User talk:Danlaycock

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Danlaycock.

This is Danlaycock's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8: 31 days

Committed identity: 390d0e40969a8b041b178b5ada625d157b62befec186507791b21b1e23357b7f2a25328becf9e6f480adc0fe158b5efbe063ce697c938e7c677da38babe87f00 is a SHA-512 commitment to this user's real-life identity.

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Naismith Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TSN.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria

You really need to participate in the talk page discussion but tbh I don't see that the changes you want to make are an improvement. In any event, procedure requires that you do not continue to edit the section while it is being discussed under WP:BRD. So you don't have the 3RR protection for the edits that you should really not be making. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have participated in the discussions?

The editor recently added some dubious content, and I've tried to find a compromise way to improve on it to make it acceptable rather than fully reverting their changes outright. Per BRD it is up to the editor that wants to add content to get consensus for the changes, not those who are removing the additions. I'm happy to fully revert to the version prior to their recent contested additions, while discussion takes place to form a consensus on how to revise the text.

My main objection is that the user is claiming definitively that the Algeria was part of the EEC until 1976, when that is debatable at best. I think my wording in this change fairly reflects that, by focusing on highlighting the legal ambiguity and not commenting on whether they were or were not members.[1] I've also made a number of typo and grammar fixes.

@JMF: I'd appreciate any feedback on what part of these changes you think are not an improvement?

I'm happy to try to find a consensus text that reflects what the sources actually say. TDL (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is more about process than detail. Once a BRD has been opened, you have to use that forum to argue the case for change. But since you ask:

The implications of Algeria's independence on its relationship with the EEC was legally unresolved, Your inference. Which is probably true, but is uncited. But see #3, that quote would seem to support your argument but it must be made in the BRD discussion if it is to succeed. Otherwise you will be correct but ruled out of order.
This status persisted until 1976 v Thus, Algeria remained active in the European Economic Community. I agree with your version; the word 'active' is to be removed. (The word "thus" is rather questionable, given the treatment of Algerian wine.)
quote="Even after independence in 1962, Algeria remained part of the community, although its ongoing inclusion was a matter of debate." This is a critical quotation and it is essential that it be reinstated.
bilateral treaty v new treaty: cosmetic.

So I urge you to raise these points in the BRD discussion: I will certainly insist on #3 being reinstated. That in turn supports #1, albeit less assertively (either way). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:36, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have already raised all of these points on the talk page. It looks like you had missed that, but I see that you have now responded there in support of these changes.

On point 1, I'm not quite sure what your concerns is. As you highlight in your comment, this is supported by the cited quote in point 3. Happy to discuss alternative phrasing.

Unfortunately it appears that the editor is simply here to promote a particular fringe view, rather that work constructively to make the text reflect what the sources actually say.

Legitimate concerns have been raised by multiple editors with the text they are proposing to add, which has been met with unilateral edit warring to force the changes into the article without consensus, walls of text which don't address the substance of the concerns raised and just repeat the same talking points, and uncivil attacks. TDL (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timestamping is important

Please sign your posts using four tildes. If you want "TLD" to bed displayed instead of Danlaycock, see WP:CUSTOMSIG. Timestamping is important because not all discussions have a single thread. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes I've been editing Wikipedia for 20 years so am aware of how to sign my posts. Unfortunately it looks like I made a typo and only included WP:3TILDES, which led the wiki software to substitute an untimestamped signature. TDL (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]