User talk:L.tak/Archives/2011 1

British passport

Hi L.tak, thank you for your contributions to British passport. I have noticed that you changed the subheading in the Physical Appearance section of "Passports issued by the IPS and FCO" to "Passports issued by the UK". However, I have reverted this change because "UK" is an ambiguous term. The definition of "United Kingdom passport" as given in Paragraph 7(a)(ii) of Schedule 4 to the British Nationality Act 1981 is any British passport issued by the Government of the United Kingdom or the Lieutenant-Governor of any Crown Dependency or the Government of a British dependent territory within the meaning of the Act. By specifiying the IPS and FCO, I think it would make it absolutely clear to any reader that the passport being described is issued directly by the Government of the United Kingdom, and not the Government of a Crown Dependency/Overseas Territory. Bonus bon (talk) 16:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Indonesian passport

What you doing? - need any help - or what ?SatuSuro 00:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

just messed up the wiki by forgetting a closing ref (</ref >) and it took me some deduction to find out what was wrong. Played also with headings and the reflist (since it was mentioned twice I suspected the problem there), but everything seems to be fine now... thanks for the help offer though! L.tak (talk) 00:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

no probs enjoy! SatuSuro 00:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_European_countries_and_territories

Hello, please don;t remove other people's commnets as you did here. if you want to post something post it below their comment and not replace them. Gman124 ^talk 04:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

oops, apologies! L.tak (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Turkish passport

Dear L.tak, many thanks for your valuable effort, the references and modifications. Best wishes & Regards. --Ozguroot (talk) 07:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Template:Visa policy by country. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Basket of Puppies 20:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I am well-aware we were both reverting eachother and thought I had enough grounds for a second revert. Of course I will refrain from breaking 3R rule L.tak (talk) 20:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Visa policy of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles

The article Visa policy of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not an encyclopedic topic, factually inaccurate.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Basket of Puppies 01:53, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Visa policy of Bhutan

The article Visa policy of Bhutan has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not an encyclopedic topic, factually inaccurate.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Basket of Puppies 01:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Visa policy of Bhutan

I have nominated Visa policy of Bhutan, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy of Bhutan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Basket of Puppies 13:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Visa policy of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles

I have nominated Visa policy of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy of Aruba and the Netherlands Antilles. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Basket of Puppies 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

sovereign states sorting criteria

Sorry to bother here, but as you are a contributor to certain discussions at the List of sovereign states I would like to show you the recently compiled list of all proposals for sorting criteria so that you can express your opinion here. Thanks! Alinor (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Notification

A proposal to change the layout and sorting criteria of the article List of sovereign states has been finalised and submitted for consensus.

As you were previously involved in the discussion for this change, I thought I would inform you of the final proposal. Please provide comments here. Nightw 13:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

DEURNE netherlands

Hello L.tak,

Please undo the recent changes you have made to the page of DEURNE Neterlands. REASONS:

1. there has been a Dutch community in Thorne Moorends sicne the 17th century .. (see info on Thorne Moorends town council web site) ..if you search for "dutch row" & thorne (http://www.bing.com/search?q=%22dutch+row%22+thorne&go=&form=QBRE&filt=all) you will find proof that even today descendants of the Griendtsveen Peat Moss Litter Co settlers (late 19th early 20 th ct) are looking for their roots.

2. Deurne means THORN (as does Thorne, Thorn, Thornton, AppleDORE, ...) the place name is part of the THORN toponym in N.W. Europe (U.K., Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, = thorn / doorn deurn thorn / tourinne tournai dorn / ... if you think this is very confusing you should not read Thorne Moorends town council web page ... there you'll find that the local castle is called PEEL castle ... the same name as the PEEL peat moor in Deurne Netherlands where the Griendtsveen Peat Moss Litter Company originated ... phew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter bankers (talk • contribs) 12:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

These are interesting statements and I invite you to find reliable sources for them (per WP:RS). As far as I am concerned they can go back if those can be found... rgds! L.tak (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

101107

Hello again L.tak,

Here's the proof that there really were Dutch settlers in Thorne Moorends at the turn of last century, they worked in the peat industry and were housed in what was called DUTCH ROW, as can be seen on the web site called [1]

According to the Institute for Name-Studies at Nottignham University there are currently 117 places in England and Wales that derive their names from the word / meaning THORN as you can find out for yourself by entering THORN (as an element) in the folowing application [2]

I researched the THORN toponym (as toponiem DOORN) on the BLAEU maps of GERMANIA inferior of which I made a contribution to the Dutch Wikipedia site [3]

regards

Peter bankers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC).

• Dear Peter, thanks for your comment and source. I have looked at the site, but have the feeling it is a self-published source. Would you happen to have a reliable source available for the link of Deurne in the Netherlands to Thorn-related names in the UK? if so it would be interesting to add! L.tak (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear L.tak,

as I mentioned EXPLICITLY ... i contributed to DOORN toponym page on the Dutch wikipedia site (you say you have 'a feeling'- as if I am trying to hide the truth ....) - my contribution is a map based on the BLAEU maps of the low countries listing all the place names containing t*rn / d*rn (* = any vowel)(reason univ of Amsterdam Dutch etymological dictionary says Doorn derives from thurnu - consonants hardly change over time - Mod English thorn = Old English thorn - in Dutch these early medieval notations are d/t/th *rn). If you study the DOORN toponym page you will find it is rather, well (very), inconsistent.

Yet no one doubts the derivation of DEURNE from DOORN (meaning THORN) - Nottingham universtiy lists 117 places deriving from that word. If Deurne derives from (the word meaning) THORN, 117 english place names meaning the same thing have nothing to do with it .. well clearly! (it is like saying that the english word THING has nothing to do with the Dutch word DING, like saying that the Dutch word DOORN has nothing to do with the German word DORN ..German place names with Dorn- / -dorn ?)

I do not know if you have any knowledge of Old English .. they came from NW Germany / Denmark / (Low countries) & Scandinavia ... brought with them the habit of naming places the way they were wont to. ( = toponym)

Peter bankers (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC).

Public body

Als je "such as" gebruikt dan kan dat verwarrend zijn, omdat je dit kan interpreteren als dat een public body een staat, provincie of gemeente kan zijn; een algemene benaming dus. Maar het is toch juist een aparte vorm van politieke entiteit, net zoals een staat, provincie of gemeente? Styath (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

hm, dat was niet het idee wat ik in gedachten had. Een gemeente is gewoon ook een openbaar lichaam (NL grondwet geeft als sectietitle: gemeenten, provincies, waterschappen en andere openbare lichamen, wat duidelijk aangeeft dat (en dit is het verwarrende) artikel 134/135 openbare lichamen een vorm van openbare lichamen zijn. Vandaar dat ik heb aangegeven dat deze wiki gaat over openbare lichamen die ook nog eens met die naam worden aangeduid... L.tak (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah okey, dat is iets wat ik niet door had :)

Verwarrend inderdaad! Styath (talk) 16:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

QANTAS

Because once upon a time it was QANTAS, an acronym for Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Services. Ex nihil ^(talk) 02:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that; (I guess looking at QANTAS would have worked as well for me) ;-) Rgds! L.tak (talk) 10:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

ID card

Dear Zorcocuk, Just noticed your "ID-card-only" statements re Turkey/Cyprus. Could you add a source for that statement? Tnx! L.tak (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I mean for Northern Cyprus only, and i wrote that rule in Northern Cyprus section. South part (RoC) wants the visa from all kind of passports. *** Эɱ®εč¡κ *** ^{...and his friends} 17:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I understood which part you meant (but was typing a bit too fast....) But still, do you have a ref? L.tak (talk) 17:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Look there... 3rd paragraph from last... But i don't know how to add... *** Эɱ®εč¡κ *** ^{...and his friends} 17:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Northern Cyprus visas and passport

Just by way of explaining my revert, there is an obvious article for info relating to visa information. In light of your recent AfD, your edit looked a little pointy. RashersTierney (talk) 15:47, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

hm, good point. After seeing your revert, I already changed a detail back (see there) and noted that for this I was planning to seek consensus first... (and I was about to point you to the AfD, but that's not needed anymore I guess).. L.tak (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Lets just see how the AfD pans out. I'll give it some thought and will probably comment there. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

United States Permanent Representative to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of United States Permanent Representative to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.wikiwak.com/texis/wcolz?red=1&q=United+States+Permanent+Representative+to+the+Organisation+for+the+Prohibition+of+Chemical+Weapons.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Dear 200.56.177.131/200.77.11.23/189.192.14.63/200.52.203.224 I strongly encourage you to discuss your ideas regarding the removal of links from the america template at Template talk:Currencies of the Americas. The removal of very common things is a common procedure and I personally do not see much harm in it. I do see however harm in the 1-liner you use to revert it every time. Please discuss on the talk page and let's get to an agreement. Rgds! L.tak (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I am not removing links, I am restoring the links removed by a Colonies Chris, if you check again, you will see that the links are there. 200.77.11.23 (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

replied on your talkpage, where this discussion started... L.tak (talk) 23:22, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Substing

Hey, just stopping by to give you a friendly reminder about subst'ing cleanup templates. In this edit, you subst'ed {{no footnotes}}, which is generally not a good idea. Thanks, --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 00:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

you're right; I was substituting the wrong template there (should have been prod...). Tnx! L.tak (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! --- cymru lass ^{(hit me up)}⁄_{(background check)} 01:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

AfD templates

Just a note about [4]. You weren't doing anything wrong. It was a mistake I made when working with the templates. Everything should be working okay again now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:03, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

a, that's it... No problem! L.tak (talk) 08:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Waipoua Forest Trust

You PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider taking it to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

European Wildlife

restored, couldn't see a deleted talk though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The user gave a comment when adding {{hangon{{, which appeared on the main page. However, with the proposed deletion gone for now, it is not necessary to restore the comment; thanks for restoring the page; let's see what the overall result is... L.tak (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Currencies of the Americas

ok cool! :) Outback the koala (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

good! thanks for dropping a line... L.tak (talk) 23:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

wow Netherlands again! That was a stupid mistake, Thanks for rvting me. Outback the koala (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

no problem! Kingdom vs Netherlands is a tricky affair.... L.tak (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Be careful

Be careful with your prods. Some people are not as active as me and very valid articles like the New Zealand forest trust articles end up getting deleted. I've expanded Anortė Mackelaitė now anyway which should have plenty of reliable sources.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for improving Mackelaite from the nearly single sentence stub that it was. I honoustly was not capable of finding notability establishing sources; and I thought not too much would have been lost had it been deleted. I guess I could have just added a notability tag and a basic source reconignizing the existence... L.tak (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:BES

I don't think you gave the redirect much of a chance to be used, I only made the page yesterday. —Half Price 13:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

oops! In my enthusiasm about the official code for the caribbean netherlands, I thought I removed an ages old redirect; what a coincidence. Allow me to revert 1 or 2 placed where I immediately started using it (as a test); so we can sort out which one should be the best redirect... L.tak (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I don't have much of an issue with {{Bracketed element symbol}} using {{Bes}} whilst {{BES}} is the ISO, that makes capitalisation sense. —Half Price 14:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'll change it back now then; so both templates have 3-lettered shortcuts; tnx for the notifications here! L.tak (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Opinion

Hi. Could you add your opinion? [5] Regards Ron 1987 16:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to revert query concerning absence of Audit Opinion in Interpol Annual Report.

Hi L.tak, with reference to your question, please see external auditors for a summary of their role, in particular 'the primary role of the external auditors is to express an opinion on whether an entity's financial statements are free of material misstatements', and Annual report. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

He BKK, thanks for laying down those basics. Let me specify my concerns a bit. I was wondering how the presence or absence of financial statements was notable for inclusion on wikipedia and therefore looked for what was "special" about your comments... Is it an exception that international organizations do not have those statements? or did it spur controversy? Or are there any other reasons why it should be added to article? Rgds, L.tak (talk) 05:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

While Interpol's annual report does outline Interpol's financial performance and position, the omission of the audit opinion, especially after the somewhat distracting reference to the fact that the financial statements have been audited by an external auditor, simply begs the question. See cui bono. In other words, if all's well and good, why not say so? Especially as expression of such an opinion is 'the primary role of the external auditors' and is typically a requisite under GAAP. Thanks, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 01:07, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

BKK, you might be on to something and also I am a bit suspicious here. But with international organizations many things are not "ordinary" in terms of financials. They also do not fall under the obligations by law of countries. The statement that it was omitted is quite suggestive there as you point out yourself. To put in such a suggestive thing, I think we need WP:secondary sources stating its importance, or an evaluation showing all other major organizations do always show it (UN, UPU, OPCW etc). Otherwise with t we are falling to original research by putting information in which suggests something is wrong...[btw: would you mind if I move this discussion to the Interpol page, so more people can weigh in?] L.tak (talk) 02:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, BrekekekexKoaxKoax (talk) 02:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms

The older arms is a bad SVG file. A link to the PNG version of that Coat of Arms, being used a lot in the Netherlands, can be useful on the "coat of arms article" though. There is no official design of the coat of arms, and this design matches with the recent coats of arms created for the UK, France, Denmark and a lot of other countries. Adelbrecht (talk) 09:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

""Op basis van deze beschrijving en de heraldische regels mag een tekenaar zelf bepalen in welke stijl en vorm een wapen gemaakt wordt." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelbrecht (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Adelbrecht; that might be a very valid reason. As said I have no opinion on the matter, and prefer discussion on talk, which is luckily now taking place. L.tak (talk) 02:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Toronto Environmental Alliance

Please cease and desist from promoting socialist environmentalist propaganda on the aforementioned page. That group has been classified as a terrorist organization. They aim to disrupt ordinary lives in order to make money for themselves. Thanks, 99.224.10.2 (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear 99.224, I have no business with Toronto Env Alliance. I just removed text copied from there own website; and placed a request for references. I the organization is classified as a terrorist organization, and you have reliable sources showing that; feel free to add it to the article... L.tak (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Spencer Day

Thank you for restoring at least some of the information, along with the references. 160.111.254.17 (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, L.tak. You have new messages at Dabomb87's talk page.
Message added 22:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Notability of Bicycology

I just noticed that you tagged the Bicycology article with a notability template in November. When I created the article I hoped that others would add to it and I would accept that the lack of significant contributions does cast doubt on its notability. In an attempt to save the article from deletion I have added a "Philosophy" section in which I reference the involvement of Bicycology in organising a fairly recent two day academic symposium at Lancaster University which attracted contributions from around the world including two papers by members of Bicycology. I hope this goes some way towards establishing the required notability. Ianji (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

He Ianji, thanks for coming back to me on the tag and improving the article. I think the present notability problem is not due to a lack of depth, but due to a lack of reliable secondary sources. In other words, others should have made news articles etc on this for it to be notable for wikipedia (and that is notable not in the sense of "important" but a bit more specifically defined to fit this encyclopedia). If such articles can be found (and mind you, I didn't try, so I am not judging there) then the notability is established and the tag can be removed... L.tak (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying L.tak As I understand it, Bicycology is similar in some ways to Plane Stupid but, whereas Plane Stupid has been covered extensively by the BBC (for example) due to its strategy of disrupting air travel, the activities of Bicycology tend not to capture the interest of mainstream news organisations (there has been plenty of coverage on Indymedia but I guess that doesn't count due to lack of editorial control). However, my reading of the guidelines was that academic sources are to be preferred over news reports, which is why I added the reference to the symposium at Lancaster University. I would like to see others contributing to the article but at some point I will look at it again myself, I just hope it doesn't get deleted in the meantime. Ianji (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

He Ianji, Indimedia would indeed not count... And you are right in principle that academic sources are preferable over news articles in general. However for both the academic sources and the news articles it is relevant that they can be regarded secondary: not produced mainly by the people involved introducing the subject, but treated by academics outside the group in a paper or journalists in newspapers etc... Again that does not say anything about the value of the organization: indeed plane stupid might "just" have their PR better under control or have a slightly "more sexy" subject; but that's life... L.tak (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Hi

I am a Kasir of users in the Persian Wikipedia But my username is not active in English Wikipedia

Please if you can help me ٬ 95.82.127.72 (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What you need is a unified account. Which means that when you are logged in on 1 project and move to an other (via an interwiki link or by just typing the address of the otehr wiki), you are automatically entering on your unified account. More info here. The link to make the account is here. Good luck! L.tak (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public

You might like to pay a return visit following changes. Peridon (talk) 19:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the reminder! changed my vote... L.tak (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, L.tak. You have new messages at Fallschirmjäger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fallschirmjäger ✉ 16:01, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Map

Hello, L.tak. You have new messages at Fallschirmjäger's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fallschirmjäger ✉ 21:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Blank page

thanks for your note of last week, my reply got into the wrong section - this is a known but very rare bug when using AWB, we haven't established if the root cause is the API but it looks like it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:31, 18th day of January in the year 2011 (UTC).

Box turtle

Hi, I can see your being bold with your changes and move etc. You haven't got any consensus, but you do have my support - and you are entitled to be bold. One problem is that your page move has gone against the guidance or WP:Fauna name, and your changes have effectively choosen a primary topic of terrapene over coura, which actually maybe a tough call to justify if that was challenged. But again, I'm fine with it, just wanted to let you know. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for endorsing that. I felt it was time for some action... I agree with you I have chosen a primary topic basically because de facto (apart from 2-3 sentences in the article) the article was already about the american box turtle only. So now at least it is clear that it is done. If it's challenged we'll get a discussion and see about that... Just wondering: where did I go against the fauna guideline in your idea? L.tak (talk) 22:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess in this case it's not an issue with WP:Fauna name but common name. A move of the article claiming Asian box turtle is it's most common name, but actually it seems Box turtle is it's most common name. The part in WP:Fauna name that could be an issue is the 'If there is a most commonly used common name in English, and it is not ambiguous(emphasis added), use that' could apply to a Box turtle usage as 'Box turtle' is ambiguous, but then again that page already exist, and you didn't move Terrapene to Box turtle, so it looks like your fine. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:29, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Got GA?

Loved your cleanup of Terrapene. Turtle project is doing a little blitz [6] to get 10 GAs (or FAs, FLs) in two months. How about pitching in and running one? You are a sharp guy and decisive. And turtle are easy to research and write about...and even get pretty decent hit count (so your efforts have effect). Could grab Box turtle or some other "plum" article and make it yours. We can assist or you can really control it, however you find enjoyable. But then we can all share in the camaraderie of the campaign as we go for plus signs (and stars). Howsabout it? We don't need no steenkin' badges!

TCO (talk) 06:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that reaction; and good that you appreciated my actions ;-). Was a bit in doubt whether i would go for it (am normally focussing on many other things), but indeed box turtle would be something I would be interested in getting to GA... so I will be giving it a try then! L.tak (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

You're a badass. I like you! (And it's definitely doable.) TCO (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Great to hear! Good luck with it and have fun.  :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Turtles

Hello L.tak, it seems like you have an interest in turtle articles. Perhaps you would consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Turtles, a collection of editors interested in improving the quality of turtle articles on wikipedia. Thank you, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of content

May I ask why you removed the sourced fact that the UN Security Council has just mandated an additional 4000 AMISOM troops [7], [8] (to bring the total number to 12,000)? Was this a mistake or deliberate? If it was a mistake (which I'm sure it was), would you mind reinserting the phrase in question back i.e. self-reverting? Thanks, Middayexpress (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Somalia... L.tak (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

New links of European Wildlife

Hello L.tak, I have two new links for external links of European Wildlife. I hope, they are OK. Thanks for your time. (I hope, this is right way to let you know about it.) Danny Worker

http://summitcountyvoice.com/2011/03/04/wildlife-bringing-back-bison-in-europe/

http://www.ecovoice.com.au/eco-news/2377-a-qnoahs-arkq-of-endangered-species-will-be-created-in-europe

More destruction

From Talk:Population: Agreed the stuff was very poorly organized. But that is absolutely not an acceptable motive for removing it. Of course population control is related to population. Your edit was destructive. It didn't even leave a see also link to Human population control. The useful stuff should of course be moved, rather than destroyed. Please do not destroy more in Wikipedia! I have made the obvious reparations. --Ettrig (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

He Ettrig; you are right that the useful stuff should be moved and a see also link should be placed. I didn't realize (or check) however if the information was already present in the population control wikis (but I thought so). Would you agree that the info can go there after moving any info that was not there already? L.tak (talk) 18:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I moved the text about animal population control to that article. It isn't very good, but better than what was there. Human population control has a lot of text, so I didn't bother to check if some details could be added. I think the size of text on Human population control that I put in population is reasonable. It is the intro from Human population control. In short, I think the restructuring is now done and that what remains is normal improvement. --Ettrig (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am now happy with how we improved this article together. --Ettrig (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Me too! both articles are much more informative and balanced now... L.tak (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Entry req. Dutch Caribbean

Hi,

You added the 6 month/unlimited qualification to on Visa requirements for Dutch citizens. That is indeed correct as per IATA database. However the database still has the Netherlands Antilles listed which obviously no longer exist. Do you have any idea where new entry regulations for St. Maarten, Curaçao and BES could be found ? With regard to the BES islands I would think that as they are now part of the Netherlands proper that entry requirements (at least for long term stays of Dutch citizens) are now in line with the rest of the Netherlands, i.e. unlimited for all Dutch citizens. However there may be transitionary periods but ideally we would need to source the new regulations properly. Travelbird (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I found this which seems to indicate that the max stay for all nationalities is now 90 days for all parts (AW, SXM, CUR & BES). There is a tool where you can look up all nationalities. There seem to now be a unified list which applies to all Dutch territories in the Caribbean. The tool however isn't very useful as it only gives you the option of either a stay below 30 days or over 90 days. There is a complete list here however it doesn't say whether all of these may now stay 90 full days. Travelbird (talk) 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, as for the Caribbean NL, the distance from the mainland, popluation size and "insular character" are reasons for possible derogations from Dutch law; and I guess entrance requirements is one of them (e.g.: even on Ameland, there are restrictions for moving there as a dutch national. I only found a Dutch explanation of the 6 months for the carib nl: http://www.rijksdienstcn.com/nieuws/29/08008-101010-informatielijn,-nu-gratis!.html

• Een persoon met Nederlandse nationaliteit kan 6 maanden vrij als toerist op de eilanden blijven zonder een vergunning binnen het tijdsbestek van 1 jaar. Als hij langer dan 6 maanden wil blijven of als hij eerder gaat werken of zich gaat vestigen, dan dient hij een verblijfsvergunning aan te vragen.)
  

which is in short: max. of 6 months per 12 months, no payed work allowed. For visa-free nationals the same site indicates it is 90 days per 180 days...
For Curacao, Sint Maarten, it is a bit more complicated, as there is no formal law on this (the rijksvisumwet proposal is controversial), which makes visa policy un-transparent. Tehre is a fundamental difference in opinion between Sint Maarten/Curacao/Aruba and the netherlands wether this is a Kingdom affair (to be arranged by the netherlands) or a country-specific affair (which only can be arranged by the Netherlands if consensus is achieved). However, while things have not changed (and I guess they haven't) the old regulations remain into effect. There are some good embassy sites with recent lists (which are maybe more up to date than teh visa-requirement checker; I'll have a look...) L.tak (talk) 15:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank for the info.

The site states that "Voor een buitenlander (die geen visum nodig heeft) geldt dat hij 90 dagen vrij op Bonaire mag blijven in een periode van 6 maanden". That would tend to indicate that the 90 days is the same for everyone that doesn't need a visa (except Dutch citizens).

it certainly looks that way! but I have the feeling info on this is still a bit conflicting...

Another thing that is a bit unclear is whether the 90 day limit apply to all Caribbean territories as a whole or to each one individually, e.g. if someone could spend 90 days in Aruba then 90 day in Curaçao etc.

this indeed seems to indicate it is for all islands separately (for NON-visa nationals); I am not sure if this is because of unclear writing though... http://www.embajadaholanda.int.ar/Producten_en_Diensten/Burgerzaken/Visa/Visumverlening_Caribische_koninkrijksdelen says that you can now visit all islands on only one visa, which would indicate that they are single visa space and that the 90 day limit applies to the region as a whole. Or maybe that only applies to visa-holders ? Travelbird (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC) replied below (didn't notice your reply before I added that); There seems to a rule including terms of both 30d/90d/6months/1 year. very unclear! L.tak (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

and for visa nationals the US-embassy indicates it is generally maximum stay of 30 days per island; total max 90 days per 12 months; visa validity 6 months (here at the site you mentioned as well...). I will implement at visa policy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in the Caribbean in the next few days... L.tak (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm gathering that the 30 day per island limit applies to to visa holders only (not to others) and it's not mentioned under the US citizen section and also would then contradict the Bonaire info on the other site. But who knows? Why can't people who concoct such complicated regulations spare a thought for us poor Wikipedia editors and make them simpler.... Travelbird (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

That 30 days/island was indeed about the visa-thing. What's weird is that visa free entrance was 30 days for some countries and 90 days for countries with full visa reciprocity. But that policy seems indeed to be fully stopped. ... and am happy I'm not the only one having problems interpreting the "smoke signals" about this from the dutch government(s)... L.tak (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Map_workshop#a_turtle_distribution_map_for_box_turtles_.28Terrapene.29

I think I've fulfilled your map request. Take a look and let me know what you think. Best, Makeemlighter (talk) 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Transgender map

Hello L.tak, I changed, thanks for information. Where are you from? Brazilian Hentzer (talk) 9:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

He Hentzer. Tnx, that was a fast change! Rgds, from the Netherlands! L.tak (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Postage stamps and postal history of Sint Maarten

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Postage stamps and postal history of Sint Maarten, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.ggbook.org/index.php?title=Postage_stamps_and_postal_history_of_Sint_Maarten&action=edit&redlink=1.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear bot, this is the second time a wikipedia mirror was established so fast that it made you think I copied it from there (while they clearly copied it from wikipedia). I will notify your operator! L.tak (talk) 19:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the Netherlands

I have come up with a sub-section concearning the name 'homohuwelijk'. If you like, you can take a look here, and let me/others know what you think of it on the talkpage of SSM in the NLs. Best regards, Robster1983 (talk) 18:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

OPCW

First: thanks for notification. How about Member states of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons? But that would only be correct if organisation members are the same as convention signatories. TAG-A-b10 (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The first time you brought a reasoning for the revert. It was indeed reasonable. But now I moved it to the official name as use on the OPCW site. This is another name an the procedural reasons you bring up do not apply at all. Your objection against the first move was heard. What is your reasoning for objecting the new name now? TAG-A-b10 (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

see talk there. I think the same reasoning goes. Naturally at opcw you will find the opcw-prone text, but they are "just" an (important) implementing organization... L.tak (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Bonaire constitutional referendum, 2010

The article appears to show the correct and up-to-date history of the referendum. What makes you believe it has fallen out-of-date? Is there a new development that I am unaware of?—Kww(talk) 16:10, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

well, it was held eventually in December (although it probably is a new proposal; it has however the same status of not changing anything irreversible steps already had been taken), see here for example and I think that should be a main point of the article... L.tak (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I had missed that: I thought the boycott calls had led people to have the sense to cancel it, and I was off the island at that time. I'll look into what the result was.—Kww(talk) 16:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I've confirmed that the referendum had only a 35% turnout, which rendered it invalid. There's a problem with the Bonaire Reporter's archives from that period, so I've contacted them to fix it so that I have a reliable source.—Kww(talk) 17:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes made.—Kww(talk) 20:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Tnx, that was fast. I might add some things later on as well.... L.tak (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant

Thanks so much for your careful work on this article. The facts reported by the media are still confused; you're doing a great job of keeping our article neutral and reliable at a time when thousands of people are going to be looking at it to understand more about the problems there. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks; I was particularly happy with you bringing up the primary sources though. But it's almost time for me to go to bed however, so this will be it for today.... L.tak (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going offline, too. I've left requests for help at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics‎#Help requested with Japanese reactor articles following the Sendai earthquake
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy‎#Help requested with Japanese reactor articles following the Sendai earthquake

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

GMT vs. JST

That's not what I did. This is what existed before I did anything:

At 0530 GMT, an explosion was heard at the plant.[26] At 1600 GMT, Fox News Channe

The times were labeled as GMT, but they weren't. (The Fox News one was WAY off, apparently a typo.) If they had been labeled JST I would have left them.

As for which time to use, I would strongly recommend GMT as this article is (presumably) read all over the world. People are more likely to know their own time relative to GMT, and journalists generally use GMT for the same reason. The JST (GMT) format is workable, although note GMT does NOT use a colon and DOES use a leading zero when required.) Mixing random (reporting source) time zones makes it unnecessarily difficult to follow the sequence of events. What's needed, whichever you end up using, is a bolded comment, or perhaps a hat note, giving the difference in time between GMT and JMT. And perhaps a link to a Time Zone article for people who don't already know how to convert to their local time. Flatterworld (talk) 15:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly the main point is which time to use. We have 3 options:

• local time (useful if day and night is important)
• GMT (well known reference, the name really is MAIN time)
• time used in the article.

For consistency I would go for local or GMT. For reviewability I would go for the "time used in article". I left indeed GMT in as I thought that was the time used int he article (silly me, with Fox ;-)) and added JST as I thought that was a wikipedia rule (similar to "use Australian English in articles connected to Australia, use Japanese time connected to Japan). Unfortunately wp:MOS (time) does not help out. My preference is still JST (perhaps with a comment on first mention, a hatnote goes a bit far), but I can settle for GMT as long as there is consistency throughout the article (also the part written "yesterday" (in my CET perspective). Shall we raise it on Talk again? or just decide together (we might be the only ones who care)... L.tak (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, following you fully now. Let's do the JST (GMT) format. If I understand correctly with the colons: 14:30 JST (530 GMT)? L.tak (talk) 16:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Almost. :-) 14:30 JST (0530 GMT) - GMT is always four digits. Flatterworld (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Germany deletions

I strongly ask you to improve instead of delete [9]. NuclearEnergy (talk) 22:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

9 out of 10 times I do, but this struck me as so much out of the blue and (unplanned) POV(has the env. movement ever been dead?) that I threw it out... I will have a look tomorrow... L.tak (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukoshima II "venting status"

If Reuters reports the trade ministry saying that Daini 1 was venting to relieve pressure, http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/12/japan-quake-tepco-radiation-idUSTKG00706720110312 and if TEPCO itself says that the venting plans were implemented for units 1-3, why did you assert that no venting had occured? The press release you cite to confirm this, has ambiguous wording, but gives a timeline so long for this, that it could only be the venting process. And the other site is a non neutral pro-nuke site, that doesn't give references for their assertion either. (And given that the building pressures did go down, without any other action described that would explain it, to me it seems hard to understand your assertion. I know that some other reports were confused between the two Fukushima plants, but TEPCO's report seemed quite clear, and referred to both plants.)

TEPCO's release with clearer wording, saying: "At present, we have decided to prepare implementing measures to reduce the pressure of the reactor containment vessel (partial discharge of air containing radioactive materials) in order to fully secure safety. These measures are considered to be implemented in Units 1, 2 and 3 and accordingly, we have reported and/or noticed the government agencies concerned." can be found at http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11031310-e.html

173.206.138.245 (talk) 03:34, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I read nowhere that venting had occured. Although TEPCO said it prepared, it never said it did it. Reuters only describes venting at Daiichi, not at Daini. As for World Nuclear News, I guess you are right the individual editors are pro-nuclear, so I wouldn't trust them in discussions on the wider implications etc, but factually they seem very correct. I will change the text to "no venting has been reported" as that is the only thing I can really see. If we have a report of venting, we can see again. Would that work for you? L.tak (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

So... the Reuters report (see URL above) said venting was confirmed. TEPCO's release said the plans were implemented, which also seems to agree with the Reuters report. It's very difficult to find any mainstream reporting on Daini, since most english speaking media is focused purely on Daichi, and radiation levels measured at local shores, even though rods were exposed at Daini too, so I haven't yet found a third source. How many sources do you need, to feel that it has been reported? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.133.77 (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As for Reuters, it said for Daini

• "TEPCO said it would prepare for the release of pressure from the second nuclear plant, the Fukushima Daini plant, as pressure mounted.", which I interpret as: they did prepare, but did not do it. At Daiichi however they did...

TEPCO said:

• At present, we have decided to prepare implementing measures to reduce

the pressure of the reactor containment vessel (partial discharge of air containing radioactive materials) in order to fully secure safety. These measures are considered to be implemented in Units 1, 2 and 3 and accordingly, we have reported and/or noticed the government agencies concerned.

In other words: yes they prepared, but noone said they did do it after the preparations... I wonder if you are reading that in a different way? or are you refering to different statements? L.tak (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops. The cutn'n'paste I have in my notes for the Reuters page does not match the content currently there. Either I goofed with my notes, or the URL, but either way, I don't have a useable reference, so until I do, it didn't happen. :) Thanks, 173.206.133.77 (talk) 17:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm not losing my mind. (much). What I've found, is from cached releases from the IAEA, saying:

"An earlier version of this release incorrectly described pressure venting actions at Units 1, 2, and 4 at the Fukushima Daini nuclear power plant. Venting did not occur at these units."

I must have seen either the original, incorrect version or something based on it. You're totally right, no venting has been reported without retraction at Daini. 173.206.133.77 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That's what happens with those very fast reports on news facts; they are changed sometimes and also I almost never go back to something I read before.. But that's indeed a better outcome then concluding you made it up ;-). Anyway, thanks for the polite discussions and not getting in some kind of revert war! L.tak (talk) 17:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Fukushima Accident Level

Yes, I first saw this at ZeroHedge.com and spent over half an hour trying to find a better source but could not. However, Asahi is the biggest newspaper in Japan so I assume the statement is valid. And since the date on the source article is 3/26, I believe you are correct that this is "hot from the press," but removed the word "officially" from my initial edit since I couldn't find a primary source yet.

I'm still new to Wikipedia and am still learning the ropes, so hopefully I replied to your comment in the right place. HopelessGleek (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hopelessgleek (talk • contribs)

Boric acid

It is a solid, not a liquid. It is definitely how you would conveniently transport large quantities of boron. I took out your cite needed tag from the picture caption; there is generally little point in adding these to captions as only the photographer can really be sure what the picture depicts; the rest of us have to take it on trust. I suggest taking it to article talk if you still have misgivings. Cheers, --John (talk) 22:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I read (or worse: heard) somewhere that the boric acid would be made in situ. World Nuclear News clearly reports boric acid I just saw, and I regard them -technically- on of the better sources available... Tnx for the note here! L.tak (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

powergrid

Useful image indeed. Do you happen to have a source to add to the powergrid image, so we can use it in the articles as a verified thing? L.tak (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I just found it, I don't have information otherwise. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

That's a pitty... I also notified the uploader at commons (and had considered that could have been you, working under a username at commons, but under ip here...) L.tak (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		for this wonderful example of how to guide and correct without biting. Well done! - Philippe 08:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

EW again

Dear L.tak , I add European Wildlife article again, as you advised me, but it was nominated for speed deletion again. I don´t know why, because I do everything editors told me last year. Thank you very much for your help. Danny Worker — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danny Worker (talk • contribs) 08:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Unsigned? I have my sign Danny Worker here. It is a strange day... You could read here: "...very much for your help. Danny Worker".

Visa Turkish

There is nothing wrong. the issue is settled, this last map is correct. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camoka4 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please explain that a bit? L.tak (talk) 21:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)ü

Today, Russian Federation <> Turkey started visa free regime... so the map change is correct.

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=russia-removes-visa-application-for-turkey-2011-04-15 --88.244.83.220 (talk) 22:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Curaçao synagogue

> ... would it be correct to call the Curacao synagogue the oldest synagogue in the region still in function?

Depends how you define region, there are 3 older synagogues still in function in the region "South America & Caribbean"... See Oldest synagogues in the world#South America and Caribbean 212.64.120.46 (talk) 15:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Your reply

Hi, I just wanted to say sorry for wording my response to your comment on that template talk page rather strongly. Best regards Hekerui (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, happens to the best of us! I replied on the talk page (feel still strong about having onto force-date as leading, or (compromise) having a *) and I would support a proposal from you regarding removing of the "recent debates" section, as there can be found some debate in any country if you look well enough; and it is thus hardly an objective criterion... L.tak (talk) 08:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: Cluster munitions treaty and the Netherlands

Hello L.tak. I reverted your edit because I mistakenly thought that the note regarding the Netherlands included in the United Nations Treaty Collection's page on the Convention included the entire Kingdom (i.e. that "the European part and the Caribbean part [the Islands of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba]" = the Kingdom of the Netherlands). Of course, this is not the case, as you have pointed out. However, I am not sure if Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten are subject to the Convention. While the previously quoted note on the United Nations' Web site excludes 3/4 of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, it is not explicitly stated that the Convention does not apply to them, as Denmark does with the Faeroe Islands and New Zealand does with Tokelau. As such, there is a degree of ambiguity in regards to the status of the Convention in Aruba, Curaçao, and Sint Maarten. That being said, I'm not too sure what to do with the article. Do you have any thoughts? – Zntrip 03:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I figured that could a reason for your revert... I have a ref here in the dutch treaty base (if Aruba etc are involved, their box is filled with an EIF date); and the last parliamentary letter (end 2010) states that implementing legislation (uitvoeringswetgevng) is still required in Sint Maarten etc before it can enter into force (here) for which the government indicates there is currently no expertise on the islands. I hope that helps! L.tak (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that clears it up. I'll fix the article. – Zntrip 07:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

FUR and British passport image

You appear to be correct in your interpretation of FUR not being appropriate in lists and tables generally. I should have delved deeper. Best. RashersTierney (talk) 10:46, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem; was planning anyway to leave you a message with more explanation in the evening (as I didn't have the time during the day...) as I would agree that even while it's right to remove the fair use image; it seems terribly inconsistent with the presence of other similar images (e.g. of several other types of British Passport) which happen to be uploaded under a different license and are thus not challenged. Certainly not something feel like pursuing any further... L.tak (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Atomic Energy Organization of Iran Night Work of Young Persons (Industry) Convention (Revised), 1948 Paid Vacations (Seafarers) Convention (Revised), 1949 (shelved) Protection of Wages Convention, 1949 Objectification Holidays with Pay Convention (Revised), 1970 Night Work of Young Persons (Industry) Convention, 1919 Refugee travel document Weekly Rest (Industry) Convention, 1921 Holidays with Pay Convention, 1936 Amalfian Laws Yamada, Iwate Multan Heavy Water Production Facility LGBT rights in Peru Madhiban Cypriot passport The Abraham Park Kenneth Vine Collection Sunan Maulana Malik Ibrahim Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia

Cleanup Oil exploration in Puntland Rokkasho Reprocessing Plant Prostitution and the law Merge 2010 Kyrgyzstani uprising Treaty of Accession 2003 Affreightment Add Sources Nuclear program of Iran Noordsche Compagnie List of parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention Wikify Intellectual property law in Panama Constitution of Panama Maritime lien Expand Teller–Ulam design Treaty of Peace Between Japan and India Chemical weapon proliferation

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Grímsvötn

Thanks for keeping an eye on my edits to Grímsvötn, most appreciated.--Lidos (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

just some points and commas from my side; thanks for diving into the event! L.tak (talk) 21:40, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Convention on domestic workers

Calmer Waters 06:04, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, L.tak. You have new messages at Talk:List of sovereign states.
Message added Nightw 18:40, 27 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

.ss

IANA might not have updated their website for the .ss domain, but that doesn't mean it is not assigned. You are incorrect. Linux731 (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

all news was directly coming from the ISO announcement. We can not just assume they met at the same day... L.tak (talk) 06:38, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

NNU student

Hello. I am an NNU student! Would you please have a look at my article? xuan kong si NNU-1-xujinyu (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC) —This comment was originally posted on this talk page's associated user page but moved here by Zntrip on 01:21, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Message

Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 07:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing others' posts

I know you were acting in good faith, so I don't mind. But, it's best not to remove posts like that. Best would be to comment beneath it. It's good that it remains on the record, and shows the flow of how things went. There are many editors who would be very upset about. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

He Anna, I realized it was against all talk page rules (your statement certainly didnt pass any threshhold to warrant reversion), but opted to IAR to avoid further confusion for our new editors (and teacher). Good to hear you didn't mind, and I am certainly not planning to make it a habit ;-) L.tak (talk) 08:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Rudong (village)

From a brief search, and confirmed by the author on IRC, there is no village called Rudong in Nantong—they were writing about Rudong County. When I asked them to put the information in Rudong County instead last night (GMT+8), they said something along the lines of "that's my homework." We should probably ask the instructor whether it would be alright for the author to expand Rudong County (which is rather lacking), instead of making a new article. wctaiwan (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to sort this out. The teacher has meanwhile reacted on their talkpage (User_talk:NNU-01-05100118#Your_article_Rudong_.28village.29) and I made a see also link with a hidden statement that it might be the same thing. I'll keep an eye on it! L.tak (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Zang Meng evaluation

Hello dear L.tak ,thank you for reading my article Zhang Meng you say "For the last sentence I'd like to ask you to clarify", i want to explain Peng Yuyan is a famous actor from Taiwan. He doesn't seem to have wikipedia page.I have linked his name with another another website. I hope you continue to pay close to me and give me more advice includse the grammar of the article. Thanks again Nnu-1-05100108 (talk) 13:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

ok, thanks, if you mean he is popular:, say that and nog "won the hearts and minds" (which is very subjective) and provide a reference. For using charaterizations like metropolitan, it is best only to use it if it is a very important characteristic that the person also uses himself (and wiht a source). Otherwise, it is better to leave ti out... Hope this helps! L.tak (talk) 08:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Critical editions

It is book like this - Novum Testamentum Graece. Int Greek editions the Latin codex is cited only in references, in Latin editions it can be used even in the main text (or in references). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

now I get it. I tried to link and rephrase. Is it still correct now? L.tak (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Changzhou comb

The DYK project (nominate) 12:04, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Moved

I've moved the United Nations thing to User:NNU-10-24100128/Model United Nations Association of the institute of foreign languages (and corrected the spelling in the title...). Peridon (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks; I'll see where I can come with the user... L.tak (talk) 21:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your help~

Hi L.tak~ Thanks for your help for my article! Well, I followed your suggestions and I found my article looked more orderly! I'm a newcomer from NNU,China. And I really need someone's help! Could you please tell me where I can find those uneditted entries? Well,our teacher once showed the place but I forgot……Really thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NNU-10-HanRongrong (talk • contribs) 14:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Rongrong. You did do a good job. I am not sure what you mean with unedited entries? A comment on your article might be that it is much like a cook book. The article would be stronger with more information on history and region of use (but I can imagine that is not very easy to come by for such a general subject. Also it is good to remove "according to research", as that is silently assumed already when you state something. Furthermore, I would reduce the health effect a bit (not describe all these cancers; but change to "various types of cancer". Good luck editing. If you have questions, or want me to review another article (or article idea), just let me know! L.tak (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar for you!

Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For providing so much help to me and my students, and shepherding Changzhou comb to its moment of glory! Dank u wel!

Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 02:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Graag gedaan! anyway, I was happy with quite a responsive student in the end; and a good subject... I am really happy to see progress with the students! ;-) L.tak (talk) 09:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment from User:NNU-1-05100104

NNU-1-05100104 (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC) hello L! I want to know if you are willing to come to my page to read my article to help me improve it. need help now ```

I made a review here: Talk:Changzhou China Dinosaur Park, good luck!! L.tak (talk) 15:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Some questions for the wikipedia

• I searched the wikipedia and found there was no article talking about scrambled eggs with tomatoes, which was another Chinese food. Can I create this one? And if you check my article, you can find the last reference and it is talking about scrambled eggs with tomatoes. I think it talks enough about this dish. Can I create the article using my words? But I'm afraid my article is not good as that one.
• I want to fulfill the article Nantong Middle School of Jiangsu Province, because I graduate from there. I find it's just a few words and want to add more things about this school. I wish you give a sight on my editing after a few days~ But now the question is that I have taken lots of photos about my school and can I use these photos to put it into this article?

Really thanks for your kindness. And by the way, my English name is Rose and you can just call me Rose the next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NNU-10-HanRongrong (talk • contribs) 13:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

He Rose (easier to remember anyway), thanks for your reply; I will try to answer your questions. I am not sure about scrambled eggs with tomatoes. It's a dish I also know from the Netherlands (though less spicy I presume, we just call it tomato and egg), but it's such a basic food that it is sometimes hard to write a wikipedia article (with history, culture etc; it will be mainly a cook book). If I may make a suggestion: I hear everyone speaking about AAA, AAAA and AAAAA sites for tourism in China. We have nothing about the subject (we have tourism in China, but not Classification of touristic sites (China), which would be very helpful in understanding the other articles. That might be a good idea?

For the Middle School, you can add some pictures (please! good idea), but not too many. Two is generally enough. For uploading, try this procedure: User_talk:Nnu-10-24100132#How_to_upload_the_picture. Please note that middle schools are sometimes deleted, so external references always help!

Anyway, enjoy wikipedia, for questions, just ask! L.tak (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Comments

Thank you for the comments you left me. Will mention these in class this week. Was away from the computer for a few days. Sorry for the delayed response. Njnu-ban-xueshenghao (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Help needed for a student class project

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project and consider adding your name.

The scope of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Classroom coordination/SFSU Class Project is mainly concerned with new articles.

According to the teacher's instructions, this group of students may not create a lot of new articles, but may instead focus more on improving existing articles.

So, there may be little for us to do in the way the Wikipedia:WikiProject China/NNU Class Project required. The students may, however, still call on us for guidance in other areas. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Add picture of Jinghai Temple

I think the picture you find for Jinghai Temple is good and I'll appreciate it if you add the image to the Jinghai Temple page. Thank you!NNU-12-05090105 (talk) 12:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NNU-12-05090105 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)