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 equal wp ps for the same data but only have 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 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