"

@Drmies: First of all I want to appoligy for my too hasty re-inclusion of the content into the article, which I by the way only did because of the presumption of having satisfied all fellow editors call for adding a direct reference for the ""Reference values in the table"", which previously indeed lacked a reference. In the back-mirror, I was a little too hasty to re-instate and should of course instead first have uploaded the content to my sandbox, and then asked for the talkpage approval before uploading it again. Please however consider, that all my actions were only excecuted in good faith. Subsequently I was surprised to find a continued resistance about the content from fellow editors here at the talkpage. Based on those grounds, I of course accept your removal of the content from the article, and have just created a  for the subsequent debate we shall now still continue to have, about the appropriateness (which I still claim) to include a monthly data table in the article.

In regards of your claim that my most recent version of the uploaded disputed material is still WP:OR, I will request you to return with a reply why you think this is so, and what we in your opinion need to do in order for the content to satisfy the policy. As far as I know, we are allowed at Wikipedia to create our own wikitables to display fully referenced data, which it indeed was in my latest version of the data table. I admit at first to have uploaded unsourced ""Monthly reference value data"" that strived against WP:OR, which was something I only did as part of a process, in the hope for other editors (or myself) at a later stage being able to find direct sources for those values. Yesterday, I indeed managed to find a direct source for these monthly values published by the Polish Ministry of Finance. Please take into consideration, that we do not have 2 equal WP:PS for the same data but only have 1 (The Polish source), as I have managed to proof here at the talkpage that the Latvian source do not qualify for the purpose, as it did not strictly follow the published official ""ECB evaluation method"" (which it by the way funny enough also never claimed it did) - but instead has adopted its own data approach. Please also consider, that my uploaded data table with monthly data in principle can stand alone, even without that we mention the debated report by the ""Latvian Central Bank"", as I have prooved here at the talkpage they utilised another data approach than the official ""ECB method"". After I now have ellaborated on the details, do you then have a different opinion whether or not my most recent version of the uploaded material still shall be classified as WP:OR?

The reason why I think it is so important that we in the Latvian article display monthly convergence values for each month for the past year, and why inclusion of this material shall not be disquallified as per WP:NOTSTATS, is because the uploaded monthly data (for the most recent 12 months) reflect how the official ""ECB method"" works, as a graphical illustration which help casual readers to grasp that all candidate countrys have been granted the right by EU to apply ECB for conducting a monthly convergence check at each month during the year (if they belief to have met all criteria). Unfortunately ECB do not automatically publish monthly convergency reports during the year (because in that case we would obviously have used their direct data for the table instead). But as I already provided evidense for, the Polish Ministry are publishing monthly reports where they check for monthly convergence and calculate the ECB reference value limits based on the official ""ECB method"" (which proofs this is notable stuff), and their findings in the Polish context has also been covered over at the Polish wikipedia (although by a much lower quality than my attempt). Taking this into consideration, will you then still argue it is inappropriate we do the same here at the English wikipedia for the Latvian article (in the version showcased by my )?   

Personal reply to TDL (not related to the article itself)
@TDL: In the past four months there have now been a few times, where you and I clashed about the WP:OR policy. In those cases where we have clashed, I admit to have applied a backwords approach, where I started out to state the facts as I knew it was the WP:TRUTH. I have always seen such uploads as part of a process, where we were continously working to find sources and improve the articles. So my uploads were not ment to be unsourced forever, but something where it could be possible for me (or another editor) at a later stage to return and add the needed