User talk:Tomeasy

• If you post a message on my talk page, I will answer it here. So please check back here or put it on watch ...

——————————————— MY TALK PAGE ———————————————

Pretend flag

I was interested to see you restored the pretend world flag from four articles from which I had removed it. Your edit summaries don't make a lot of sense to me; the onus is usually on the person wishing to add or retain something to show why it is needed. What, as this seems to be the stance you are taking, do you think this adds to the articles, from a reader's point of view? It's clear you are aware of the MoS discussion where the consensus is and has always been not to use made-up icons in this way. Thanks, --John (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The world icons are used in the GDP lists for more than two years. If you want to change this, which I do not endorse at the moment, you will have to change consensus first. Pointing at a discussion that you started yesterday on MOS, and that is anywhere but at establishing a consensus according to your wish, does not help.

Start a talk page section at the one of the corresponding articles with the motion that you want to remove the icons. At that place, I will give my arguments for retaining them, not here at my personal talk page. However, I have no strong feeling for it. So, I am open to being convinced. But the arguments shall be recorded at the proper place. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

So your concern is purely procedural and takes no account of our readers' needs or previously established consensus not to use such icons? That seems rather unhelpful. --John (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this must be a misunderstanding. My concern is not just procedural. I like the lists like they were, with the icons. This has been the case for a very long time (more than two years). So, i urge you to show a change of consensus before you remove them. I just added that I am open to your arguments, but please not here. Do it at the relevant article. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The consensus at the MoS page is really clear, and it echoes previous consensus on the subject. As the person wishing to retain these logos, the onus is on you to demonstrate why they need to be kept. Apart from their being there for a while, and your statement that you "like" them, what other reasons are there to keep these logos? You can answer here or at the MoS page; I have both watchlisted. Thanks. --John (talk) 19:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Then let's make sure that Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(icons) is going to clearly indicate that this icon (Template:Country data World) shall not be used in country lists to summarize the total. Otherwise, I am afraid this will remain a recurring issue. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Average Wages page

Hi! I am the creator of the page 'list of countries by average wage.' I noticed you undid a minor correction I added in for UK. The reason why I added these new figures is because the for the UK I needed to divide the figure by number of people working, to be comparable with the other countries. The original source uses number of jobs figure, which makes the wage figure a bit lower than it should be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes.

The article lists average annual wages per capita in PPP, as reported by OECD. The article cites the OECD table as a source for its own table. You cannot change one figure from the transferred table by virtue of your own personal research algorithm. If you did that for all entries, at least your approach would exhibit some consistency, however, it could still be unacceptable due to WP:OR. Please take back your last edit and reinstall the version that is inline with the OECD publication.

I cite from the article: "The calculations were made by the OECD.[1]" Even if you created the article, it should never read The calculations were made by User Lnea001. Tomeasy _{T C} 06:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please be more careful in your edit summaries. I indented Satt 4's remark, because it made it very hard to see to whom you were replying. I had to reply to Satt 4's POV-pushing immediately after his remark. I have replied now to both Izzedine (who asked me to comment) and Satt 4, both of whom are pushing untenable points of view. Mathsci (talk) 07:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you should have been careful. I replied directly to Snowded, inserted my comment at the very bottom of the page and just below Snowded's comment. First Satt shoves himself in between, and then you "clean up", thereby moving me even further away from the comment I was replying to. Please follow Wikipedia customs and do not treat my comments the way you did. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

NATO

Your new map is a great, less distorting, format, but it leaves out a whole lot of countries that have recently joined the alliance - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia etc among them. Can you fix this please? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint. (BTW, Solvenia is not missing but Albania misses.) Of course, the map cannot be displayed as it is. I will try to fix it. However, I see that the mistake was already fixed on 8 December, just that the most recent version does not show up. I hope, i will find the bug. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My EU and NATO map

Hey there. Just noticed you've added some minor changes to my NATO and EU map of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:EU_and_NATO.svg).

Many thanks.

--Joebloggsy (talk) 11:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. Thought it was ours ;-) Tomeasy _{T C} 12:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Taiwan

Please see this version (2009) : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29&action=historysubmit&diff=335200232&oldid=335199384 Taiwan has always been Taiwan ! Polylepsis (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The name of this country on this list is a constant disturbance due to random changes. There has never been a stable version since I watch it (for 2 years or so). That is why I emphasize that we have to comply with existing Wikipedia guidlines. These guidelines were agreed on centrally with consensus.

If you want to change this consensus, do it at the central discussion platform. Since you are not following this approach, but instead keep implementing an unagree version in several articles, while being notified that there is a rule, I have to consider your actions as vandalism (if you continue). I will not refrain from putting it up on the administrators notice board, if necessary. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes

Yes i added the G20| major economy just after ! Polylepsis (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done! Tomeasy _{T C} 19:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Irish Nobel Laureates

Talk:List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country#Ireland

This needs to be clarifeid. Any thoughts? --Gramscis cousin^Talk_Stalk 12:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please find my reply under the link you provided. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Who's the head of government

I have moved your question to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing an answer to question at the reference desk.

However, I think it was well in place at the article's talk page, because the discussion might affect the content of the main page. I was actually almost putting a fact-template behind the statement cited, and I think that at the end of this discussion, we will be able to place a reference whatever the statement will be then. Perhaps you might want to bring my question back to place where I posted it with or without the answers given at the reference desk. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Bonjour,

Je cherche un bilingue allemand-français pour traduire en allemand : l'article sur le wikipédia français : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Emile_Lebacq

Je sais c'est du travail. Il est déjà traduit en Néerlandais (très bien) et en anglais. Ce serait vraiment gentil de le traduire en allemand soit à partir de l'article français soit à partir de l'article en néerlandais. Merci par avance.

Cordialement, Amisdesbrus (talk) 18:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Desole, comme tu dis c'est trop du travail. Je n'ai pas le temps, aussi parce-que je ne suis pas tres interesse au sujet. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Color code Schengen

Did you just mean the UK problem? Or is the light yellow not showing up on the white background. Sorry, I have so little time to do proper work on Wikipedia now I am overlooking a lot.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw your recent changes, and that solves the problem. Thanks. Tomeasy _{T C} 12:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Overdo ?

Hello, why say don`t Overdo it with acronyms on the Germany Page, i was not overdoing it !, i was simply putting the DM Symbol on !!!, The Euro has (€) & EUR, so i thought it was suitable !, Thanks. Craigzomack 23:06, 20 February 2010 (CET)

Well, your edition had the awkward result: "Deutsche Mark (DM) (DEM)." This is a stylistic nightmare and also not really informative, because (unlike €) DM is not a symbol. It is just the abbreviation for Deutsche Mark. The mentioning of this very common abbreviation might, however, be added to the lede of the proper article. Tomeasy _{T C} 23:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The DM Is The Symbol Of The Deutsche Mark, I am German, And Prices Most Commonly Had DM, I Have Magazines That Have DM written In Them As Prices And DEM was Only On Tills etc.. & Was The ISO Code. But I Can Understand What You Mean. Liebe Grüßen Craigzomack 0:29 21 February 2010 (CET)

Fine then. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Eritrea

I was not the first one to post that Eritrea withdrew. Rather, I simply expanded that section. RM (Be my friend)

Means you have no idea whether or not there is evidence for your expansion? Tomeasy _{T C} 17:07, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, all I did was simply improve it. I already saw the info had been posted on another article (I think it was United Nations Security Council Resolution 1907, but I'm not sure.) RM (Be my friend)

You "already saw the info had been posted on another article"? Please: Even there, You were the one who introduced this (arti)fact. I placed a fact template on your statement. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Please Help !

Helo, Tomeasy, there is a problem on the Deutsche Mark Page, under The Official Users Bit, Can You Fix This Please Thanks !, Liebe Grüßen, Craigzomack 22:44, 21 February 2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigzomack (talk • contribs)

What do you mean? Tomeasy _{T C} 21:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I have reverted the chaos you created. Please undo your edits yourself next time you find out that you screwed things up. No need to call others to clean up for you.

Off the record: Above you said, you were German, but the German you write is always grammatically wrong. How come? Tomeasy _{T C} 22:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tomeasy, i`m still quite new to wikipedia !, my germans not great, i have never lived in germany, my parents are german, i am learning it German, i live in the u.k, but i am moving to Germany soon !, Craigzomack, 23:11, 21 February 2010 (CET)

That's OK then. Thanks for explaining. You can always undo edits, e.g., when you the "history" button on top of a page. Then you select, the edit you want to undo. If you do so, please do not forget to add a clear comment explaining your edit in the field below the editor. Liebe Grüße! Tomeasy _{T C} 07:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

Apologies! I didn't mean to cause a hassle on the GDP pages with WP:NC. Another user was switching around the Taiwan entry, and I felt it necessary to revert (in compliance with what had been decided before, between yourself and a few others). In the process, I happened to stumble on some similar situations that I was aware of—although I hadn't realised that the Macedonian policy had changed (is that a recent thing?). With Taiwan, I'd personally prefer it the other way around because it refers to the state, not the island, and keep the nickname in the parentheses; but it's not so big of a deal that I'd keep pushing it. Night w (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message.

As concerns the Taiwan issue, I see it the same way as you do. My change there was rather cosmetic, so that we use the exact form that is mentioned at WP:NC-TW. Also, I find that Republic of China (Taiwan) is - if at least stylistically - better than China, Republic of (Taiwan), which is (if I remember correctly) what you wrote. Nevertheless, content wise we are on the same page. Thanks for your help, so that listings which clearly violate the policy (e.g., simply Taiwan) are reverted. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Leonid Hurwicz

Leonid Hurwicz. His nationality of origin was Polish. Please see English cv on wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonid_Hurwicz Hurwicz shared the 2007 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. You edited on March 28, 2010 at 18:29 and he should be in Polish and American Nobel Prize winners. Best wishes.

Please sign your posts with 4 tildes ~~~~.

I assume you are referring to the article List of Nobel laureates by country. When you read the lead section of this article, you will see that this list does not consider nationalities. It simply reproduces the countries that are mentioned by the Nobel Committee on its website [1].

As per your post, I check the details for Leonid Hurwicz. The Nobel Committee reports his awarded is affiliated with the US. They also mention his birth place Moscow, Russia. No mention of Poland - sorry. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Hungarian Nobel

Here is a template about the Hungarian Nobel laureates. Some of them was born outside of nowdays Hungary, some of them had only Hungarian ancestors, but now we Hungarians think them to ourselves.

--Eino81 (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"but now we Hungarians think them to ourselves."

Wikipedia is not a platform for Hungarian POV, and also does not consider itself a reliable source. Please note that the article List of Nobel laureates by country does not take into account what some of us may consider the nationality of a laureate. This list reports exclusively the information published by the Nobel committee. Please read the lead section of this article to learn more. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Italy

Hi Tomeasy, noticed your comments at the Germany page and thought that you know how to reach high standards. I am currently trying to improve the quality of the Italy article, which has many problems, including editors with poor understanding of guidelines and English. Would you mind taking a quick look and suggesting some steps for improvement? I would be grateful for any help, Brutal Deluxe (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I will try to find some time, probably not any time soon though. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for considering it, I'm sure a quick glance is all you will need to assess it.Brutal Deluxe (talk) 10:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Motto of the Day

Hi there, Tomeasy! Thought you might be interested in Motto of the Day, a collaborative (and totally voluntary) effort by a group of Wikipedians to create original, inspirational mottos. Have a good motto idea? Share it here, comment on some of the mottos there or just pass this message onto your friends.

MOTD Needs Your Help!

Delivered By –pjoef (talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Question

At what point is it normally acceptable to nominate a user at WP:RFCUSER?

The case you are referring to certainly qualifies to make such a request. After all, you would just be asking for others to take a look and comment. However, I do not favor these kind of procedures, even though I was insulted myself here. It would just deviate from the topic being discussed. This user, from the beginning, is trying to bring discussion to a personal level, because his arguments on the case are limited. My approach would rather be to always state briefly that we do not accept such insults and further ignore the disruptive statements and, for the larger part, keep dealing with the topic at hand.

But this is just my personal approach, because I prefer to discuss topics rather than bad behavior of IPs. If you want to take the stance that personal attacks have no place on Wikipedia (which is policy) and you think that this must be enforced, then you have a (different but) valid position, too. After all, people have been blocked for less reasons. Tomeasy _{T C} 11:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I logged a nomination on Wikiquette alerts instead. Thanks for your advice. Night w (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, i put it on watch. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Deographics at Germany

Tomeasy, I disagree with your choice to change my writing. The demographic transition model belongs where I put it. As to the concern about what the demographic transition model is, I left a link to a website and another page on wikipedia. Thanks, Gabithefirst —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabithefirst (talk • contribs) 19:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do not forget to sign your talk page comments with four tildes.

I just did the usual copy edit. Here's what you did, and here's what I made out of it. As you can see, I retained your wiki-link and the external reference. Actually, I just provided a lot of extra information to the subject and the reference. I moved your addition to the relevant section, because it has no place in the lead section whose purpose it is to summarize the most notable things of the article's sections. The topic you introduced, however, was not mentioned in any section yet.

If you still have questions, please start a talk page section at the article's talk page rather than talking here, because this discussion is related to the article's content and thus of interest to other users as well. Tomeasy _{T C} 19:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Europe

Dear Tomeasy, thank you for providing credible references for the European border definition part in the article Europe. I still had to make a minor change. As a reply to your question, i have to state that Kuma-Manych Depression Division is one of many ways of delining border of the Europe in Caucasus, More than that it is lesser accepted in today's world and used only/mostly in Russia. If we keep that definition in the main article, then, for the sake of fairness, all other definitions should also be mentioned next/previous to it. That will take too much space and might not be so interesting for the reader. Therefore, i made a relevant link to other Wiki article describing all possible Borders, so reader can judge herself/himself. All the sources are provided there, if u need more let me know. Hope i managed to provide explanation u were demanding. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickniko (talk • contribs) 10:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I am lost. I do not understand what you are referring to. Could you please provide a diff link with my original edit and one for your change? So, I know what you mean. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

think

do u think we should add something abot political tension in holland at the moment in netherlands article? Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

There is an election tomorrow. The results will certainly change the content of besaid article. Tomeasy _{T C} 10:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest 2010

[2] I've unified the tables like you asked. --87.79.50.188 (talk) 15:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think, we should use them now. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Troll, me?

In what way does this fall within trolling? --Redrose64 (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

In what way was it meant to be a constructive contribution to improve the article? Tomeasy _{T C} 20:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It was supposed to be a humorous comment on your removal of all the zeroes (ie, null points), of which there were quite a lot on the UK row. It may well have been a violation of WP:TALKNO; but per WP:TPOC you should have discussed it with me before removing my comment. I still don't see what part of WP:TROLL I fell into. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

That's what I understood: you were trying to be funny. You mention yourself evidence why this was inappropriate. So, why are you surprised your comment has been removed? Your argument now is that you expected me to explain you what you apparently knew already. Well, may I at least consider this now trolling? My action was curt, because I did not want too loose much time removing nonsense. I see that I achieved the opposite. Let's do more constructive stuff now, there's plenty of things to do. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:04, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

• Calling an edit "trolling" is not the same as calling another editor a "troll". Redrose64, your edit was trolling to an extent. Not harmful, not helpful, just a little humorous trolling. No need to take personal offense at that particular fun edit's removal by one of the serious participants in that discussion. Just my 2 cents. --87.79.176.70 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

West Germany

Re this edit—the issue is being discussed on the talk page if you are interested. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Tomeasy _{T C} 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this edit should be undone. see 1934 World Cup article, for which flags were used. 88.77.145.21 (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I rather think that we should change the flags also at the 1934 FIFA World Cup article. I will start a discussion there, which you may join. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

German flag at 1934 World Cup

It seems generally agreed, across talk pages at various articles, that there were two flags in use to represent Germany in the period between the rise of the Nazis in 1933 and the demise of Hindenburg in 1935. It seems equally clear that, of these two flags, the one that FIFA used to represent Germany in the event, as evidenced by the poster to which you have been referred more than once, was the empire flag. Your constant reversion to the Nazi flag on articles related to the 1934 World Cup seems therefore to be contrary to both evidence and consensus, and therefore to be disruptive and potentially pointy. Please either provide evidence specifically related to the manner in which FIFA indicated Germany at the 1934 tournament to justify these edits, or desist and revert your disruptive editing. Flags represent a country, not its governing regime, unless that regime has entirely replaced the non-party specific insignia (as obviously was the case 1935-45). Kevin McE (talk) 06:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This is related to the content of 1934 FIFA World Cup. Why don't you post their, so that everybody interested in your topic can enjoy your arguments? I replied there. BTW, I do not see where I was referred to a poster more than once. Perhaps you show this poster at the corresponding talk page section. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is better to warn you that your edits are becoming disruptive, and that you are acting against consensus and evidence, in the relative privacy of your talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I did not edit any article that concerns this topic since you started here. I do not understand why is your tone so tensed and getting even more tensed? Please cool down. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

reliability of Cordis source

Hi Tom, I think you stumbled on something of relevance when you reflected on the reliability of the cordis-pdf in the EU article. I think this topic needs some further discussion so I opened a thread at the EU talk page. (Personally I will be of little help in that discussion as I am professionally struggling with Cordis as a researcher so I am not very neutral here.) Cheers Arnoutf (talk) 07:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, one may say that you are more qualified to say something about CORDIS than probably anyone else. I have to admit that I knew nothing of it before you explained. I was suspicious only, because the document does not reveal its authors or funding source. You, at least, understood from the url who's behind. Tomeasy _{T C} 16:14, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Norway and Netherlands

Hi, I wasn't proving points. There isn't a good reason why Netherlands and Norway are different to the other constitional monarchy/democracies. I just happened to notice those when browsing. Actually you were assuming I was not acting in good faith. I suggest you revert your reverts unless you can come up with a better reason than you saw I did something and assumed the worse? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

One more point - you also seem to be abusing the rollback tool, since what I did certainly was not vandalism and I resent the allegation that it was. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 21:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I was not using the rollback tool here. You can see that from the fact that I provided a specific edit summary.

You are currently involved in a discussion here, where you have a certain opinion (that actually I do share). However, I consider it a bad style to visit all other articles to which the topic applies and edit them to match your taste, as long as the point is still disputed in the discussion where you are active. Make your changes once you have achieved consensus, not before. Tomeasy _{T C} 21:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It was nothing to do with my "taste". The infobox summary for government type for Netherlands is inconsistent with all the other constitional monarchical/democratic states and is also innacurate. I just happened to notice that as a result of being involved in the discussion you refer to, as I was browsing the other states to see what they say by way of comparison. So the Netherlands one is clearly wrong and it is NOT vandalism and NOT some whim to correct it. You need to distinguish between a useful edit and rushing to judgement on the basis of a discussion you are reading that someone is acting in good faith. The Norway one is a finer point. The other-language versions of those articles also need examining as some tally with my point. On the rollback thing - doesn't this [[3]] say you have used rollback? Mine does and says "rollback vandal" on it. Also very insulting edit comments. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. And where the heck do you see "rollback vandal"?

Instead of taste you may say Wikiquette. It is frowned upon editing the main page of an article while discussion of the very topic is ongoing. In your case, it is just a tiny bit more complicated (or hidden), as the content your were changing on the Netherlands and Norway article is under discussion at the UK article.

As to the Netherlands article, I did reply there because this content-related discussion will be of interest to the editors there, too. Just for the record, I disagree completely with your claim that the Dutch infobox was "clearly wrong". Tomeasy _{T C} 22:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, unfortunately, you are mistaken. The discussion at that article was actually nothing to do with the Netherlands edit. That was simply a mistake I spotted. The UK's status as a democracy is irrelevant. Perhaps the POV is at your end - do you disagree that the Netherlands is a Parliamentary democracy? If not, why do you not think it is a mistake to list this when all the other constitutional monarchy articles for Western Europe do? Is the Netherlands special in some way? Please explain. Because if it's not about this, then perhaps it's about who owns the Netherlands article? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it clearly wrong to label the Netherlands as a "Constitutional Monarchy"? I am not saying it is not a parliamentary democracy as well, I am just objecting that you corrected some obvious mistake. Anyway, this should be discussed here. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, will discuss there. In the meantime, this is the policy you need to understand and stop making rude remarks in your edit summaries implying bad faith and edit-warring. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Which edit summary did you find rude? Tomeasy _{T C} 22:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I already showed you the diff above. Your edit comment was "please do not use this article to prove a point that you are discussing at Talk:UK)". This implies (1) that I am making edits to point-score (a clear assumption of bad faith) and (2) that I was just "using" the article at Netherlands - this is nonsense, I was correcting what I saw as a gap or mistake in the infobox. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 22:53, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This was rude? please do not use this article to prove a point that you are discussing at Talk:UK Sorry then, I will try to be more careful with you in the future. Tomeasy _{T C} 08:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It assumes bad faith. Stop pretending it doesn't. It isn't just me you need to be more careful with, it's general - you assumed bad faith on my part. Obviously you aren't prepared to apologise. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are taking part at the discussion on Talk:UK whether or not the country should be described as a "Parliamentary democracy". Your opinion is that it should. Your opinion is further that all EU monarchies are equal in this respect. Next, you add to the Netherlands infobox "Parliamentary democracy" in front of "Constitutional Monarchy". Seeing this, has nothing to do with bad faith, it is a fact: you made a change to one article which you knew was currently disputed at another. This is against Wikipedia editing rules (BRD) and for that you have been reverted. Perhaps your constant insistence on my bad faith can rather be judged as such, or your accusation that I abuse rollback rights, or your constant labeling of my comments as nonsense. Please stop it, I really had enough. Tomeasy _{T C} 23:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Nobel laureates by country

I saw you are the main contributor of this article and I want to ask your opinion regarding some problems. The question is: in the list of what country should be listed...

• ... the laureats born in in today extinct countries (USSR, Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia) or in territories that belonged to other states during their lifetime?
• ... the laureats that were born somewhere and emigrated when being young or very young from their homeland, becoming famous elsewhere (there are some persons listed 2 times}?
• ... the laureats born in areas that are today in young countries that did not exist when the person was born or awarded(e.g. Slovenia, Slovakia, Azerbaidjan)

Some examples:

• Lev Davidovich Landau - born in Baku, Russian Emire (today Azerbaidjan) (listed here at both Russia list and Azerbaidjan list) - on Britannica he is considered "Russian psyhicist" (Azerbaidjan became independent in 1991)
• Fritz Pregl - born in Ljubliana, Austria, (now Slovenia), studied at Graz University (Austria) (listed here at both Austria list and Slovenia list (Slovenia declared its independence in 1991 more than 60 yrs after the persons's death)
• Bertha von Suttner - born in Prague, Austria, now Czecch Republic (died in 1914, 79 yrs before Czech Rep first declared its independence) (also listed twice in the list) (YellowFF0 (talk) 06:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC))

These are indeed difficult questions leadinng to instability of the article. There has been a long and constructive discussion between another editor and me on the talk page of that article. We achieved consensus.

When this took place, the Nobel website was in a different shape than today. It mentioned for every laureate a country to which the award was affiliated, and to some it also mentioned the birh place. This was very helpful to maintain our list, because it was a good rationae to give authority to the Nobel website and just reproduce their rulings. So, i had good reasons to revert when somebody made an edit just accoring to their feeling.

Unfortunately, today the situation is different. The Nobel website does not specify the countries anymore. This leads to the situation that you might argue over every award in detial and in a different way with different sources. This would be cost me too much energy, and I mentioned this on the article's talk page after the Nobel website changed. So, I content myself with edits that are much easier to judge (e.g., deleting Pachauri who is not a laureate contrary to common believe).

Regarding you questions, I take the following positions. The birth place is well-known for almost all laureates and usually not contentious. The only thing commonly disputed is the country that should be affiliated to the place. I think that we should just forget which country that was when they were born, or when they were awarded, and we should just care for which country this place is today. If we agree on such a rule, we are fine and it would be possible to maintain the site. Anything else leads to unclear rule subject to peoples own interpretations.

This rule implemented would mean for your cases: Suttner - Czech Republic; Pregel - Slovenia; Landau - Azerbaijan.

Note that this rule is designed for listings due to birth place only. These are the listings using the asterisk (*). The normal listings without asterisk are yet another question.

What do you think? Perhaps, we should carry a discussion about the article to its talk page. Tomeasy _{T C} 07:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I answered on the article talk page (YellowFF0 (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC))