have problems with my working process in general, instead of starting an unnecessary fuss about it by contacting administrators since February 2013 behind my back - without posting the slightest notification about your so-called general objection to my upload behaviour at my user talkpage- a general objection which by the way only entail a real objection to less than 10% of my previous uploads - and in all cases where we both have reached a final peacefull mutual agreement about the content so that the article was left in a state where your initial concerns had been fully met). As usual I assume WP:AGF on your behalf, but I have to say that your communication with me has been very clumsy, and a little too sneaky compared to a normal recommended approach here at Wikipedia. In our previous clashes, I each time asked you in the future to add a CN tag for those portions of my uploaded material you found needed a ref, instead of just removing it. Despite of that, you have never done so, and continued your practise of conducting a blindfolded removal of those parts of my uploaded material that needed an extra ref. I acknowledge it is mainly my own responsibility to add the CN tags, and not something I should leave as a task for you to do, and as stated above I will also start to be better remembering to do this in the future. Please do not take personal offence when I say this, but one of the main reasons why the atmosphere a few times in the past has developed into something experienced as tence, was because that I had forgot to add CN tags and that you also for whatever reason preferred to hit the delete tast rather than add a CN tag. We could really have avoided many clashes and a tense atmosphere, if we instead more actively has added CN tags for those parts of my upload where it was needed, in which case I would anyway have returned shortly afterwords to the page and uploaded the needed and called for reference. Our past clashes are neither black or white. We could both have acted better to prevent them. Let this be my final words in this case. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 18:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved this discussion here so that we don't clutter Talk:Latvian euro coins with things unrelated to that topic.
I really don't think that it's fair for you to call my communication with you "clumsy" or "sneaky", or to say that I've never "attempted to contact me directly". I've raised these same issues with you on talk pages in a very clear manner, over and over and over and over and over again. Each time you either don't understand or ignore my concerns and continue with the same problematic editing. Manyothereditorshave raised the same concerns about your edits, but you ignore them as well. When I left a notice on your talk page about a problem, you told me that this "offended" you and was "poor form". The problem isn't getting better, and if you aren't prepared to listen to what other editors tell you, what options do we have except to ask for a neutral third option? I didn't ask Drmies to get you in trouble, I simply asked for his help in trying to explain to you why your edits are problematic.
"but as all our subsequent discussions have proofed it was in each an every case subsequently possible to find the needed references to back my claims" - that's just simply not true. For every case you listed, I can show you one where your analysis was wrong. 1) Have you found a source for the "EU's policy of only allowing the European microstates (with populations less than 100,000) to 'partially adopt' the euro"? Will Andorra lose the right to mint euros if they grow by 15,000 and surpasses this magic 100,000 barrier? 2) You have admitted that your analysis here: "that ECB will publish their next official evaluation report in April 2013" wasn't supportable by sources. 3) You couldn't find a source that "the Cypriot Central Bank supplies the UK dependent territory geographically located on Cyprus" with euros. But at the end of the day, the point you keep missing is that it really doesn't matter whether your analysis is correct or not. All that matters is whether your content is sourced. The sooner you can accept that, the better for everyone involved. And no, adding a {{cn}} tag at the end of your OR does not solve the problem. You can't add your OR to the encyclopedia, period. If things can't be sourced, then they shouldn't be included. If you want to store content while you look for more references, then there are plenty of options: you could create a sandbox or add it to the talk page. Either option would allow for interested editors to help you look for sources. But such unsourced analysis shouldn't be included live in an article until such sources are found.
I think everyone sees that you have tremendous skills, and that if you could just learn to understand what should be included in the encyclopedia and what should not, you'd make an excellent contributor. Please, take some time to read over wikipedia's important policies such as WP:OR, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:N, and WP:NOT. If you have questions about them, I'd be happy to answer them. Or if you prefer, you could ask one of the editors listed here. TDL (talk) 04:39, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Danish Expert, it seems to me you have an extraordinary set of talents, but some of those aren't applicable on Wikipedia. I fully concur with TDL's statements about original research--they only thing he missed out on was pointing at WP:SYNT, which here is evident in the fact that conclusions are drawn, tables are constructed, and comparisons are made using original research. Anyway, I have left a response to your comment on my talk page as well. Seriously, I wish I had some of that talent that you have: I'd be making real money in the real world instead of volunteering on this site for geeks. All the best, Drmies (talk) 12:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Thanks for your reply. As a matter of fact, I indeed currently already earn money on my analytical skills as a working Engineer consultant with a technical MSc and a bachelor degree in Economics. My personal background is however irrelevant. I have never considered Wikipedia to be a restricted area for geeks/students, but instead consider it to be a highly informative world wide encyclopedic work which all sorts of society people are continously working to improve. I do it gladly for free at the few areas where I have interest/expertise, as I appreciate the concept of a globally free to use encyclopedia. After receiving your and TDL's request for me to refresh how the exact words of the specified Wikipedia policies you both linked to has been formulated, I will of course indeed do so again reading them from top to bottom. When I get through it all, I will inform you if it changed anything (which I doubt it will, although I admit to rely on my memory of the policies as they were formulated 3 years ago). I can reveal to you that my described "backwords working process" (in the reply above to TDL) only has been applied to the EU-related articles where TDL has been a frequent visitor, and in those few cases where a part of my upload had not been covered directly by the listed source, this problem got solved either by the fact that TDL deleted the unsourced part of my upload or on my part by a subsequent renewed upload of the material with an extra verifying reference which TDL had requested me to add by his deletion. Currently we have left all these articles in a state both TDL and I could approve. So we do not have any leftover cases to improve/solve related to my account.
Our only current ongoing disagreement is about the "Monthly convergence data". In that regard, I want you to pay attention to the fact, that I - with the earlier consent of TDL who also was engaged directly in this work - since January 2013 applied the same approach to uploading monthly data for the most recent month in the Template:Euro convergence criteria displayed by the Enlargement of the eurozone article. When I then duplicated this approach into the Latvian euro coins article, I thus only acted in good faith, and was subsequently surprised to find so strong resistance about it, as nobody had objected so strongly to this uploaded data when displayed by our Template:Euro convergence criteria. In my point of view it should really be obvious to everybody, that if we ban the concept of uploading "monthly convergence data" for one article, then this should of course also apply to the similar approach used by our Template:Euro convergence criteria. For the moment, I will continue at the articles talkpage to attempt reaching a true WP:CONSENSUS for how we in the future shall handle the concept of "monthly convergence data". It would be great if you have time to leave a short comment for my @drmies reply at the articles talkpage (after also reading my below reply to @xil). I perfectly understand if you dont have time to look into the exact argumentation of the presented "case facts", but in that case it would by nice if you still just left a short comment at the talkpage to flash that you only interfered in our debate based on a brief understanding of the case by reading the talkpage (and so far did not perform a more in-depth evaluation of the "case facts"), and that if we do not reach WP:CONSENSUS based on our debate below, then you will recommend us to try reaching so through starting up a WP:RFC or WP:ORN (as you previously also suggested to TDL+me at your own user talkpage).
In regards of our internal debate about a suitable working method for future edits comming from my account, I would like you also to comment here on my user talkpage, whether or not my suggestion posted above in my reply to TDL can be approved by the Wikipedia policies: For upload of line(s) which I know accurately reflect the truth, I will in the future be extra careful always to remember only listing the source behind the written info which the source directly verify, and for the remaining unsourced part of the line/sentence remember to list a CN tag with a provided well-explained reason, which explain that the reason for leaving this tag is a well-reasoned assumption that a source indeed can be found for this claim - with the only reason for not being uploaded as part of the first punch was that I did not yet have time dig up this additional source myself. I would of course only use this approach in cases where my memory tells me I once read a source about it (or heard the news in radio/tv), and in each case shortly inform in the CN-tag what my inputs where for stating such claim + Also invite any reader to delete it again after 1 month if it had not been directly verified and sourced by then. Would that be wrong? After reading the Template:Citation Needed, I truely believe there would be nothing wrong with such approach. It will be key-important both for me and TDL to learn, if you agree/disagree with me or him on this specific corner of the Wikipedia policies. Thanks in advance. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I put up an initial version of the page, but I was using an online translator to research it and was having some trouble (some words seemed to translate multiple ways, and some wouldn't translate at all), and I don't feel particularly confident in everything I wrote. The article is very short, and I was hoping you could look over it and see if you saw anything particularly erroneous... ? --4idaho (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say that I appreciate the edits you have been making to Iceland-related articles. You seem to be well informed about Icelandic affairs which is not easy if you don't know Icelandic since a lot of the news and such material available about Iceland in other languages is quite superficial and often out of context or simply wrong (hyped). I try to write about current Iceland affairs when something major happens but I’m mostly focusing on Icelandic political history (statistics, politicians, institutions etc.) these days. Your username leads me to believe that you are Danish and an expert of some sort (maybe on Iceland). I am curious to know what sources you use and what drives your interest? Unfortunately I can not write to you in Danish even though I studied it for nearly a decade. If you need anything then don’t hesitate to contact me. Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The text you added to describe this paragraph of the treaty WP:PLAGiarizes the source without proper attribution. We've also had this discussion in the past. Everyone makes mistakes, but you promised to be more careful last time though it seems that this hasn't been the case. I don't have the time to deal with this at the moment, but we're going to have to go through the entire article and remove all the plagiarized text. A quick glance at your recent edits reveals that this is a serious, ongoing issue which is not confined to this article, so I may need to request admin intervention as well to protect the project. TDL (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my mistake/glimpse to have attempted for 3 specific content points in the European Fiscal Compact#Content article, to display certain "source identical phrases" in a "new sentence constructed way" without the proper add of quotation marks, at a time when I genuinely indeed attempted to avoid a WP:PLAG situation by constructing the sentence in a different way and adding as many different words as possible without destroying the message of the "content point". I have now fixed the specific unfixed issue you today raised a flag about, by adding proper quotation marks for the "source identical phrases", and left my full reply about it on the articles talkpage. My understanding of the situation is, that we currently do not have any similar unfixed problems in my past edits throughout the past 6 months. This was only a single mistake from my hand (as the material added for all 3 points, that you seem to refer to as belonging to two different articles, were all added in the same article chapter around the same time, being before I realized and agreed with you that this was inappropriate to present the "content text" in this specific way - after reading one of your edits correcting the two first points in the content chapter). I agree with you it was far better in this situation to use quotation marks, instead of my first attempt only to construct the "word-sensitive" sentences differently. This problem has now been fixed. If you want to discuss this matter further with me, after also reading my full reply over at the articles talkpage, then please proceed here at my talkpage, so that we can limit the article's talkpage only for debated matters about the article's content. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 14:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@DE: I'm sorry you found my response to be rude, but quite honestly I find it rude that you steadfastly refuses to WP:LISTEN to any of the many concerns that I, and others, have repeatedly raised about your editing over the past year. I'm certainly not "angry" or "mad" at you, though it is definitely frustrating. I feel like we're playing soccer, and every time the ball comes to you, you pick it up and start running towards my net. When I tell you: "but the rules of soccer say you can't use your hands" your respond: "but I can score more goals if I use my hands!" Wikipedia is a community project, with community rules. You need to accept the ground rules of the game before we can have an intelligent debate about the issues.
I have absolutely no problems with your use of the English language, and I certainly appreciate it when you fix typos I make. The frustrating part is when I try to improve your writing, or remove some OR which you've added, you often revert and try to sneak your poorly written, or unsourced, version back in without so much as an edit summary. A recent example:
I try my best to keep as much of the content you've generated in the article as possible, and just improve the wording while removing the unsalvageable bits. (I could just do a blanket revert and undo the whole edit, but I find that quite rude and lazy.) But when you restore your poorly written or unsourced revision after I've taken the time to try sift through all the content you've added, it's really quite frustrating. If I revert something that you've boldly added, per WP:BRD you need to seek consensus on the talk page, not keep adding it until everyone gives up arguing with you.
And no, I haven't been reading through all your edits, just the ones on pages that overlap on our watchlist (ie eurozone related articles). And even then, I wasn't looking for plagiarised text. If I was, I would have noticed the recurrance of the problem well before yesterday.
Finally, I have repeatedly told you that you make many valuable contributions to the project (ie [4][5]). Unfortunately, you take any criticism of your work as a personal attack, when in reality I'm just trying to help you become an even better wikipedian.
@Heracletus: I'm certainly not trying to pick on DE, and as I'm sure he will attest to I FREQUENTLY do attempt to rectify the issues I see in his edits (here's an example from just last week). However, I only keep an eye on a narrow range of articles which he edits and if it is happening on articles I watch, it is likely happening elsewhere as well, hence the need to have a community review. At the end of the day, I, nor anybody else, can be responsible for ensuring that DE does not plagiarise. Every time he clicks "submit", he is promising that he is using his own words.
Last time I noticed that DE was plagiarising, I attempted to discuss the issue with him, but he became quite defenisve and refused to acknowledge that there was a problem, and claimed that this was an isolated case. Even after noticed numerous other cases and filed a CCI, he denied that there was anything wrong with his edits. After a year of these same disputes recurring, I've only filed a single CCI report against DE, and CCI reports are NOT even designed to punish editors, but simply to have a structured way to review the editors past contributions to clean them of copyvios. I've never requested that he be sanctioned, and the only time I've ever even threatened to request that was during the Latvia and the euro disaster. So I really don't think that it's fair to accuse me of overdoing it. There is clearly a problem here, and just as clear is that it's not going to resolve itself. I've suggested to DE many times that he should consider finding a WP:MENTOR, but he claims he already knows everything. What other options do I have?
Also, please read WP:COPYOTHERS. Even if we added the copyright statement we still couldn't use the material. Legally we couldn't get sued, but wikipedia only accepts free content, and I don't believe that their license is compatible with wikipedia's Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (in particular, it doesn't allow for remixing of the text). We could quote a selection of the text under WP:NFC, but in that case we'd need to use an EXACT quote (not the mangled DE version) and we'd still need to give proper attribution (ie quotes). While I agree with you that taken in isolation, this case of plagiarism is a relatively minor, I only linked to that diff because it was what caught my attention when DE referenced it in the discussion. As I mentioned above, after noticing that it was plagiarised I quickly glanced through his other recent edits and discovered many other instances of this, several of them much more serious. The problem is that this is an ongoing issue affecting numerous articles, and even after being warned about the issue it has continued. As I said, I didn't have the time yesterday to properly present the diffs, but I will attempt to do so in the next 24h. (Not trying to be cryptic, just short of time atm.) TDL (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@TDL: Thanks for your reply, and your great effort to improve the quality of my work. From my point of view you indeed help to fix various issues, which is great, but occasionally it happens that what I intended to say with my line then gets destroyed in the process of rectifying it according to your concern. You are not doing anything wrong - it is just a matter that sometimes I accidently use a "bad chosen word" (i.e. only) for something I intended to say. The edit string you referred to above ended with you returning a new formulation using the word "introduced", which was something I fully accepted as this implied the "Fiscal Compact was build upon the shoulders of SGP and then introduced..." -which I agreed with you was an alternative and better way (in regards of ensuring source compliance) than my initial attempt of writing "Fiscal Compact budget balance rule only differes from SGP budget balance rule by..." (which was a statement being 100% true to reality, but which could not be written like that when enforcing the Wikipedia policy requirement rule you referred to, that we are only allowed to report content claims within a 100% match of saying the same stuff as provided for by the formulation of the listed source). I fully accepted the end solution for that case, by subsequently leaving your correction undisputed.
In regards of your concern, that I perform a lot of WP:PLAG around Wikipedia, I can tell you this is not the case. My uploads to Wikipedia has been limited to a very few articles, and I tend mainly only to upload to the same EU-related articles already listed on your watch-list. Each time when you edit my uploads, I carefully read through what you write. If I object to something then this in 99% of the times is clearly reflected by my edit-summary. I never ignore your corrections, or try to sneak in something which is not provided for. Surely I also occasionally make an edit mistake. My mistake rate is however not as grave as you fear/claim. I surely listen to your arguments, which my correction fix of your recently flagged WP:PLAG concern is a clear proof for. Your discovered WP:PLAG problem was related to 3 content points all written by me around the same time (in a process where I accidently had repeated the same WP:PLAG mistake in three related content points in the Content chapter), you then intervened and corrected the issue in the 2 first content points (which I accepted back then), and a couple of days later another discussion at the talkpage meant you highlighted the WP:PLAG concern for the 3rd and final content point - which I then immediately fixed according to your concern. So it was not a matter where I repeatedly kept on to reproduce the same mistake after you had alerted me about WP:PLAG. In general, I think the extend of your perceived problem with me is exaggerated, but I WP:AGF. You are welcome to do whatever you think is appropriate or necessary. In all circumstances, I will of course always work had to improve on all of my short comings, and of course have a genuinely desire to adhere correctly to all Wikipedia policies. When considering the content quality and speed of my work, it can however never be completely avoided that a few mistakes accidently will be generated by my hand from time to time. I acknowledge my greatest asset and contribution to Wikipedia, is to be a content-provider rather than a language/policy expert, but of course my focus is also continuously to work on improving my skills for the latter part (and I genuinely feel these part of my skills also have improved over the course of time). To be frank, I sometimes feel you are hunting the wrong guy here. The quality of my work clearly belong to the better half of all Wikipedians - when considering all aspects. Best regards,Danish Expert (talk) 05:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dear TDL, you should understand that sometimes rules are not meant to be applied so strictly. There is a problem and noone can monitor Danish Expert's actions all the time, but, as he adds valuable content, the solution cannot be to just sanction him. Or, it could be, but only if he does something severe.
Again, my criticism to you, TDL is about using too much the rules, rather than your common sense. My criticism to DE is about not using the rules, as his common sense usually fails to meet with the consensus of other involved readers.
Danish Expert, please do consider again having for some period of time someone who may review your edits or help you understand the spirit of the rules of wikipedia, be it an administrator, or whoever, since you really want to contribute to wikipedia so much. Heracletus (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@DE, If I've edited something you wrote, it is entirely possible that I missed the point you were trying to make. But the best response from you would be to explain that, either in an edit summary or on the talk page. When you restore something with a rational that makes sense, I'll either leave it, or try to incorporate it into the article. The real problem is when you just restore things without justification or just ignoring the concerns raised.
@Heracletus: Seriously, it's really not helpful for you to be encouraging DE to plagiarise. Yes, perhaps some rules shouldn't be applied strictly, but this is most certainly one that MUST be enforced. TDL (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning, Danish Expert. TDL has stated various points against my attitude in this section, which started from here. One of those points was that he felt that I was stalking you and him. Do you also feel that I have been stalking you? Heracletus (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] And, I mean you personally, not both of you. Because one of the main issues seems to be his claim that I have been stalking your talk page, waiting for his entries. Heracletus (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, my point was that Heracletus seems to frequently involve himself in our disputes, and often his comments focus on personal critiques and name calling (ie "bad boys"). If he wants to involve himself, it would be much more helpful to focus on debating the contents of the article rather than personalizing the dispute. While I've had numerous content disputes with you Danish Expert, I hope you agree that we're both trying to improve the encyclopedia. Generally, while the discussions can be tense at times, we're able to work out a reasonable compromise after discussion with the article benefiting from both of our efforts in the long run.
PS: I hope that after receiving Moonriddengirl's advice at ANI you understand why I thought the issue needed further attention and don't take it personally. (She's much better at explaining such things than me!) I really do appreciate all the hard work you do here generating lots of valuable content, and was only trying to emphasize the importance of some of wikipedia's key policies. TDL (talk) 11:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TDL, you made your points in your own page. I am asking here the other editor you named, Danish Expert, if he also feels he's being stalked by me. I gave links to our discussion. So, stop getting yourself involved and changing the issue. There's a section right above, where you can discuss the ANI you opened on him or whatever else you feel like. Also, if you felt this was one-sided and my version of the story, I provided him with the links, he can read. This section however is about whether Danish Expert thinks I have been stalking him or not. Please, TDL, don't reply. It is not about you.
I really think you're doing all this to just bias what Danish Expert may say. I ask him here if he thinks I have been stalking him, and you come and write about how great you and him have been arguing, in spite of having reported him, having opened an ANI on him, having written twice to (two different) administrators about him and having been involved in quite a few disputes with him, while stating how I always get it personal and call you names. AND, also, still keep giving me (indirect!!!) advice: "If he wants to involve himself, it would be much more helpful to focus on debating the contents of the article rather than personalizing the dispute."
If you suddenly want to make all things fine between you and Danish Expert:"I really do appreciate all the hard work you do here generating lots of valuable content, and was only trying to emphasize the importance of some of wikipedia's key policies." can't you do so in the section above? Heracletus (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but if you're going to make accusations against me here, then you involved me in the discussion. If you don't want me involved, then don't start threads about me on other people's talk pages.
What exactly is it you're trying to accomplish here anyways? I told you that I didn't think your personalizing of disputes between me and DE is helpful, and asked you to stop. If you don't like that advice, then you're free to ignore it. But it seems you're simply engaging in a WP:BATTLE to prove that I'm the "bad guy" you've long since been complaining about. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia, not WP:WINNING. I fail to see how any of this helps to build an encyclopedia. TDL (talk) 15:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what in this:
"Good morning, Danish Expert. TDL has stated various points against my attitude in this section(link), which started from here(link). One of those points was that he felt that I was stalking you and him. Do you also feel that I have been stalking you? Heracletus (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
And, I mean you personally, not both of you. Because one of the main issues seems to be his claim that I have been stalking your talk page, waiting for his entries. Heracletus (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)"
you feel accuses you of something? What of these you feel was a false accusation to which your reply responds?
TDL, I do understand you feel hurt for some reason, but, I came here to ask Danish Expert if he felt I was stalking him. You claimed that and I came to his page to ask him if it is his opinion, as it is something HE (and not you) may believe or not.
Instead of that, I got a lengthy reply by you (which was mostly not relevant to what I asked Danish Expert - and not you).
Tell me what in my original post you perceive as an accusation to your person and we will work on this. So far, you keep just trying to provoke me into changing the issue and indeed making this into a battle. Please stop. I did not ask Danish Expert to mediate in our discussion on your talk page (which for my part has ended), I asked him to tell me if he feels I have been stalking him. Heracletus (talk) 16:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And, on a sidenote, I have stated that I retract the phrase "bad boys" that I used to refer to you (and Danish Expert), but, you keep using it for yourself over and over and over again. Heracletus (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hurt? Why would I feel hurt? Some guy on the internet calling me names isn't really something to lose sleep over. Mainly I'm just perplexed at your need to be constantly passing judgement on other good faith editors.
I found your description of our discussion to be misleading. You put words in my mouth, suggesting that the "main issue" was the stalking, though I don't think that's a fair characterization. The main issue is your personalizing of discussions. If you focused on the content of articles, then your habit of popping up in all of our disputes would be much less problematic. (In fact, it might even be helpful if you restricted yourself to offering constructive solutions to bridge the dispute.) Yes you retracted the "bad boys" statement. However, it still serves as a excellent illustration of the issue I raised.
Listen, I've got no interest in continuing this dispute with you. As I said previously, when you stick to the content your arguments are usually well thought out and helpful. I've asked you to stop personalizing discussions, and I do hope that you take this request seriously. I'm happy to drop the issue and move on with building an encyclopedia if you are. TDL (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the main issues was this. You made a scenario based on it. And, I only referred to it as context to how I came here to ask Danish Expert if he feels he was being stalked by me.
However,
A. you did not refer explicitly to this in your first reply (There's no text saying "This is not one of the main issues")
B. it was indeed an issue in our discussion and quite a big one because you base your scenario and some accusations on it
C. it was not the issue here, and I did tell you AGAIN AND AGAIN that this section here is not about our discussion, it's only about whether Danish Expert feels I was stalking him or not
D. I gave links to our discussions as context to why I am asking him whether he feels I was stalking him, so, if he feels so, he can read our discussion and come to any conclusions about it on his own (EVEN THOUGH OUR DISCUSSION IS NOT AN ISSUE HERE, it's merely why I felt I should ask him if he feels he's being stalked by me) AND EVEN THOUGH THIS IS NOT MY INTENTION AND I NEVER ASKED HIM TO DO SO. I only explained why I am here asking this.
E. you started your (initial) reply here with a clarification, and, you went on to pass some unwanted advice to me for like YET ONE MORE time, in an indirect form, while you were replying to ME, and to further on say how things between you and Danish Expert are great, which apart from debatable is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. I asked him if he felt I was stalking him. I didn't ask him anything about you, and I didn't ask you anything. And, you continued by acting nice to him and praising him on his work, which again is IRRELEVANT to this section. This section does not concern your ANI, Danish Expert's work, or anything else apart from whether he feels I was stalking him.
F. My reply to your initial reply BEGINS with this: "TDL, you made your points in your own page. I am asking here the other editor you named, Danish Expert, if he also feels he's being stalked by me. I gave links to our discussion. So, stop getting yourself involved and changing the issue. There's a section right above, where you can discuss the ANI you opened on him or whatever else you feel like. Also, if you felt this was one-sided and my version of the story, I provided him with the links, he can read. This section however is about whether Danish Expert thinks I have been stalking him or not. Please, TDL, don't reply. It is not about you." I understand you may not be hurt, but, do you read what I reply to you?
G. based on E. and F. I keep accusing you of trying to derail this and trying to provoke me, and you just continue on doing it.
H. Again, ON YOUR LATEST REPLY THIS TIME, you give me more advice on an irrelevant issue: "If you focused on the content of articles, then your habit of popping up in all of our disputes would be much less problematic. (In fact, it might even be helpful if you restricted yourself to offering constructive solutions to bridge the dispute.)" You clearly have an issue with me which is irrelevant here and you keep raising it.
I. You write "Yes you retracted the "bad boys" statement. However, it still serves as a excellent illustration of the issue I raised." Exactly. I made a section asking Danish Expert on his own talk page whether he feels he was being stalked by me and you came and raised a completely irrelevant issue IN THE SAME SECTION, based on our prior discussion on your talk page, AND WHICH YOU HAD ALREADY RAISED WITH ME IN THAT DISCUSSION. You keep trying to carry the discussion we had on your talk page here. STOP DOING IT.
I will keep trying to express myself as I see fit. I do consider your behaviour here to be WP:WIKIHOUNDING, as explained: "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."
You keep confronting in this section my edits, the way I express myself and my behaviour in wikipedia, while it is really clear that this section is not about it AND while we already had a discussion about it (on your talk page) AND while I started that discussion with telling you to raise such issues on MY personal talk page. Please, do not raise NOW, such PREVIOUS issues on my talk page; you have already raised them enough here and on your own talk page. You have created me annoyance and distress and, once again, I ask you to just stop raising irrelevant issues (such as YOUR relationship with Danish Expert on wikipedia or your thoughts on the ANI you opened on him, and which could have led to sanctions against him but did not, or my calling you "bad boys" some time ago on another article's talk page). If you feel so, create another section for those issues.
The next time you will just pop up somewhere to attack me on an irrelevant issue, I will ask some administrator to intervene. This section is about whether Danish Expert feels I was stalking him. It is about Danish Expert's opinion on this matter. It is not about you, your relationship with Danish Expert, his work being great, your issues with me, or even your scenario that I was stalking both of you (but, however, waited a nice two weeks to express myself on your latest - at the time - dispute). THIS SECTION IS NOT ABOUT THIS. Your scenario forms the context based on which I came here to ask his opinion on whether he feels I was stalking him, but, I never asked him to comment on it or even put it up for discussion. I only stated that this triggered my question here.
You did exactly the same thing in this talk page. Again, I had a dispute with different editors and NOT with YOU, again, you made the same irrelevant attacks, and statements like "Seriously, given the frequency with which you criticise me for arguing over minor issues, it's rather hypocritical of you to edit war over whether a date should be listed in the table a couple hours before the vote or after the vote. That belongs on the WP:LAME hall of fame." "When you repeatedly stalk and personally attack editors (not just me) you shouldn't be surprised if they take it personally." with which you BEGIN your replies.
Heracletus, you're getting way too upset over a very small issue. I was not intending to "pass some unwanted advice to me YET ONE MORE time." I was giving a brief summary of my argument in the discussion on my talk page for Danish Expert. (The discussion is quite long after all.)
You keep making accusations about me and my behaviour, but whenever I point out that you've got a history of similar actions to those you are accusing me of, you scream bloody murder. If you're going to make accusations against others, you should really have thick enough skin to accept some yourself. And you should really re-read the text you quoted from WP:WIKIHOUNDING with your own interactions with me and DE in mind. Virtually every interaction I've had with you has been the result of you joining numerous discussions which we were involved in, and which you had no prior involvement in, to confront and harass.
Again, as I said above I'd like to move on to trying to improve the encyclopedia in collaboration with you. I really don't think it's unreasonable to request that you keep your personal opinions of other editors to yourself in the name of better collaboration. I'll certainly try to avoid making comments like I did on Treaty of Accession 2011 in the future, and I hope that you'll make similar efforts to avoid personalizing debates so as to avoid all the unnecessary drama. Can we please drop the issue and move on? TDL (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But, this section is not about our discussion, I have kept writing that to you again and again and again now. "Just to clarify, my point was that Heracletus seems to frequently involve himself in our disputes, and often his comments focus on personal critiques and name calling (ie "bad boys"). If he wants to involve himself, it would be much more helpful to focus on debating the contents of the article rather than personalizing the dispute." The bold text here is an indirect piece of advice to me, totally unwanted and irrelevant here, which was written as a reply to my question to Danish Expert on whether he feels I have been stalking him. You wrote you replied to me wanting to question whether (one of) the main issues was your accusation of me stalking you and Danish Expert. However, this section offers no such question. It's rather an "advice" you keep repeating to me even now, as a "request", and which in our discussion I have dismissed as I continue to refuse that I got involved in any of your disputes to confront and harass you. (Perhaps, this quote of you in this section will clarify things: "What exactly is it you're trying to accomplish here anyways? I told you that I didn't think your personalizing of disputes between me and DE is helpful, and asked you to stop. If you don't like that advice, then you're free to ignore it." Was it a brief summary or did you acknowledge, in your second reply here, that it was an advice and I could ignore it? Should I ignore your brief summary?)
After I wrote my opinion on the ANI on Danish Expert, you've been indeed harassing me. On the other hand, I never intended to only confront and harass you, no matter how minor the disputed issue was, and that's why I commented on that issue and didn't just write my opinion on you. I wasn't just following you around to keep expressing how I thought you attacked me and how now I should attack you. I didn't offer a scenario or theory as to why you keep arguing with Danish Expert over so many issues. You are again trying to make me agree on my behaviour being disruptive, while clearly yours has been so. Also, if this is a minor issue, why don't you just drop it over your last 5 replies?
On the contrary, again, even now, you're making covert attempts to "request" things from me: "I really don't think it's unreasonable to request that you keep your personal opinions of other editors to yourself in the name of better collaboration." "...and I hope that you'll make similar efforts to avoid personalizing debates so as to avoid all the unnecessary drama." But, as I am not Danish Expert, I will not make promises now to abide to your requests so that you may use this against me in the future. Please, just stop harassing me here.
This section is not about an article, it's a personal talk page, where I have asked the person who owns it whether he felt he was being stalked by me, as you alleged. You must understand that this is not about you. I will not agree to just settling issues between us as even. You have come to this section and only tried to continue the dispute with me from your own talk page, until, yes, you made me really upset. This is clearly WP:WIKIHOUNDING. I am not happy about it and no, will not just drop the issue, as your position seems to be "let's forget everything, this is minor, but, you surely do agree that in the future you should ............ and should not ..........", which would imply I agree on your accusations on me being true and on equalising our behaviour. You offered nothing to this section at all apart from irrelevant issues. You were off topic and I kept writing this and you just continued. This cannot be equalled to commenting on a dispute over an article and writing your opinion on the issue, even if you think that my doing so also involved personal attacks. Even if you consider "bad boys" to be a terrible insult, I offered valid reasons for calling you that. Considering everything, I think I should have used some other term to refer more to your relevant edits, about which I used this "insult".
You also wrote: "Sorry, but if you're going to make accusations against me here, then you involved me in the discussion. If you don't want me involved, then don't start threads about me on other people's talk pages.", but it seems the accusation was that I wrote that your allegation of my stalking seemed to be one of the main issues, and didn't provide a "brief summary" with an advice on how another editor should behave? This makes no sense at all. I did not accuse you of anything, I just stated that one of the (yes, i wrote "main") issues was your allegation of me stalking you and Danish Expert. On the contrary, your brief summary stated an advice on my future behaviour, which can be identified as an attack to my current behaviour.
Alleging that I stalk someone, especially a third person and not (only) yourself, seems quite an issue to me. Especially when a whole scenario of me confronting and harassing these editors is built upon this allegation of stalking. I did note how ridiculous that allegation was, in light of accusing of stalking a user's talk page and finding your comments to them there and then joining an ongoing argument two weeks after it had started, whereas, I could just look at that person's contributions page (or yours, since you allege I also stalk you) and intervene at once. But, according to your logic, I was just waiting for your comments to that stalked talk page. However, I refrained from analysing all this in my initial comment here, as exactly I wanted to focus on whether Danish Expert felt I was stalking him or not, rather than my discussion with you on your talk page. I only noted that you alleged I was stalking this very talk page, waiting for your entries (which would indicate a conflict, to act).
I do intend to try and ignore your further replies here, as you just keep repeating your accusations, advices, requests and general irrelevant issues with me (on a third person's talk page), while assuring me that you want to just drop this issue and it is really minor and not worth getting upset over it, even though you keep repeating provocations. Heracletus (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Alleging that I stalk someone ... seems quite an issue to me." - Agreed, which is precisely why I take your accusations against me so seriously. Just like you, I vehemently dispute your characterization of my actions as "stalking" or "disruptive". I've never followed you anywhere: there's been a total of ONE article space discussion that I recall joining after you (on an article which I regularly edit). (For comparison, you've injected yourself into dozens of conversations I was involved in (including on an article which you had never even edited previously), leaving dozens of comments personally criticising me and others, over the past 4+ months of your WP:HOUNDing.) Like you, I insist that I did not get involved in the discussion at Treaty of Accession 2011 to harrass you. I left a comment on the content dispute, providing several possible compromise solutions. Yes, I also commented on the silliness of the dispute, but I provided a legitimate rational for this. (Had I of know that such a minor critique ("hypocritical") would make you so very upset, I would have chosen different words. But given your penchant from calling me a "bad boy" or my comments "ridiculous", it all seemed rather mild in comparison.) You've made it clear that you don't believe my explanation, but likewise, hopefully you can understand why I have a hard time believing your "I just happened to be reading the article at the exact right moment" story.
It's clear that we aren't going to agree on this, and further WP:MWOT repeating your same accusations is only going to prolong the drama. At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what your, or my, motivation was. I never asked you to admit guilt or to being disruptive. I was simply suggesting that future conflict can be avoided by not commenting on other editors (as L.tak suggests below). I've pledged above to do so, but it seems you're demanding that I avoid you while you threaten to continue making personal criticisms against me. While I'm ready and willing to engage in a fresh start with you, it's unreasonable to expect that if you continue to criticise other editors that you won't face some criticism yourself. WP:CIVILity is a two-way street afterall. TDL (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TDL, I only ask you to stop harassing me here, now. You're on an irrelevant section I started on a third user's talk page and keep confronting me over your issues with me. Heracletus (talk) 11:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
TDL, Danish Expert, Heracletus: If we would live in the same city (or the same country), I would invite you all to get together and to have a drink together ("to Wikipedia"). As we are one of the few interested in those details about the EU, we should find some common ground to talk about. But instead of celebrating what is binding us, discussions have now digressed into very personal statements regarding motifs and past performance. However well grounded those may be: they are not going to restore a healthy editing atmosphere (and yes; I'll also take partial responsibility for that; as I have also shown quite an annoyance at talk pages at times). I think some at least partially valid arguments have been made regarding plagiarism, the "tone" of the debate and stalking; so let's all keep that in mind when taking some extra good faith on board and start editing again without these personal discussions…. It's not going to help us. L.tak (talk) 22:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my late reply. I have been one week abroad on a voluntary vacation. After reading through all replies posted at my talkpage, Heclatus' talkpage and TDL's talkpage, I tend to highly agree with L.tak's comment above. By that spirit, I will not continue any personal debate, but just post my friendly reply to Heracletus and TDL about how I perceive their previous dispute and general behavior.
@Heracletus: Your first post was OK to post at my user talkpage, as it linked to a debate involving references to a previous debate that we all three were involved in. I certainly do not feel you have been stalking me, and neither feel you have been stalking TDL. On the contrary you attempted with all the best intentions to calm down waters, and present some negative/positive angles to the work/debate process executed by me/TDL. The only point where you could improve, is that sometimes it seems like you jump to conclusions based on initial assumptions/interpretations after observing a small fraction of our past edit history (which are sometimes correct but sometimes wrong), and I guess this is why TDL has accused you of derailing or "interfering disruptive" in the debate. I however never experienced, that you wrote any offensive critique against me/TDL or stalked/harassed any of us, you just attempted to help calm down waters in good faith.
@TDL: In regards of our previous debate and your reply above to me, let me start by saying that I fully agree with you, that both of us work hard and good to improve the encyclopedia. I however repeatedly have experienced 3 points you could improve on (please do not take any offence, we all have points or shortcomings that can be improved, nobody is perfect).
The first point is, that you often tend to make a storm out of small wind, which the ANI case you recently launched against me is a good example off. If you had limited your ANI to be case specific, meaning only to present the 5 WP:PLAG examples you found - with request for external comments, then it would have been OK. But instead you went on to launch a full blown serious in depth critique of my so-called continuously failed understanding/adherence to Wikipedia policies, painting a complete wrong picture of me, and attempting to build a "disruptive case" against me based in conjunction also with the "Latvian example". This was a very inappropriate behavior, particular when considering you and I have a past record of solving all disputes peacefully by argumentation launched against each other at the article talkpages.
The second point you could improve, is that you by accident sometimes seem to be overly focused on "winning the argument", rather than "moving things ahead in the most time efficient manner". This part of you character, is what Heracletus and I have experienced as "personalizing the discussion" (who said what when why, and why Heracletus/I did something inappropriate, why all your actions were always perfect and could not have been done any better, etc). When you write in that style it provokes the recipient. Debates/actions with like-minded and skilled Wikipedians will seldom be a situation where we deal with black/white or right/wrong, meaning that usually arguments can be presented for and against, where we end up to adjust or develop consensus for the strongest argument. It is not about proving who was most right or wrong, or teaching other people a lesson, or claiming that they are not capable to understand the Wikipedia policy. BTW, instead of just linking to a WP, it would also serve the consensus attempt better and more efficiently, if you extract the exact policy phrase supporting your argument, and highlighting that because of the WP saying "...", then the disputed content in your point of view conflicts with the policy.
Third point you could also work to improve, is to avoid "changing the issue" or "mixing up issues". The debate you and I had at Talk:Latvia and the euro is a great example, where you started out to mislead other fellow Wikipedians and even administrators, telling them that the main issue was that I was not capable to understand the Wikipedia policies. If you had started out to present the main issue why you was against a full blown monthly data table for Latvia, while informing at the articles talkpage that we currently practiced the exact same data approach for Template:Euro convergence criteria, and that your suggestion now to ban the approach at one place also would mean a similar ban for the template, then it would have been far more fair towards me. But instead you painted a picture of me as being a "stupid policy violator", without explaining to people (or leaving the impression), that I had actually acted in good faith here, by copying the exact same data approach from the Template that you and I throughout the past 3 months had worked hard to develop, into an identical data approach use for the new table added to the Latvia and the euro article (this essential fact was only a point becoming clear towards the other debating wikipedians, when I wrote about it kind of by the end of our debate, after being falsely described as a person deliberately preferring to break WP or not being capable to understand WP). Another example is the dispute you just had above with Heracletus, which also got derailed, because you started to mix in other debate points compared to Heracletus initial question launched personally to me. The question from Heracletus was presumably only meant to be a short friendly invitation for me to leave a short comment on his talkpage about my perception of the situation, and not something intended to spin off into the long essay debate above at my user talkpage.
My above points are final statements, and not something I want to argue/debate further with any of you. If you agree/disagree with my perception, then please do so silently. There is no reason to continue this debate any further, as this would only end up eating all our precious time. Best regards to both of you, whom I both consider to be fellow friends and greatly skilled WP content contributors. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He Danish, a question on a completely different point… The Unified Patent Court, will once established have central divisions in London, Paris and Munich, but countries are free to choose to set up their own local division of the court, or to work together to make a "regional division". Now there is a mention that the Scandinavian and Baltic states will create such a regional division, located in Malmo. As the Danish government has announced this, I was hoping you could find the source for it (just follow the links at talk:Unified Patent Court), especially for the government announcement mentioned here… Could you give it a try? L.tak (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm writing to you because the 2013 Convergence Report of the ECB has been published, and I must note that the ECB did choose to include Ireland in the long term interest criterion calculation at least for April 2013. Anyway, would you mind updating the Latvia and the euro article, the Template:Euro convergence criteria and any other relevant articles? You can also decide what to do with your sandbox.
I must also note that I'm not writing to re-start the previous content dispute/disagreement, so I would appreciate it if you use only what the report (or any other credible source) provides. I do not wish to limit you, but, in this way, I hope to prevent further disputes.
I'm asking you since you've used this database in the past: do you know what's the exact name therein (if there is one) of the indicator that is equivalent to the current account?? The one I've managed to find is 10.1->Balance on current transactions with the rest of the world (UBCA) that prima facie seems right but whose relevant recent numbers don't agree with those of Eurostat despite, as per its metadata, it follows the ESA 95 system and despite latest date of update reading a recent time. Thanx.Thanatos|talk10:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
Hi, Sorry I didn't provide a ref for the 3news.co.nz spam thing on my edit to Silvio Berlusconi. While they are a legit news source they also publish AP/reuters articles. Somebody at their company is going though and putting these into high-profile articles that have nothign to do with New Zealand (where they might have original reporting). See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_New_Zealand#3News_link_spam, they have had over 20 accounts blocked sicne this started. Thatyou for adding the reuters ref, I've removed the 3news ref again since it is no longer needed as the reuters ref covers things. - SimonLyall (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, would you care to update the euro convergence criteria according to the last report? and, also, update the fiscal compact fiscal compliance section? Heracletus (talk) 03:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Heracletus, great to hear from you again, and sorry for my late reply. For the moment, I am unfortunately out of time to update the two article chapters you refer to. I am involved in a big project -due in April 2014- that eat up all my time. I expect to be back as an active editor on the two article chapters you mention around May 2014. In both cases it will also coincide with EC's spring forecast report and the new ECB convergence report, so I guess there will be plenty of update work at that time around. Until then, I unfortunately have no time to edit the two article chapters. Best regard, Danish Expert (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Criterion potentially fulfilled: If the budget deficit exceeds the 3% limit, but is "close" to this value (the European Commission has deemed 3.5% to be close by in the past),[13] then the criteria can still potentially be fulfilled if either the deficits in the previous two years are significantly declining towards the 3% limit, or if the excessive deficit is the result of exceptional circumstances which are temporary in nature (i.e. one-off expenditures triggered by a significant economic downturn, or by the implementation of economic reforms that are expected to deliver a significant positive impact on the government's future fiscal budgets). However, even if such "special circumstances" are found to exist, additional criteria must also be met to comply with the fiscal budget criterion.[14][15] Additionally, if the debt-to-GDP ratio exceeds 60% but is "sufficiently diminishing and approaching the reference value at a satisfactory pace" it can be deemed to be in compliance.[15]
Criterion not fulfilled
Notes
^The rate of increase of the 12-month average HICP over the prior 12-month average must be no more than 1.5% larger than the unweighted arithmetic average of the similar HICP inflation rates in the 3 EU member states with the lowest HICP inflation. If any of these 3 states have a HICP rate significantly below the similarly averaged HICP rate for the eurozone (which according to ECB practice means more than 2% below), and if this low HICP rate has been primarily caused by exceptional circumstances (i.e. severe wage cuts or a strong recession), then such a state is not included in the calculation of the reference value and is replaced by the EU state with the fourth lowest HICP rate.
^The arithmetic average of the annual yield of 10-year government bonds as of the end of the past 12 months must be no more than 2.0% larger than the unweighted arithmetic average of the bond yields in the 3 EU member states with the lowest HICP inflation. If any of these states have bond yields which are significantly larger than the similarly averaged yield for the eurozone (which according to previous ECB reports means more than 2% above) and at the same time does not have complete funding access to financial markets (which is the case for as long as a government receives bailout funds), then such a state is not to be included in the calculation of the reference value.
^The change in the annual average exchange rate against the euro.
^ abThe reference values for HICP inflation and long-term interest rates are calculated based on the "calculation principle" outlined in the 2012 ECB Convergence Report,[9] with the input of forecasted data for the sliding assessment year 1 April 2012 - 31 March 2013.
^The 3 best performing countries in regards to HICP inflation were Greece (0.614%), Sweden (0.843%) and Latvia (1.567%), with no outliers detected.
^As Greece is part of a bailout programme, and suffered from elevated interest rates significantly above the eurozone average (15.40% above), this country was excluded from the calculation of the reference limit for long term interest rates, leaving just Sweden (1.61%) and Latvia (4.00%) as benchmark countries.
Reply:
Looks good. My plan is around May 2014, to create and display the historic compliance tables at a "historic euro convergence criteria" article. The reason why I think this could be good, is because it will establish a nice overview of how fast the new EU countries in average took to comply, and also partly how the criteria itself developed throughout the years. So for that purpose, I prefer to keep the historic tables. Below is however a couple of considerations I need to keep in mind, when creating the historic tables. Danish Expert (talk) 17:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My plan is to display "year specific tables" at the new historic article, with the country specific ones only being used at the country articles (X and the euro). I don't currently have the overview to know how its most easily done, so go ahead with the solution you feel is the best. Although I tend to sense a challenge in regards, that the "fiscal criterion" has evolved during the course of years (with the debt criterion only being seriously considered after 2011, and perhaps the forward looking assessment of budget deficits only being initiated since 2005), and that this might mean it will be easier to keep using "year specific templates" as the main centrally stored data table - from which the "country specific" tables reads its data from. Another potential disadvantage by changing the main data template from the current "year specific" to "country specific" might be, that it becomes too easy for country specific editors mistakenly to start edit historical fiscal data into the format of the latest revised data - rather than how it is supposed to be ("the published data as how it looked upon the time of the convergence criteria assessment"). In that regard it might be easier to keep having it organized around central "year specific tables", as we have fewer "historic years" to edit compared to 28 countries (and the fact that convergence reports mainly also contain all data for the year specific tables). Danish Expert (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In regards of the debt criterion, the EDP will be enforced upon a country if it either fail the backward 3yr declining requirement (based upon final published data from the 3 latest fiscal years) or the forward looking 3yr declining requirement (based upon final published data from the latest fiscal year and forecasted data for the current and upcoming year). To simplify the data reporting, I suggest we could just display the debt-to-GDP ratio for the last fiscal year with one color and then denote in parenthesis whether both/none of the two sub-criteria had a failed compliance. In example (if we look at the upcoming fiscal assessment of Croatia in May 2014), it could be colored red with the debt-to-GDP ratio data cell displaying this text "59.8% (bddc=yes, fddc=no)", where the abbreviation bddc stands for "backword debt decline compliant (or below 60%)" and fddc stands for "forward debt decline compliant (or below 60%)". The fiscal data cell should automatically be colored red irrespectively of the ratio value, if either the bddc/fddc value return a no value. If possible, I suggest we report it like that, in order better to inform readers how this criterion is assessed by the European Commission. The Commission also occasionally accepts rising debt-to-GDP ratios above 60% in case they are caused by something like "extraordinary elements" (i.e. economic recessions or pension reforms) and at the same time also of a "temporary nature" (with evidence that a forecasted value eventually will respect the limit). However, this is in my point of view just a part of the decision whether or not to render the bddc/fddc value into either a yes or no, so there is no need to dig into details about that for our convergence criteria table. It is sufficiently and enough, just to show the "debt-to-GDP ratio of last fiscal year" followed by a parenthesis with the associated bddc/fddc values. Danish Expert (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In regards of the yellow color being used for fiscal deficits in the 3.0-3.5% interval, I would also propose not to use it for historic tables, as whether or not the value for the given year should be considered to be red/green is something which the European Commission has officially decided at the time of publication of the Euro Convergence Report (to be checked in 2013 for each country at their EDP website). I think it is best if our table also reflect the color of the official decision made by the European Commission. In example, for Bulgaria the forecasted yellow 3.2% deficit for 2014 has been evaluated by the Commission to be green, as they did not decide to open up an EDP report against Bulgaria, neither in May 2013 nor in November 2013. But of course I support that we can include a general pop-up note in the data cell, noting the figure breached the limit, but was still evaluated to be compliant with it, due to being in close territory and caused by temporary one-off measures or exceptional circumstances. Danish Expert (talk) 21:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you make an excellent point about the criteria changing over time, so it is probably better to do it year-by-year rather than by country.
And I agree that it's a good idea to make use of the Commission Convergence Reports to decide whether debt/deficits above the limit are compliant. Maybe we should repurpose the yellow for states which breached the 3.0/60.0% limits but were deemed to be compliant compliant by the Commission, to highlight the note you suggest.
For the debt, are you suggesting that instead of 3-columns for ie. 2012/2013/2014 debt, we use the bracketed bddc/fddc? Maybe to save space and clutter it would be better to only add this bracketed note for states which fail them? And does the deficit criteria work in a similar way, with a backward 3-year window and a forward 3 year window? TDL (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support your new excellent definition of "yellow".
For the debt column: Yes, this was exactly how I imagined it. Meaning 1 shared/merged column (without sub-columns), where we note the debt-to-GDP ratio for the latest fiscal year followed by a parenthesis saying (bddc="yes/no", fddc="yes/no"). For the sake of clarity and completeness towards readers (and due to the peculiarity that a value of 59% also can be deemed red if we have fddc=no - which is the situation we have for Croatia), I think its probably best also to display it for those countries where we have green light values with bddc=yes and fddc=yes. The bddc and fddc evaluation is quiet complicated, and can not be figured out (without calculation, and assessment of additional factors) just by reading the debt-to-GDP figures for respectively 2010+2011+2012 and 2012+2013+2014, so this is why the other approach is far better. The debt-to-GDP ratio of the latest fiscal year is part of both the bddc and fddc, and hence relevant to report, for readers easily to identify how far from the 60% limit the country currently is. And of course the bddc="yes/no" tells the story if the country had a backwards historic problem to comply with the "annual debt-reduction requirement for countries with debt-to-GDP ratios above 60% - for the backwards rolling average period of the latest 3 fiscal years" or if they failed to comply because of having a forward-looking (forecasted) problem to comply with the "annual debt-reduction requirement for countries with debt-to-GDP ratios above 60% - for the rolling average period of the latest and upcoming 2 years".
In regards of the "deficit criteria" it does not work the same way time-wise, compared to the "debt criteria". For the "deficit criteria" the data structure you already implemented is already good and 100% accurate. They actually now for the "deficit criteria" asses how it looks both at the "last year", "current year" and "next year"; and if any of these are in red territory the country will get an EDP opened and not comply with the deficit criteria. In example, if a country currently manage to have a green deficit value within the 3%-limit for 2013+2014 but a red one exceeding the limit for 2015, then the Commission will open up an EDP - and the country will not comply with the fiscal criterion of the euro convergence criteria in 2013 (because of having failed compliance with the forecasted element of the deficit criteria - based on the assumption of unchanged policies). Danish Expert (talk) 09:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, what do you think about how I implemented the fddc/bddc in the table above? (We'll obviously need to define what BDDC/FDDC is somehow in a footnote.) TDL (talk) 21:05, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the EC opinion for activation/abrogation of EDPs does not clarify how a breach of the deb-to-GDP ratio 60% limit should be understood for the "latest finally reported fiscal year". The 2011 revised treaty regulation are also to no help due to a fussy formulation. The point I am not able to answer for sure (at the moment), is if the EC still have a specific requirement for the debt-to-GDP ratio to be less than 60% for the "latest finally reported fiscal year". To me it seems like, they now only use that benchmark as a trigger to decide if the country breaching this limit for the "latest finally reported fiscal year", also shall be subject to comply with both of the so-called bddc and fddc. In case of no breach of the 60% limit for the "latest finally reported fiscal year", but a forecasted breach of the 60% limit (for one of the following two years), then the country (like Croatia) will not be required to comply with the bddc but will need to comply with the fddc. What I attempt to say is, that I feel a little uncertain if we for Croatia should display it like bddc="yes" or bddc="not required", which ultimately depends on whether or not the "not required" info is part of the bddc criteria - or something being evaluated ahead of investigating bddc compliance. In a similar way, I am also right now a bit uncertain whether or not the "60% limit for the latest finally reported fiscal year" is now (since Dec. 2011) just a part of the bddc/fddc evaluation (which I suspect), or perhaps an independent debt requirement the country needs to comply with irrespectively of the conclusion of the more detailed bddc/fddc evaluation (as suggested by your latest layout proposition for the table). Today I have been reading the 3 most recent "debt criterion evaluations" published by the European Commission for Finland, Lithuania, and Croatia; but neither of them depict the situation where we have the scenario with "debt-to-GDP ratio in excess of 60% for the latest finally reported fiscal year". It could be interesting to see how the EC would treat a country with a "debt-to-GDP ratio in excess of 60% for the latest finally reported fiscal year" in conjunction with a co-existing full compliance with the bddc and fddc. Danish Expert (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After giving my written paragraph above a second thought, I am now rather sure we no longer have any specific 60% criteria for the "latest finally reported fiscal year", because otherwise we would have Germany (and other countries with values above the 60%-limit for the "latest finally reported fiscal year") not being able to have their EDP abrogated - despite of complying with the bddc and fddc. This is why I am now after a second thought: 200% certain, that it is wrong of us to display it in the table in a way, which seem to indicate it is a 3-fold criterion. The debt criterion is currently only 2-fold, and comprise the bddc and fddc element. If the country post a figure above the 60%-limit for the "latest finally reported fiscal year", it only means that it automatically needs to comply with both the bddc and fddc, and if doing so the country will overall manage to comply with the entire debt criterion (irrespectively of having breached the 60%-limit for the "latest finally reported fiscal year"). So in that sence, I think its best to implement a data structure as I suggested in my 9 Feb and 10 Feb reply, with one overall merged cell displaying the "debt-to-GDP ration of the country for the latest finally reported fiscal year" followed by a parenthesis saying: bbdc="yes/no" and fddc="yes/no". Alternatively we can also omit to post the debt-to-GDP ratio of the country, and then only have two subcolumns comprising respectively the bddc and fddc data. For the moment, I however support to do it as I originally proposed (if its technical duable). Danish Expert (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, another minor note we might have to add in conjunction with the combined fiscal criterion is, that it is only considered to have been breached with non euro convergence compliance, in case there exist an "open Council decision on the existence of an excessive deficit - under Article 126(6) in the TFEU". In example this mean, that Latvia only formally complied with all fiscal criterion as per 21 June 2013, being the date when the Council published a "Council decision abrogating the decision on the existence of an excessive deficit - under article 126(12) in the TFEU". This point for Latvia, can not only been read through a narrow reading of the convergence reports, but is in addition also something being underlined by the EC press statement on 5 June 2013, presenting the results of the 2013 EC convergence report. Danish Expert (talk) 13:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the bddc and fddc values can of course be either: yes (green), no (yellow, if the debt reduction criteria was breached, but at the same time an exemption granted due to existence of one of the predefined extraordinary circumstances - having caused the breach), no (red, if the debt reduction criteria was breached, an no exemption granted). Danish Expert (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way I see it, there are two scenarios for the previous year's debt:
A) debt<60%
B) debt>60%
If I understand correctly, debt<60% is a sufficient condition for the bddc being passed. If it is >60%, then an exemption can be granted if their prior three years are bddc. So, in scenario A it doesn't matter what the bddc is. Perhaps we should just use N/A for such cases. In scenario B, a state can still pass if they are bddc/fddc. So maybe the thing to do is keep the three columns, but colour the debt column yellow in case B) if they are bddc (ie Germany)? Or if you don't like that, we could just keep the debt column grey and colour the fddc/bddc cells. I feel like it's a bit simpler to understand the table if we can keep each cell representing one thing. TDL (talk) 01:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, you make a good point. The way with 3 sub-columns is probably the most logical and informative approach, because with a merged column it would probably be too confusing for readers to understand how the criteria is evaluated. The point disturbing me yesterday, was just that the color of the mid-column depends on the color of the bddc and fddc column (because it is evaluated at "step 1", while bddc and fddc is evaluated at "step 2"), which again made me think it was best to integrate it all into a merged cell. But after reading your reply and giving it a third thought, I can support your 3 subcolumn proposal. I know that when reading the treaty text it suggests countries for the "mid-row" (debt>60%) can be colored yellow if either bddc/fddc is responding a YES, but according to the evaluation practice exercised by the Commission, they are now demanding that BOTH bddc and fddc shall respond a YES or "exempted NO" before a country with debt>60% passes with an exemption (going from red to yellow). If we leave a short note for this interdependency of the color in the mid-row, I can support the 3-subcolumn approach. In that note we also need to tell readers, that the color interdependency only apply in regards of deciding if "debt>60% in last reported fiscal year" should be colored red/yellow, and that there is no color interdependency if "debt<60% in last reported fiscal year" which will always return a green. So if we look at Croatia as a real world example, they are currently colored with (bddc=yes or not-required; green) followed by (debt<60%; green) and (fddc=no; red), and in the imagined example that Croatia had received an exemption for their breach of the fddc - then they would have been colored with (bddc=yes or not-required; green) followed by (debt<60%; green) and (fddc=no; yellow). So in this particular case (only applying for debt<60%) it does not affect the mid-column color (green) whether or not the fddc color is yellow/red, as we will still color it as green. My point is, that I support your proposed approach, but we just need to add a note explaining that yellow at bddc/fddc columns means the country were granted an exemption for breaching the "debt reduction criteria" due to other excusing factors, while yellow for debt>60% in last fiscal year means the country was granted an exemption for the breach because neither bddc nor fddc was colored red. Danish Expert (talk) 08:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional considerations for our historic tables (to check and verify):
The ECB report only states whether the country is subject to an EDP. Hence the valid evaluation whether or not a country at a certain time actually is subject to an EDP, is something only being decided by the Commission's Convergence report. Hence we should perhaps add their report as a supplementing source for the fiscal data, at least for the Latvian fiscal data in 2013 (and perhaps consider adding a link for the EDP overview webpage to confirm whether or not the other evaluated states had an open EDP by the end of June 2013).
FYI, I've finally got around to finishing this project off. I completed the coding and copied it live and everything seems to be working reasonably well. See for example Template:Euro convergence criteria. We'll need to fill in the fddc/bddc and the deficit data, but for the moment it fails gracefully by just putting a ? in the cells for which it hasn't been given any data. TDL (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Wesley Mouse. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Eurovision Song Contest 2014, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please refer to discussion on the Project Talk Page. We only add countries that are sourced to the 'Other Countries' section and more importantly content that is relevant. Other members of the EBU are mentioned on the main Eurovision article.WesMᴥuse18:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wes: I have been active at Wikipedia for almost five years, so I am well aware of all the policies. I would have prefered to discuss this matter with you, at the talkpage of the article instead of here at my personal talkpage. I have now added a reference to document that all active EBU members are potential participants. The reason why I insist the list should include all potential participants who decided not to show up, is in order to ensure we comply with wikipedia's principal of always providing complete information. I also think its relevant to readers, that this list is complete. Other editors can then subsequently dig into or search for additional references explaining why the varoius countries did not show up. This is not something we need to find in advance. It is a fact they were eligible and they did not show up, and this is sufficient to mention those countries in the list. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But you are missing the vital point here. It was agreed by the project not to include every single country, unless of course there was a source for each country that explicitly stated about participation for the particular year in question. These annual articles get nominated for GA review, and such content like the ones you add always end up being removed. That is why the final decision was reached to ensure that this data doesn't get added again, and that only countries who say XYZ about Eurovision by Year gets an inclusion. If you take time to read the RfC decision that I linked above, you'll have noticed the following contexts... "if there is coverage (from reliable sources) which is relevant to the year in question, it should be included, if not, then it shouldn't. That is bare WP:V/WP:NPOV" and also in the decision summary "Other countries: Agreement that only content based on coverage specific to the year in question should be included". WesMᴥuse18:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just been double checking the data at Template:Euro convergence criteria (2014), and I've come across an issue that you might have an explanation for. For Lithuania's 2013 deficit, I'm finding two different values. The 2 June 2014 ECB report (pg 55) gives it as -2.1%, while the 24 April 2014 EC report (pg 149) gives it as -2.2%. eurostat says -2.2%. My understanding was that the ECB report uses the EC spring forecast data, and footnote #4 in the table I cited above says just that. Can you think of any reason why there would be a discrepancy between these two figures? Which do you think we should use? TDL (talk) 18:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TDL: Good question. The exact figure from the EC spring-report can be looked up in the AMECO database (last time updated 5 May 2014), and here it was reported (close to the same date of the 24 April EC spring forecast publication) to be: -2.1499385% in 2013. So this is the most accurate figure! I suspect the printed figure in the EC forecast report has been incorrectly rounded up when going from 3 to 2 digits, and that Eurostat has used the printed EC forecast report as their database-source (or perhaps Eurostat subsequently received slightly adjusted GDP data moving the percentage a bit up). I would go for the figure printed by the AMECO database on 5 May 2014, as the most accurate and one to use. According to the EC convergence report from 4 June 2014, they have also - like the ECB report did - published that the Lithuanian deficit was reported by the "EC spring forecast report" to be 2.1%. As a rule of thumb, we should always check the AMECO database when in doubt. This is the primary data provider (and only updated along with the publication of the EC forecast reports). The figure at Eurostat is continously recalculated, when new data ticks in, so these data gets (despite more accurate when having current glasses on) "polluted" for the use in our convergence table. For convergence evaluations, the EC+ECB always evalute the figures based on the last published forecast report, for which the AMECO database is the most accurate data source. Danish Expert (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could be reading the table wrong since it is quite poorly formatted on my browser, but isn't the -2.1499385% figure for 2014? We are looking for the 2013 deficit, which AMECO gives as -2.1515205%. That would suggest that the spring report is correct and the ECB/EC convergence report is wrong. TDL (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TDL: My mistake! Thanks for checking it! When reading the table correct we now indeed have complete agreement between AMECO and the published spring report. This is also normally something I would expect. So good! Frankly I am baffled how both the ECB+EC evaluation reports managed to extract the 2.1% figure for 2013, out from the EC spring forecast report. A possible explanation could be that new revised data arrived between 24 April and 1 June, and that ECB+EC then opted to go for that compared to the official published figure. But the national dataprovider Statistics Lithuania did not publish any revised deficit figures. So we can rule out the theory that revised deficit figures could have been published. According to both Eurostat and Statistics Lithuania the deficit was measured in 2013 to be LTL 2570.4 million. When I myself divide this figure against the latest published marketprice 2013 GDP LTL 119574.8 million, then I end up with a result saying 2.1496% (in line with the findings of the EC+ECB convergence reports). However, the 2013 GDP reported to Eurostat was LTL 119,469.0 million equal to a 2.1515205% deficit-to-gdp ratio.
Based on this observation above, it seems likely Lithuania's 2013 GDP was revised between 24 April and 1 June, and that both ECB+EC decided to measure the country deficits against the latest revised GDPs in their June reports. So method-wise, they only extract the raw deficit figure measured in national currency, from the EC spring forecast report; and then divide it with the latest revised GDP data. I do not currently have time to look further into this matter. If you want confirmation for my unraveled method observation, I suggest you email the responsible person for the two EC+ECB reports. For our 2013 Euro Convergence table, I think we should only display the EC+ECB published figures (as they are a more primary source for the "convergence evaluation purpose") for the EU member states, and then only use the "EC spring forecast report" as a source for the non-EU countries. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 06:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a followup-note to my reply above, I just found the links confirming that the Lithuanian 2013 GDP indeed was published on 28 February to be LTL 119,469.0 million. Then after the 24 April spring forecast data cutoff deadline, it was first revised on 30 April to be LTL 119,575.0 million, and revised again on 30 May to be LTL 119,574.8 million. The latest available figure published by Eurostat + EC spring forecast report (AMECO database) is the old one from 28 February. As I wrote in my reply above: When calculating the deficit-to-gdp ratio, the EC+ECB convergence reports most likely extracted the "2013 deficit in national currency" from the EC spring forecast report (2570.4) and divided it with the latest available revised GDP data published by Statistics Lithuania on 30 May (119,574.8). Danish Expert (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's a bit strange that they would use updated GDP figures but not updated deficit figures. Anyways, I agree that the best thing to do is to use the ECB report figures when available, and the spring forecast otherwise. Thanks for the input! TDL (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He Danish, I (deliberately) refactored your post a bit, as it seemed the simple way of making a small and not so important correction; but didn't even mention it in the edit summary. Knowing you are generally more focussed on content than on this kind of things, I supposed you wouldn't mind; but at least I was plannng to add a note to that effect in the edit summary ;-). L.tak (talk) 07:51, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why on that section, on 31 March 2013, Greece with 1.7 would not be an outlier, while on 30 April 2014, Cyprus with 1.4 was an outlier? And, of course, the same holds for other months and values. Does the Polish source actually say whether a country is an outlier or not? Heracletus (talk) 01:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Heracletus: As the introduction paragraph explains, the Polish reference values for the same reason shall only be regarded to be estimations, that might be different (and incorrect) from what the EC would have concluded in case they had published a report at the concerned point of time. The Polish source, indeed took note each month who it defined as outliers and why. When the official 2014 EC Convergence Report had been published, the Polish source made a special "HICP outlier note" in which they explained, that while for all previous reports (with monthly data up till March 2014) having used "at least 1.8% below eurozone average" as a mechanical limit for when to estimate states should be classified as "HICP outliers" (based on the observation that Finland in August 2004 had been classified by the EC not to be a "HICP outlier" with a HICP being "1.7% below the eurozone average", and that Greece was deemed by EC to be outlier with "1.8% below" in April 2013), the latest EC report's selection of Cyprus as a "HICP outlier" with a HICP being 1.4% below eurozone average now meant that the Polish source also going forward chose to adjust their HICP-outlier limit accordingly to be "at least 1.4% below eurozone average". At the same time, the Polish August report (with data per 31 May) however also noted, that the assumption Cyprus no longer was a "HICP outlier" (due to its HICP being 1.3% below eurozone average per 31 May - just one month after having been declared as "HICP outlier" by the EC), indeed was related with a high amount of uncertainty.
Bottom line is, that huge uncertainty haunts the "outlier selection", because of the fact (explained by the ECB convergence report), that this selection requires a double condition to be met: 1) The state needs to have a HICP criteria value being "significant below" eurozone average + 2) This significant value below in addition needs to be concluded on basis of an overall qualitative assessment to stem from "exceptional circumstances of a temporary nature". The Polish outlier estimation approach completely ignore requirement nr.2 (presumably because this is hard/impossible to estimate), and for the remaining requirement nr.1 it now assume (since May 2014) that this "significant below" is equal to a threshold limit being "at least 1.4% below". Requirement 2 is btw the reason, why the European Commission arrived at the conclusion that for Finland in August 2004 and Sweden in April 2013, despite having significant HICP differentials of respectively 1.7% and 1.4% below the eurozone average at the concerned point of times, that these two states were not found to be "HICP outliers", because their very low HICPs had been found not to stem from "exceptional factors".
In regards of Requirement 1, the Polish estimated limit for what constitutes "significant below" can also be questioned. The limit could be 1.4% as Poland currently assume, or it could also more likely be 1.0% based on the fact that human people seldom selects digit numbers as a borderline for something changing status from being significant to become insignificant. Again its important to remember, that the Poland source just conduct its own estimation of where this threshold shall be, based on precedent cases. If the next official EC convergence report i.e. define Cyprus with a HICP being 1.0% below eurozone average still to be a HICP-outlier, the Polish source will subsequently in accordance with this new precedent case adjust their threshold limit likewise to be 1.0%.
The great uncertainty related to selection and unselection of outliers, is basically why I also decided for the table to focus on complete transparency of raw data, so that readers can look at it and judge for themselves to which degree they want to believe in the Polish outlier decisions. In addition, the table also feature notes behind the months with particular high uncertainty about the correctness of Poland's selection of outliers, to note how these reference values would have been in case their "outlier selection" i.e. had used "1.0% below eurozone average" as the "outlier borderline" instead of "1.4% below eurozone average" for the values in 2014 (and in a similar way the table include notes for the 2013-values, displaying how the reference values would have been, if we for a moment reasonably assumes that Greece should have been estimated to be a "HICP outlier" across all months in 2013). Danish Expert (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I understand. Could you add one or two sentences on that section about the Polish bank readjusting its criteria based on the ECB reports, with perhaps the example of one month that it used 1.7 and another that it used 1.4, based on the first paragraph of your reply here?
Additionally, and although you don't really like it, it seems to me that the criteria are not solidly defined. However, I know you disagree, so, let's leave it to that. Heracletus (talk) 13:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Heracletus: To satisfy your reasonable call, I just wrote a rather long note as final info for the introduction paragraph. As this matter is rather complicated and can lead to potential great confusion, I decided to go for a full long note, instead of a short line about the matter. Hope you like it, in the way that it now stands. :-)
About our previous "defined criteria" debate, my opinion was not to claim that everything has been "solidly defined", but just that the initial "Protocol criteria" was even more undefined (and for several issues more like a framework), which the EC then has helped define more and more solidly ever since then. For the sake of giving an example, the way I see it, the assessment criteria started out to be 25% perfectly defined, and as of now the EC has succeeded to improve it to be 75% perfectly defined, but still abstained to deliver clear definitions for the remaining 25% (most likely because they want as much interpretation levy as possible for future assessment cases). For the matters we discussed, they are however increasingly bound by their precedent assessment cases, because of the existence of the overall "equal treatment principle" (which require that all their future interpretations needs to be within a frame, so that it results in the exact same assessment conclusions if applied retroactively on all previous assessment cases). In example, when they first has classified one state with a HICP criteria value 1.4% below eurozone average as "HICP outlier", then they can never in future cases claim previous/future values exceeding this limit not to be "significant below". So its now one step closer, to at least be a little more accurately defined. I agree with you, however, that it really would have been much better, if they had started out to present some more clearly defined criteria. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 10:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your long note seems fine, indeed. However, be aware that it's not my personal liking that made me talk about a few sentences, but rather a requirement to keep articles small in size and easily readable, and split them if they are too big or rewrite them in a more coherent manner if they are not too easy to read.
For the other matter, it is obvious that not even the Polish Central Bank knows the exact criteria of the ECB, so let's just agree to disagree. Additionally, I am not sure they want them to be completely clearly defined.
@Heracletus: The Polish source also issued estimation reports for the same months as the EC did. For April 2013 they had published an "incorrect" estimation of the reference values: HICP-ref=2.3%, IR-ref=4.7%, while the EC had calculated them to be HICP-ref=2.7%, IR-ref=5.5%. The Polish "miscalculation" stemmed solely from the fact, that they had not estimated Greece even would be a "HICP outlier" with a HICP being 1.8% below average back then (although they correctly had estimated Greece to be an "interest outlier" at the time). In the Polish estimation report for April 2013 (which they had published a few weeks ahead of the EC report) they however also wrote: "On 5 June. The European Commission and the European Central Bank will publish Convergence Reports prepared at the request of Latvia. The conclusions of the Report may lead to changes in the interpretation of nominal convergence criteria, just as it was the occasion of their previous editions." In the Polish estimation report for the following month, they then introduced 1.8% as the mechanical limit for when states should be estimated to be "HICP-outliers".
Here in 2014, the Polish source deliberately delayed their publication for the "April assessment month" with 1 month (only published on 4 July), so that they directly could copy the EC reports "outlier selections" to match their own findings for the same month - and at the same occasion they also adjusted their simplified mechanical limit for estimation of "HICP outliers" now to be 1.4% going forward.
My own believe is, that the Polish source all along correctly understood the "outlier selection criteria" utilized by EC+ECB, but just chose to simplify their estimation approach (due to not being able to perform the more qualitative second part of the "outlier analysis"). I also agree with you, that this second part of the "outlier criteria" (the qualitative assessment) is basically impossible for non-experts to predict and can never be put into a standard formula. Basically we can say it all depends on how the majority of economists will assess the major causes of dis-inflation in the concerned state (taking all factors into consideration) at the concerned point of time. I suspect that EC+ECB ask several economists to submit their expert opinions on this subject ahead of the release of any new convergence report, and then draw their final "outlier selection" conclusion printed in their Convergence Report based on how the majority responded. I also suspect, this reason (that its impossible - or very hard - for the Polish source to figure out how the outcome of this second outlier assessment will be), is why the Polish source decided completely to ignore this second part of the analysis, and opted instead to simplify their estimation of "who were HICP outliers" only to be based upon the first (more easy) part of the outlier criteria. Danish Expert (talk) 08:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
@Δρ.Κ.: After you first removed the second part of my added paragraph, I returned to reinstate it while adjusting it to meet your concerns. 1) By reformulating the first line not to be assorted. 2) By adding a CN-tag for the last unsourced part. The last part is basically an unbiased uncontroversial contextual observation, which I think we soon will find a reference for if leaving it with a CN-tag. I will therefor ask you not to remove it, and if you have any problems/concerns about it, I invite you for a debate about it at the talkpage of the article. Best regards,Danish Expert (talk) 11:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS and last but not least WP:BURDEN. It may seem "uncontroversial" to you, but in this subject area everything has to be verified by reliable sources. Unsourced content will be removed and the burden is upon you to add the content with references when they become available. Without references, there will be no addition. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις11:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Greek government-debt crisis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις11:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been contributing with high quality material to Wikipedia for the past five years, and am well aware about its WP:OR policies. If you did not agree with my usage of the CN-tag or formulation of the disputed paragraph, I invited you for a debate at the talkpage of the article. Now you instead respond by posting me a warning about potential edit-war, which I consider to be very unpolite. I already agreed with you that we need to find a source for the unsourced part of the paragraph, but argued it was best to keep it temporarily as part of the article with a CN-tag, in order to invite for a collaborative work for any wikipedia editor to help finding the needed source. Wikipedia:Citation needed, proof this is an instrument we are allowed temporarily to use at Wikipedia - until we succeed finding the needed additional reference for the material (and if this is not the case - you are allowed to remove it after 1 month). Best regards,Danish Expert (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing "impolite" about my warnings regarding your edit-warring and original research additions into the article. I think that despite my messages you still don't understand what edit-warring is and what original research is. I find this approach to editing disturbing. I only have to tell you one last thing: The article is not a parking lot where you can park your original research until or if you find the sources to support it. Therefore, your original synthesis is not going into the article until such time as you find the sources to support it. In any case, from now on, let's move the discussion to the article talkpage. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις12:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greek government-debt crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Troika. 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.
@YeOldeGentleman: Award not accepted. Before reading your post, I did not even know the meaning of the word Teutophilia. After looking it up, I can now inform you, that I possess no obsessive love of Germans. My bias is neutral. So I wonder why you posted such award to me, shortly after your most recent edit of the Greek government-debt crisis article. If you are curious about my opinion about the Criticism of Germany's role chapter of the article (a section which I never edited or contributed to), I agree with the editor who posted the POV banner - as it does not meet Wikipedia's call for neutrality. This said, I am aware of the existence of the targeted political "Germany criticism" expressed by certain parts of the political spectrum in Greece, which I think justify why we keep having a section concerning this aspect in the article. So the section can stay, but just needs to improve, so that it reflect a satisfying level of neutrality (ensuring a balanced weight between the outspoken arguments and counter arguments in the public debate, while noting the correct context of both). Unfortunately I have no available time in my busy working schedule, to fix this issue myself, but hope another editor at some point of time will help to fix it. Best regards, Danish Expert (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only a light-hearted award, my friend, though I am incredibly offended that you refuse it. Not even Thomas Piketty would turn down an award from me. I did not mean to offend. Know that I love you and value your knowledgeable contributions to Wikipedia. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 08:37, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I offended you by refusing to accept the award (something I only did to emphasize I have no political bias - but on the contrary always attempt to focus on economic stats and facts - no matter who it suits). Thanks for your praise. Danish Expert (talk) 09:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to streamline the German section on Greek debt crisis this evening or tomorrow. Can be significantly shortened, a fair bit of repitition. Feel free to check my edits over. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greek legislative election, 2015, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moratorium. 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.
@YeOldeGentleman: Thanks for your cup of tea. I will try to take a sip, and cool my fingers. The long reply at the talkpage (and perhaps it frisky tone) was not directed to you in particular. Just a result of the specific debate in concern starting to spin out of control with many other editors starting to discuss all specific issues of the debt-crisis from a-z. So forgive me, if I sounded somewhat frustrated in my long reply. Thanks for the tea - Ye olde mighty gentleman. :-) Danish Expert (talk) 19:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to say I'm sorry to see your hard work being butchered in such an unappreciative, ignorant, and stupid manner. The only "bad" thing that could possibly be said about your edits on that article is that they have been overly detailed—but even that is a criticism I accept with the utmost reluctance. Other than that, what you have contributed has been well-informed and well-written. Best wishes from London. --YeOldeGentleman (talk) 23:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license.
Hi. You may be interested in participating in the African Destubathon which starts on October 15. Africa currently has over 37,000 stubs and badly needs a quality improvement editathon/contest to flesh out basic stubs. There are proposed substantial prizes to give to editors who do the most articles, and planned smaller prizes for doing to most destubs for each of the 53 African countries, so should be enjoyable! So it would be a good chance to win something for improving stubs on African sportspeople, including footballers, athletes, Olympians and Paralympians etc, particularly female ones, but also male. Even if contests aren't your thing we would be grateful if you could consider destubbing a few African articles during the drive to help the cause and help reduce the massive 37,000 + stub count, of which many are rated high importance (think Regions of countries etc). If you're interested in competing or just loosely contributing a few expanded articles on African Paralympians, Olympians and committees etc, please add your name to the Contestants/participants section. Diversity of work from a lot of people will make this that bit more special. Thanks. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can edit SVG files by downloading this free program: Inkscape. The map is supposed to reflect the referenced information at the United States Climate Alliance article. So if Washington DC needs a color change, you are supposed first to proof it with info and websource first being added to this Wikipedia article. Best regards. Danish Expert (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
French
Deutsch
Please do not attack other editors, as you did to Talk:Greek government-debt crisis. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please either open an WP:SPI investigation so that you can be laughed off the project or retract your clueless message: 
Template:Trials and allegations involving Silvio Berlusconi has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 13:13, 4 November 2013 (UTC) 
[[and the euro|]] 
Croatia 
Czech Republic 
Hello, I'm Wesley Mouse. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Eurovision Song Contest 2014, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please refer to discussion on the Project Talk Page. We only add countries that are sourced to the 'Other Countries' section and more importantly content that is relevant. Other members of the EBU are mentioned on the main Eurovision article. Wes Mᴥuse 18:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC) 
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Greek government-debt crisis. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 10:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Greek government-debt crisis, you may be blocked from editing. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 11:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC) 
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Flag policy, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Flag policy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Flag policy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Blethering Scot 17:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC) 
Template:ECB reference values has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TDL (talk) 03:45, 27 August 2015 (UTC)