User talk:Miguel.mateo/Archives/2008/September

Rollback

Thanks for the trust you've expressed by motivating me to get these right. Got them! Cheers, Tomeasy _{T C} 10:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, that is what we are all here for: to help each other. Keep the good work! Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

What did you mean by "thanks on the tip of the infobox, I did not know about the template". I really do not know what you are referring to. Perhaps a mix-up? Tomeasy _{T C} 13:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

About {{user rollback}}, I have it now too, saw it in your pagefor the first time. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I understand, just that I did not see the template being used on your page. Tomeasy _{T C} 14:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, now I see it :-) Tomeasy _{T C} 08:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am very positive I put it, but today doing another change it caught my attention it was not there, maybe I never saved the change. Miguel.mateo (talk) 08:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes more sense to have the whole communication as one thread on one talk page. Funny to see the split in the community, everyone has their own interest ... Tomeasy _{T C} 12:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My personal behaviour is to keep the talk pages in watch list for a while, that is why I took the phrase from yours (after seeing your change) and you commented on the change I did (in other words, you got me copying!) Good that we all agree that no copyrights are allowed in this site :) Honestly, thanks for the phrase, I have been telling myself I need to do it for a while and always forget about it. Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good there's no copyright, otherwise I should be fined for steeling the box from Arnoutf's talk page :-) Tomeasy _{T C} 16:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Only God knows where he stole it from ... :)) Miguel.mateo (talk) 02:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Television, "History": "Did that make sense?"

"This summary ..." blah, blah, blah... made perfect sense. I wrote it (except for the last sentence), and it was entirely draw from History of Television. But it was, and remains, incomplete, despite my original intention to complete it in a timely fashion.

That said, it's not necessary, and I don't have a strong opinion one way or another whether it gets restored. But I do feel (not strongly) that the section should contain some indication that it is incomplete other than that it should be self-evident. I think I originally put that note at the bottom because I didn't want somebody completing it by plagiarizing another page or sources. Of course that assumed I was going to finish what I started, rather than getting sidetracked making other edits.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 02:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there,

What you just explained makes perfect sense to me, I just did not like the note "This is incomplete ..." ... I would suggest instead checking Template:WQA in progress it could help you taking some ideas in doing what you want to do.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 01:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Good tip... Thanks, Rico402 (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Euro Coins/Austria

Am I dreaming, Miguel (???) or did you recently ask me to copy-edit the noted article? I'm as confused as a rooster in the hen's house. If so, give me another chance, Bedankt.--Buster7 (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently did, but I need a good machete to cut all the "floral" issues. But you might want to hold for a while, since my images issues are not solved and it seems it is going to take a while. Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me know when you are ready.--Buster7 (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I begg my pardon for my bad English

I try to have a help in order to write properly... José Fontaine (talk) 15:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I will take a look again and try ot fit it in. Just curious: where are you from? Miguel.mateo (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Belgium...or Wallonia...José Fontaine (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote a more properly sentence about the federal budget of Belgium and the budgets of the Regions and Communities. Have a good day. José Fontaine (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks way better, thank you very much! Miguel.mateo (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Mij Moederland

It is nice to see that you still watch protectively over The Belgium article. I have gotten deeply involved in the USA political articles and don't have time. But...it and your talk are on my watch. Bedankt vriend...--Buster7 (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Not as problem, is a nice article and FA as well, so it does deserve to be watched. I do not understand the trend, but we see currently lots of editors making any sort of non-sense edits, which I revert since they are not sourced. You do see once in a while good faith edits, those I try to help when possible. Anyway, the political artilces for the US may take a lot of time for a lot of people right now I would assume. Good luck, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Codecision procedure Isolationism Commemorative coins of Finland European Union Association Agreement Dangerous and Moving (song) Eurasia European Investment Bank Domenico Trezzini Commemorative coins of Ireland Hungarian euro coins Eco (currency) Multi-speed Europe Unity in diversity Funeral march North Channel (British Isles) Czech euro coins Panhellenic Socialist Movement European Cultural Month Phare

Cleanup Foreign relations of France Krugerrand Indian coinage Merge Life in the European Union Royal Canadian Mint Decimalisation Add Sources Economic and Monetary Union of the European Union Economy of France European Monetary System Wikify Constructions and reconstructions in Sarajevo after war European Community Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde Expand International organization Politics of Europe Dollarization

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 ForteTuba, 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) 23:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Belgium

The edit you made here[1] a few days ago reintroduced some errors. Most (all?) other origianl countries in the Eurozone have normal Eurocoins dated before 2002(e.g. 1 cent euro coins shows older ones from France and the Netherlands). Furthermore, not all Belgian Euro coins have Albert II on them: some circulating commemorative ones ( e.g. the Atomium one) have abother image but are perfectly normal legal tender in all Eurozone countries. Pleae don't revert from an errorfree version to an erroneous version. This may all be moot after the discussion about the section has ended, but I felt it was worth pointing out anyway. Fram (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you read the statement correctly you will understand you're wrong. The vast majority of the countries started to mint their coins in 1999 and so is the year the coins have on them. Also, the commemorative circulation coins although they are supposed to circulate they barely do so, since Belgium mint not that many coins and the vast majority also finish in hands of collectors. But that does not matter, since the statement clearly says that the nomral circulating coins, not the commemorative circulating coins. Also you are removing very valuable information about the Belgian non-circulating coins, including a link to a FL about Belgian euro coins; which for me is unnaceptable. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The statement with your text is ambiguous: "Hence the first euro coins of Belgium have minted the year 1999 instead of 2002 like other countries in the eurozone." Do the other members also have 1999, or do they have 2002 as the first year? In my version, "Hence the first euro coins of Belgium (and the other original members of the eurozone) have minted the year 1999 instead of 2002" no such misunderstanding is possible (or how would you read it differently? All original eurozone countries have euro coins with "1999" as oldest date). As for the second disputed statemnet: "While all Belgian coins designated for circulation show the portrait of King Albert II": no, only the most common Belgisn coins designated for circulation have this characteristic: coins like the Atomium one or the Human Rights Declaration One are also intended for (and used in) normal circulation. That the majority of those end up with collectors is irrelevant: most Belgian stamps also end up with collectors, but they are still intended for normal circulation. Only the other (not €2) commemorative coins are not intended for normal circulation, although even those can nominally be used in Belgium. Fram (talk) 13:14, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

About topic one, what I meant to say is that Belgium first euro coins have 1999 on them, instead of 2002 like other countries of the eurozone and the official year of the euro being introduced as a circulation currency.

About topic two, now I understand your point and I agree, it should be rephrased.

In general I have no issues reducing the section, or changing it, as long as it is correct. Apologies for the reverts from my side, I was just focusing on your first sentence which renders incorrect after your changes. I have no issues changing it again now that we have talked. Once again, apologies for that. Miguel.mateo (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you still claim that other countries' oldest Euro coins have "2002"instead of 1999? This is incorrect, Finland, France, the Netherlands and Spain also have regularly circulating coins with "1999" (or 2000 or 2001) as the year, so that's 5 of the 12 original countries. Anyway, this is truly of very minor importance in the general Belgium article (it is of course important in an aricle about the Euro!). Fram (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If you check my contributions, you will see that my area of interest is the euro as a currency and specifically the coins. It is in the law of some of the euro countries to put the issue date (like Austria) in their coins instead of the minting date (like Belgium). For this reason, as a preparation to start the eurozone, the countries were minting coins for three years; some of them have 2002 in all of their coins, some of them have 1999 to 2002. The following countries have 2002 in their original coins: Austria, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Portugal, San Marino and Vatican. So nine out of the original 15, guess where the majority is ;) Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

But no one counts San Marino, Vatican City, or Monaco anyway, as these are almost exclusively made for the collector's market (although I have encountered Monegasque coins in normal circulation). Anyway, if this info is needed in the article (which I doubt), it should be made clearer that some countries have 1999 and onwards, and some others have 2002 and onwards. Your text seemed to suggest that all countries except Belgium had 2002, while mine incorrectly suggested that all of them started from 1999 on. Fram (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)