User talk:Danlaycock/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Close discussion: Merger proposal

Hallo Dan, I suggest to close discussion "Merger proposal" on Talk:Foreign relations of Nagorno-Karabakh#Merger proposal. What do you think about that? Thanks. Jan CZ (talk) 12:39, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

What's the benefit of duplicating the list on two articles? TDL (talk) 00:07, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I have now edited the article Foreign relations of Nagorno-Karabakh. I wanted to do this a long time ago, but I didn't have time for it. In this direction the article should develop, I think. The embassies/repre.offices of all countries of the world have their own articles and details are not described in articles Foreign relations of. Jan CZ (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
OK I see your point. TDL (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Numrel, moving file to wikimedia, archiving discussion

Hi Dan, can I ask you for some advice or help?

I think it would be a good to establish Template:Numrel (as Temlate:Numrec). Number of relations are used in many articles. It can be establish for some states with limited recognition and also for CI+Niue. For example, the number of relations of CI is writen on Foreign relations of CI, but also on List of sovereign states etc. I'm trying to create this template, but it failed me.

I would like to move File:Missions to SADR.png to Wikimedia with CommonsHelper, but I also failed. I don't know how to do it.

It can be good to archive some of the old discussions (older than year) on the Talk:Foreign relations of the Cook Islands. Who can do it, only bot? Which boot and how can I ask him for it?

Thank you very much! Jan CZ (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jan,
1) I created a template at {{Numrel}}. It should function the exact same way as {{Numrec}}. To work it needs a subtempalte for each state where the data is stored. I set-up the first at {{Numrel/CK}} for the Cook Islands. For other states, you just need to copy this page to some other page with the same naming convention (ie Tempalte:Numrel/NU for Niue) and then you'll automatically be able to use the template for that state. Let me know if you run into any problems and I can help out.
2) I've never used CommonsHelper, but I'll take a look and see if I can get it transferred over.
3) You can learn about archiving at WP:ARCHIVE. Anyone can archive a page, but it's much easier to get a bot to do it so it's done in a consistent and timely manner. All that's required is adding some code like this to the top of the talk page. It should be archived in the next 24h. If you like, you can adjust the archiving parameters to change how the bot archives the page. See User:MiszaBot/config for an explanation of all the parameters. TDL (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
With regards to point 2, try clicking on this link, clicking the "Allow" button and then trying the CommonsHelper transfer again. I think that might get it working. TDL (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Super! Thanks! Jan CZ (talk) 22:14, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
{{Numrel}} - I would like to take advantage of W=Y parameter for number of relations with non-UN members. According to the needs of a particular articles we can show number of relations with UN members or with all states. Without entering the number of relations with non-UN members to the template directly in the article. Cancellation of relations (as opposed to withdraw of the recognition) is shown only in basic articles (Foreign relations of), nowhere else, so we no need this parameter for it. Do you agree with this idea? I believe that this can be useful? Jan CZ (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Rather than reuse W=Y, I created a new parameter O=Y to avoid confusion. You should be able to do something like {{Numrel|CK|O=Y}} now to get what you want. TDL (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks you so much! Jan CZ (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
No problem Jan. TDL (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

map Union for the Mediterranean


I see that you reverted my modification on Union for the Mediterranean. I don't understand why. Indeed, your map doesn't show that Syria is suspended since 2011. --Beoptylk (talk) 13:24, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I reverted because the map you added was quite small, though I've fixed that now. Plus you changed Libya's status from "Observer members" to "Other members" which is incorrect. TDL (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:EUnum

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:EUnum has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talkcontribs) 21:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Farroe Islands in respect to the EFTA

You are wrong about the Faroe Islands. They are difinitely a state as defined by all references in the Wiki and other sources. See the definition of a STATE. What you mean is they are not a sovereign state! Briefzehn

Julien Houle We've been through this many times already. See for example: User_talk:Danlaycock/Archive_4#RE:_Romanian_Euro_Target_Date.
You keep claiming that all sources say it is a state, yet you have never actually produced a single source which actually says that. Can you please point me to a source which supports your claim?
You keep claiming that no sources say it is not a state, so you apparently have not actually read the source linked in the article published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Faroe Islands. For your benefit, here is a relevant quote: "Under its constitutional status the Faroes cannot become an independent Contracting Party to the EEA Agreement due to the fact that the Faroes are not a state."]
Do you think that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Faroe Islands does not understand what its constitutional status is? Do they not understand what a state under international law is? Are they lying?
Wikipedia is not the appropriate place to try to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. If you think that you understand the Faroes constitutional status better than the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Faroe Islands, then you will need to provide sources to support this WP:Original research. TDL (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my convictions. Perhaps the Foreign Ministry of Denmark has alternative motives, such as keeping the Faroes under their control by minimizing their status, however I still maintain they ARE a state. You are mistaken if you believe otherwise. For your information I did put the reference in the article, but it was reversed by someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle (talkcontribs) 15:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC) Please see "State (polity)" in this Wikipedia for a discussion of the term "STATE". A state can be either sovereign or dependent on another polity. Therefore I am correct! Briefzehn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julien Houle (talkcontribs) 16:03, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Rather than just repeating your talking points over and over again, it would be far more helpful if you actually read the source. As I explained above, it was published by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Faroe Islands, NOT the the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark as you claim above. Do you really think that the government of the Faroe Islands is trying to suppress itself?
Of course the term state can mean many things. Obviously the Faroes is not a U.S. state for example. But we are speaking of international law, and thus a state under international law. A state under international law = sovereign state. The Faroes is not a state under international law, which is all that is relevant for their ability to sign international treaties. Do you think Nebraska or Bavaria could sign the treaty too?
And no, you did not add any sources which say the Faroe Islands are a state. You cited the Oxford dictionary definition of the word and then performed some WP:original research to conclude that the Faroe Islands is a state and can thus sign the treaty. None of this is supported by sources. TDL (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Toronto RLFC

Hi pal, could you please add Toronto RLFC to the table here: Toronto#Sports? I would do it myself, but the page is semi-protected. Thanks (talk) 14:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done TDL (talk) 01:09, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Tori Amos 'Caught a Lite Sneeze' picture filename

Hi, I just saw you changed the picture file name on the Caught a Lite Sneeze page to Caught a Lite Sneeze album cover.jpg . Given that this was a single, not an album, 'single cover' would be more appropriate in the file name than album cover, if you want to change it.Nqr9 (talk) 07:44, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've corrected it. TDL (talk) 02:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit war

Since when is making ONE (that's one, un, eins, less than two) edit to an article (AHL) edit warring? Jeez, what a wonderful attitude. (talk) 22:47, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Please review the history of the article. By my count, the edit you made had already been reverted four time in the prior 24 hours. You attempted to force this disputed change into the article by WP:TAGTEAM edit warring, rather than following WP:BRD. In the future please discuss such disputed changes on the talk page to seek WP:CONSENSUS rather than resorting to edit warring. TDL (talk) 00:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Euro Convergence Report/EERM2

Thanks for updating the articles regarding euro convergence. Do you happen to know which countries are still barred from entering EERM2 and which just don't enter due to fearing negative consequences? I think I only found info about Croatia not being allowed in yet, but nothing about all the other states. Ambi Valent (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help. Maybe there is some discussion the recently released convergence reports? TDL (talk) 23:45, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Friisdahl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Basketball League. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BMO Field logo.jpg


Thanks for uploading File:BMO Field logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:MLB yearly infobox/sandbox2

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

CU messed up...

Hello! I beleieve I may have messsed up my recent SPI filing. FOr one thing, a CU is deifnitely requested but I could find the place to indicate that. Thanks for any help you can provide. HappyValleyEditor (talk) 17:19, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

HappyValleyEditor: Looks like someone has already taken care of it for you. For future reference, you just need to set the case status to CU like this: {{SPI case status|CU}}. TDL (talk) 22:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! HappyValleyEditor (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Grand return?

Hey DLC, long time no see. Hope you're doing fine. I noticed that you successfully filed this SPI some time ago. I think said user has returned, but, as I'm fully convinced that you're a tad more familiar with the precise details of the sockmasters' editorial conduct as compared to me, I thought of sharing this with you. To me (I've had some pretty intense contact with some CU blocked socks of him long ago), Turnless gives quite a strong suspicion of being the same user, especially in his manner of talking. Perhaps you could take a brief look whenever you have time? Bests and take care - LouisAragon (talk) 23:10, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@LouisAragon: Sorry, I'm not following. Who do you think the master is? TDL (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, dang. Sent you the wrong link, lol. Corrected it now (see above), but will link it here as well once again. This master. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Good catch! A quick review and I'm certain that you're right. Funny I didn't recognize them, because I was expecting this user to resurface at some point. I'll reopen the SPI case, but feel free to add any evidence you might have. TDL (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Will do so for sure when I find some time! :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 15:45, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Canada at the Summer Olympics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby at the Summer Olympics. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

East Timor

It seems the official name has been changed... again... from Timor-Leste to East Timor. Problem is that I don't see the "general consensus" he mentioned for the change. --B.Lameira (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course there isn't any consensus for the changes. He's being disruptive and forcing his POV into the article without consensus. And doing it on Ivory Coast and Myanmar as well. TDL (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
English is not an official language in any of these countries. So how is any translation into English official? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Because they are officially used by the government for official purposes when they conduct business in English. TDL (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
TDL That is of course why the Constitution of East Timor, as translated in English calls it East Timor. I don't think that the proceedings of foreign governments get to decide what is or what is not English. I try to name both terms in the articles involved because that's just reasonable, also from an historic perspective, apart from a linguistic one. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Please review the history. It was originally East Timor when the constitution was written and was subsequently changed, which is why modern usage differs from the archaic usage.
Foreign governments of course can not dictate common english usage. Only english speakers can decided that. This is why the article is titled East Timor, and the country is referred to that throughout, despite the objections of the government. But they can decide on how they want to officially represent themselves in the english language. I understand you dislike their decision, but that is their official position. TDL (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Better read that constitution again. They haven't changed the name of their country. On your other point; Exactly TDL! We are the English language Wikipedia and we follow where the sources and the language guide us. Not primarily what is declared official by some government, although that does deserves mention. I did just that. But don´t just follow what is decided by some government! That is not our business and we have nothing to do with that. What is official matters just as much as what is generally used in English. Official is just one thing and it is not something that we should accept as the only and holy thing on Wikipedia. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:37, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Citing a many years old translation to argue that the name hasn't subsequently changed is hardly compelling. See for example the current government's website on the constitution, which I have linked a number of times for you, here which has a modern translation of the preamble of the constitution. Yes the name was changed. Read the discussion on the talk page. You can learn about the history here, which I previously linked.
I agree wholeheartedly that we should follow the sources. And the sources are unanimous, the official name is Timor-Leste. For example, see: United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names list of country namesCIA World factbookOxford dictionary, etc. As of yet, no sources have been produced saying that the official name is East Timor. Found any yet?
Yes general usage is important, and the fact that the country is exclusively referred to as East Timor throughout the article reflects that. For example, East Timor is used 5 times in the lead to 1 time for Timor-Leste. The entire article is written based on general English usage, while a single sentence is written based on official usage. So the argument that we are "just follow what is decided by some government!" and treating the official name as "the only and holy thing on Wikipedia" completely neglects the reality of the current state of the article. TDL (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I just want to name both sides of the equation, when there is one. And only in the lead where it somehow matters. How wrong is that? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Because what you wrote is factually wrong. You wrote that it is "officially the Democratic Republic of East-Timor". This is simply not true in 2016. No sources have been provided to support this. Meanwhile, numerous sources refute it. We shouldn't make up facts because we don't like reality. TDL (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry TDL, but only one of the sources you provided in your quote above on the Constitution gives the actual text of the legislation. And that clearly says: "Democratic Republic of East-Timor", as it's the same document we've seen before. I have never stated that the name Timor-Leste isn't also in use, your UN source however is a working document by a UN commission, that clearly states that the names therein are for official use 'by the UN', and not Timorese legislation. You say that: "Citing a many years old translation to argue that the name hasn't subsequently changed is hardly compelling." It's however the same document that you cited before to prove the exact opposite, and the one your government website source cited above links to. It's also not very compelling to work from the premisse that the sources we have, must have changed somehow without actually having a newer version to show for it, which is basically the premise that you are now working with. The present document on Wikisource says exactly the same as the one in your earlier quote. Democratic Republic of East Timor. So does the one on I will work with that, unless you can show a more recent document in which the text of the articles have been changed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
No idea what you are looking at, but this website with a partial translation of the constitution clearly uses "Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste" and not Constitution of the Democratic Republic of East Timor". Note that this translation previously used "Democratic Republic of East Timor", which would suggest that the current version has been updated and corrected.
Can you point to where you see the UNGEGN state that they "are for official use by the UN"? Can't find any evidence of that. What I see is that they are "formal names are those used in an official diplomatic context". The UN does not conduct diplomatic relations.
I am not working on any "premis". I have presented several highly reliable sources which explicitly say that Timor-Leste is the official name. You are speculating and hypothesising because you can't find any modern sources to support your position. (Wikisources and constituteproject are self published and clearly not reliable sources. They do not trump highly reputable sources such as the UNGEGN, World Factbook, Oxford dictionary, etc.) TDL (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't why this is being debated. Timor Leste is the official name. A country can decide their own name. If a country wishes to a use a word from a different language they can. It is their right. And they exercised their right. --Melbguy05 (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately Melbguy05, the opinion you state above is based on sources and documents that actually state the opposite. Click and actually read the actual legislative text of the document or documents involved, as linked to by the sources given. I have commented on this earlier on the talkpage of the East Timor article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Names of countries not in English

Hello Danlaycock, as you may have gathered I'm not too impressed by what is or is not official. My interest is what the English translation is, and when that is contentious it is best to name both versions, since the English language, and the words used therein cannot really be changed by legislation in any country that wants to revert some words in it. Even if that word is the name of said country. We have already had exchanges about this matter elsewhere. I would be a fan of naming both names in whatever order and not to fuss about what if official. In the case of the Ivory Coast or Cote d' Ivoire, the French name is obviously official, since French is the official language of the country. The French name may be used officially, even in communications that are otherwise in English, but it doesn't make it official or even English. Official is not a concept we should be too worried about on the English language Wikipedia, although it should be reckoned with. We are not the slaves of the institutions that purportedly get to decide what official exactly is. That would take away our independence as an encyclopedia! You may have noticed that I feel rather strongly about this. I don't think that we should just follow (ok we should of course mention it) what some institutions declare (who are these people even!!) to be "official". Not just slavishly. We have other viewpoints and they're decidedly not necessarily POV. They are not as long as all is balanced. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:41, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia explicitly does not follow what institutions declare. Hence the names of the articles under consideration (along with others like Cape Verde), where the spirit of WP:OFFICIALNAMES is adhered to. We do, however, need to consider the official names when describing the official names. Institutions do get to decide what official exactly is, as something is official because these institutions say it is. "These people" are the representatives of the subjects under discussion.
Additionally, your philosophical aversion to change in the English language is flawed. Through the same flexibility which means that institutions do not determine common English usage, English usage can be changed. This is why for example you translate "Timor-Leste" as "East Timor" instead of "East East", because you have accepted Timor into your lexicon as a proper noun rather than as something to be translated. The full "Timor-Leste" is similarly being promoted as a proper noun. Legislation has changed English in the past, and although you're right to note it hasn't in the cases under discussion here, that doesn't mean it hasn't in other cases or won't in the future. CMD (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment CMD and your point is well taken. A problem in this case however is that the source originally used by the editors that want to use the "Democratic Republic Timor Leste" name in the lead exclusively, is the English translation of the Constitution of that country in which the name "Democratic Republic of East Timor" is consistently used in all legislative articles that mention the name of the state. And that basically goes for all the versions that these editors have come up with. And also for a few that I have found (on Wikisource for instance). My analysis is that maybe (but I could be wrong) the editors are too quick on their feet and just see the name Timor Leste mentioned somewhere and assume that the source supports their claim without even clicking or reading further. So I think we have a problem here.... My object is not to erase the name "Democratic Republic of Timor Leste" from the lead. Or claim that anything is "official". I just want to acknowledge the obvious dichotomy that we are facing when actually reading the sources given. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Old legislation did sometimes use East Timor, prior to standardisation of taking the local name and using it in English. Other sources may continue to use it, and while I haven't seen it happen, perhaps even the East Timorese government slips up every now and then. Nonetheless, that does not mean there is a dichotomy, as none of that invalidates that there was a change and that the current formal English uses Timor-Leste. In addition to the UNGEGN source, which is derived through consultations with the member states, see the current usage by officials, such as on the embassy in the USA, government publications, and submissions to UN bodies. CMD (talk) 19:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

CMD, everybody keeps telling me that somehow and somewhere there must have been "a change" but frankly nobody has anything to show for it except an opinion or something from a UN subcommittee. I'm not denying that the name Timor Leste is in use there and once again I don't think it should be removed from the relevant sentence in the article. But the English language translation of the constitution says exactly what it says. It says: "Democratic Republic of East Timor". UN bodies do not get to decide what names of countries are, but if they use it I don't mind that it is mentioned in the article. About UN names for countries just ask the people from the Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia about that. Then of course there is this source and it is the English translation of the constitution of East Timor that says: "Democratic Republic of East Timor". How can that not trump a working document by a subcommission in the UN? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

That UN document was created with guidance from the member states involved, and it is based off the wishes of the states. Macedonia is the only situation I know of where their UN official name differs from their domestic official name (Taiwan's travails in officialdom perhaps a similar case). Sometimes a change is hard to pinpoint, but has clearly taken place. You will for example be hard-pressed to find a precise moment where Canada or Malaysia dropped their long formal name, and yet both have done so. I have shown you the usage by government sources, and you can find many many other examples. That is the current situation. There is on the other hand no evidence that "Democratic Republic of East Timor" is in usage, and even the shortform name "East Timor" is official deprecated. CMD (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Several sources I keep coming across seem to call it that however in a context that seems official enough, as I have explained on this and other venues. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey again, same editor in question is trying to insert his POV on Ivory Coast page... again. --B.Lameira (talk) 06:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Not really B.Lameira and User:Danlaycock. I tried to take away the translation altogether and just let the French one stand, as the article states that the matter revolves around the fact that the name of the state is not translated by the Ivorian authorities for diplomatic purposes (if I get the timeline right, which may not be the case. I didn't check, so B.Lameira may be justified in the remark he made here as such). To me that seemed like a solution everyone might be comfortable with, but I obviously was too quick on my feet again. However, when the Ivorian authorities don't translate the name of their state into any other language, why should we construct a bilingual phrase like: "Republic of Cote d'Ivoire" on Wikipedia and not just use the complete and indeed official French name? That doesn't seem to be a satisfactory solution to you two at this point, but I did add a comment to the talkpage, suggesting that this might be a solution that actually confirms what is said about this in the article. I'll leave this be for now, but I do think that the way other countries deal with the matter in their communications with and about the country are not all that univocal and I am finding some info about that from official sources that I would like to discuss at some point with you or others. That also goes for the issues I raised on East Timor, which are somewhat more puzzling, given the sources and what they actually say. I will notice at some point if the two of you or others are interested. On the Ivory Coast situation I am not suggesting at this point anymore, that any name besides the official French one should be used in the lead. I do think that the situation can be clearer and more precise in the lead part of the article. I would like to discuss these matters further at some point. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
If you could provide sources regarding East Timor aside form the constitution, which as noted was translated before the decision to use the Portuguese as a proper name, they would be interesting to look at. I do not think however, as I have already noted, that a few exceptions call the overall point into much question.
Regarding Cote d'Ivoire, we should use the phrase in question because that is the official English name, which is useful to present on the English Wikipedia. CMD (talk) 23:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you CMD. Agreed with everything you said here.
With regards to Macedonia, Ii consented to officially use the name "the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" within the UN system, which is what the UNGEGN reports. Of course it uses other names in other situations, but that just means it has more than one official name.
I'll again link this, which is a translation of the preamble of Timor-Leste's constitution using the modern name, as it seems to keep be suggested that this does not exist. Note that this translation previously used "Democratic Republic of East Timor", which would suggest that the current version has been updated and corrected. TDL (talk) 00:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Just epic

Waiting for ~ 1,5 months, only to be told that the evidence isn't sufficient. Wow. Had you seen this "result" before? I had forgotten about the whole SPI long ago. - LouisAragon (talk) 04:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it seemed pretty clear to me. Do you have any additional evidence you can present to make the connection more obvious to an admin? TDL (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@LouisAragon: Ping. TDL (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Not at hand anymore, sorry. I'll try to re-open the SPI in the near future. I'll let you know. - LouisAragon (talk) 05:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Just reopened the SPI.[1] Salvaged a part of your evidence as well, and added it to it. If you have more evidence, or happen to find more -- you know where to leave it. ;-) Bests - LouisAragon (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks! I'll take a look tomorrow and see if I can dig up anything further. TDL (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

About being Moro not making the person indigenous

Moros or Muslims are the people who follow the religion of Islam. An indigenous person of certain ethnicity can be converted into the religion of Islam which would make that person Muslim or Moro but it does not make the term Moro/Muslim indigenous. Being a Moro or Muslim does not make a person an ethinic indigenous person. This relates to the topic of Bangsamoro. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I see your point. No objections to your current wording. I was just trying to avoid the redundant self-referencing definition "Moro people ... a group of Moro people" here. TDL (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:AFL Labelled Map

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:AFL Labelled Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Danlaycock. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

UPC Lithuania Ratifiation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E945:7E1:9D3B:8A29:3169:E6AE (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Toronto FC players

Hi Danlaycock, thanks for your Toronto FC related contributions! I noticed an IP edit the List of Toronto FC players list (he didn't update everyone I don't think). I see you've been one of the top contributors to that page and would like to see if you have the means to update everyone's appearances following the end of the playoffs and also to double check the IPs work; if you have time. Thanks! Regards, Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You know what, I think that IP's updated everyone and changed it from the "updated as of the end of the 2016 regular season" to "the 2016 season", so it may be fine. If you want to double check it, go head. Thanks Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 16:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Just reviewed and there were some errors/omissions, but think I've got it all now. TDL (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


Why? The purpose of this template was to show the current number of states which recognize [X]. You incorporated material from this template that I made: for that exact purpose. See the documentation at this other template that I created which you folded into the one you made: Why are you reverting this? —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:02, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean when you say I "incorporated material" from your template. I created it from scratch, because of the existing template's limited functionality and duplication. Then I redirected yours because it had been superseded. Notably, the relevant issues under debate here (Abkhaia/South Ossetia and withdrawn recognitions) were features that your version did not handle but mine does.
For the latter, the template stores two figures: current number of states which have extended recognition (N) and current number of these states which have withdrawn recognition (W). This is how the template is used in practice (ie: International_recognition_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#States_that_have_recognized_SADR.
If you want unwithdrawn recognitions, you can request N-W from the template. But generally I think it's much more appropriate to give the numbers separately, since there is debate in international law over whether a withdrawal of recognition has any legal impact. Recognition is often said to be irrevocable under international law. So rather than Wikipedia taking a POV on this debate, we just give the reader the raw numbers and let them decide how to interpret them. TDL (talk) 06:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

2017-18 Toronto Maple Leafs season

I agree with your edit regarding the Leafs' draft picks. All the information regarding draft picks held and those traded away should stay on the page as it provides useful information to the user who wonders what happened to the draft picks traded away. The user, Sabbatino, has made an edit that would not meet consensus, but he has already twice reverted edits that have added back the deleted information. Don't know if it's worth opening a discussion over this.Juve2000 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)