User talk:L.tak/Archives/2016 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Kindly stop removing the environmental section with no due cause. The citations are reliable, and should remain there for readers to obtain an unobscured view of proceedings You cited no reason the last time you removed the section, and I would ask you not to do so again, as it will be reinstated — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr achughes (talk • contribs) 08:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

user:Dr archughes, thanks for informing me here on the revert. I will answer on the contents on the talk page (talk:AIIB), but just wanted to let you know I did leave an "edit summary": remove text with no ref on env policy of the bank... there may be causes for concern, but they should be cited from reliable sources (not the bad things, but the bad things directly linked to AIIB. L.tak (talk) 10:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

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

• On the Unified Patent Court page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, L. Tak

I have responded to your comments on the talk page of the Bonaire national football team. I did not previously notice that you had commented their. I appreciate the discussion. Thanks.

--Gri3720 (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi L.tak, you may wish to have a look at this section of the "European Patent Office" article. This might be in your area of expertise (Dutch and international laws). I am notably wondering whether De Volkskrant is generally regarded as a reliable source for such matters. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 20:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. De Volkskrant is one of only a few national newspapers with a large audience (together with NRC, Trouw, Parool, Telegraaf), and those are (with the exception of the latter in many cases) reasonably neutral. The big question is wether the subtleties of this type of judgement are sufficiently taken into account in newspapers in general. They often miss a bit of the context. In this case the facts are presented relatively well, but reason why this was so notable was not indicated. In my personal opinion the judgement was extremely well reasoned; spending a lot of time determine why it had jurisdiction despite the fact that an international organization was involved; basically saying that as the unions could not turn to ILOAT, and EPO had not provided in an alternative appeal mechanism, its fundamental rights were breached. The judge then went on to consider that is should only evaluate if general principles had been breached and thus ordered recognition. I'll see what I can improve in the next few days; and reduce the length a bit... L.tak (talk) 20:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll also try to find other sources. This must have been discussed in other newspapers, etc. --Edcolins (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Would you know how to correct this image File:London_Agreement_(patents).svg? Albania should be in blue, per [1] (I think the law has changed in 2014...). Thanks! --Edcolins (talk) 18:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Done (it's quite easy actually)! Weird, that this data can be changed after ratification! L.tak (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!--Edcolins (talk) 13:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, L.tak. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Bei Bei.
Message added 07:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jim Carter 07:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, L.tak! You reviewed the above DYK nomination, and made suggestions for a better hook, which I agreed with. If you think the nomination is now OK and ready to go, would you mind saying so at the nomination, and adding the {{subst:DYKtick}} check mark? That check mark is what indicates to the DYK clerks that the nomination is approved and ready to be promoted to the next stage of the process. Thanks again for your review and advice. --MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Re:Your recovery:

Again, I'm sure it's unintentional and—especially if you're not American—apologies. If you weren't aware, there's a history there and elsewhere in the Anglosphere that makes a hook solely devoted to "funny-sounding Chinese names" inappropriate. Yes, they are cute names, which is why the Chinese use them, but it's a bit tainted in English when you provide no context. See also why English has no good word for 中国人 anymore. — LlywelynII 00:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

He Lliywelyn, thanks for getting back to me and taking over the review. I am aware that stereotyping should be avoided and every country or language has its own examples of what -seen in context- should be regarded pejorative. There are also clear relations to wikipedia's many biases. I have no problems if such a point is brought up in the discussion. But using the term racism (even while you were adding the AGF assumption it was unintentional which is weird: unintentional racism is a contradictio in terminis for me) is using an extremely strong term that -at least for me- has even stronger connotations. It IMO thus shouldn't be used lightly... L.tak (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

On 28 October 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Referendums in the Netherlands, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Ukraine–EU Association Agreement will be subjected to a referendum in the Netherlands? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Referendums in the Netherlands. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:TrippTrappChair.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)