Jo Hyun-jae

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

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)

Scottish independence

Miguel, late last night you reverted the changes that I made to the article on Scottish Independence. I am really vexxed that you felt the need to do this because I was editing provocative vandalism in the article and I clearly stated my actions in the Edit Summary!

What was written on this article was politically antagonistic material that can - and does - cause offence. It has blatantly been written by a member of a Scottish seperatist movement and has been done so in provocation of those who do not share similar political bias.

I suggest therefore that you revert your actions and allow for these changes to occur. (Rapsodia (talk) 11:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC))

Rapsodia, you removed requests for facts and citations, if you have the reference then add them to the article and you can remove the tags. If you have questions about how to create a reference, just pick one section of the article and we can work it together; I have no issues helping you to get the article better if those are your intentions. Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you actually work for Wikipedia or do you just sit at your computer all day looking to cause offense to other Wikipedia users?... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapsodia (talk • contribs) 14:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Neither, I would suggest you listen and try to understand what you're doing wrong. We all make mistakes at the beginning in Wikipedia, but listening to others is what makes us better. Again, if you feel you're right there are better ways to fix the issue. Best regards, Miguel.mateo (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no doubt that you are causing offense since you deem it appropriate and are in agreement that this offensive material should continue to exist on this article. It is not a question of finding a better solution, it is about standards! Double Standards! It is fine for you to revert the provocative political vandalism that I cut, however, I do not see you going through the rest of the article that is in agreement with Scottish independence and marking the vast amounts of disputed "facts" there. You clearly therefore do not care that you are causing offense to fellow users such as myself.

If you feel that the rest of the article is 'provocative' (I am not sure this is the right word but ...) feel free to add {{fact}} tags where ever you feel that the article requires a citation. This conversation, in this talk page is also useless: bring this point to the talk page of the article. I am very interested in how the "Scottish Independence" thing finishes, but I am completely neutral to it; I do not even live in the Eurozone. You will see me fighting vandalisms like the one you did in any article, regardless of what I think is right or wrong.

I think I have given you enough explanation of what needs to be done to put the article in a good state, if you are a serious editor you will take my advice (and my help if needed). Again, continuing that conversation here has no benefit.

And finally, always use ~~~~ when finishing your own comments in a talk page, that will create your signature. Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, well I am asking you for your help now. Since you claim to be such a Messiah of knowledge in Wikipedia editing, please remove the offensive content that I speak of which are the petty and pedantic disputed fact markers in the opposition section of the article. Until you do that, you are being of no help whatsoever. Rapsodia (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am just a simpler user with a bit over one year experience using Wikipedia, nothing special. You're asking me to do something you can do yourself, this is not how this is going to work. Find the references, fix the article, nobody will question that if your sources are accurate and reliable. Until then you will be considered a vandal if you continue doing what you just did. If you need HELP on HOW to place a reference in the article, then I can help you. Miguel.mateo (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

But I have done this myself - several times - but people like you stop it from being authorised, even when the reason is entirely legitimate!! I have used sources here in the past and people have taken them out because they cannot handle the truth of the matter. Rapsodia (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of interest, how does one know exactly when an article has been edited and by whom?...Rapsodia (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Give reliable sources and nobody will question that; if they do, bring the conversation to the talk page of the article. You removed requests for references, that is no good unless you provide the reference.

About your second question, check the history tab on top of any page, that will give you the list of changes and the editors. If you are uncertain about an editor, click on the name and then on the left menu check "contributions"; this will tell you the recent contributions of that particular editor to all articles he/she has contributed to.

Again, if you're serious about Scottish independence, pick one paragraph that you do not like and I will help you to work it out, but you have to find the references. I hope this helps, Miguel.mateo (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer to my question on how to view and certain alter changes made. I can assure you that I am going to play this game too. Rapsodia (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Urban vs Lojka

Hey Miguel, I've added the appropriate references for Lojka. German Wikipedia has a lot about Lojka too but I can't read German. Cheers! http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_Lojka

Perhaps a redirect could be added from Lojka to Loyka or vice-versa. 203.196.81.139 (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks much better now, thanks. You should get an account by the way. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

About coins

Do you collect €2 commemorative coins? (Just asking because there is now a campaign in Finland where you can preorder the newest coin that celebrates the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the face value (+delivery). There will 1 500 000 coins made, but only a limited amount is available without going through the standard circulation first, for citizens I guess. The orders have to be placed before 24 October.) hydrox (talk) 23:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I have all €2 commemorative coins, including Pricess Kelly of Monaco 2007, this year I am missing Finland, Italy and Vatican City, since they are not released. The Finnish coin is in my opinion one of the most beatiful coins ever minted. However, I do not live in Europe, and getting these coins is really difficult for me :( Miguel.mateo (talk) 03:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Miguel, I can order this Finnish coin for you! It only costs the face value + delivery + the funds transfer costs (1€ by PayPal). The delivery would be the most expensive part - 3.90€ to my address in Finland and from here on to Tokyo, depending on the type of the letter - uninsured priority letters start from 0.80€. Please contact my by email wp.3.kakoosi@spamgourmet.com if you are interested. More information about this coin (in Finnish only) is available at this address https://www.2euroa.fi/. We can also negotiate an exchange if you will. hydrox (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)