Jump to content

User talk:Eliko

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Muzammil01 (talk | contribs) at 18:39, 11 February 2008 (→‎Ok). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1

Barnstar

The Current (economical) Events Barnstar
Eliko, thank you for your long lasting efforts of improving the First World article by including the correct countries and supporting your reasons with strong facts based on current economical events, so I award you this, the Current and Economical Events barnstar. --Seong0980 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


If you're Korean - please tell me how you say "thanks" in Korean. Please write it in both english letters and korean letters.
Thanks.
Eliko 08:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

고마워 Go Mar Wo --Seong0980 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm grateful  !!! 고마워
Eliko 16:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


You asked me some time ago how New Ash Green got its name.


I have always assumed, that since the village of Ash is just next door, either:

a. part of the current site of New Ash Green used to be called Ash Green, or b. that it was styled as a new version of Ash's village green, real or imagined. There are many places in Ash that might be referred to as the village green; I don't remember if any of them actually were. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Psmither 11:42, 12 Juky 2007 (UTC).

Thank you. Eliko 20:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Before you revert List of countries by GDP (PPP) Per capita I have proof that Saudi Arabia's GDP Per Capita is $16,687 and i have changed it on the article. And I have rounded it to the neares 100 as usuall.

Here is the Link/Source

http://www.international.gc.ca/world/embassies/factsheets/saudi%20arabia-FS-en.pdf

Hello Mr. Faisal Saddiq!
The source you've shown is absolutely legitimate, but it doesn't reflect CIA table!
Remember: as it has been indicated in the article itself, the table in the right side - is intended to reflect CIA data, according to which Saudi Arabia's GDP (ppp) per capita was 13,600$ in 2006.
By the way: in the history page - I mistakenly wrote "IMF" but it should have been written: "CIA".
Of course, you are welcome to add a third table, which may reflect data from other sources (including your source), and in this case - you would have to indicate in the article - which sources your third table will be based on.
Eliko 20:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Eliko

I have some more other questions:

Thank You Eliko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Sorry to bother again, but will the CIA have the 2007 est of ppp per capita in January 2008 or a bit later than Jan.

Do You think Saudi Arabia's life expectancy is 72 years or 75 years? I think 75 because for the 2005 cencus it was 74 years on planning.gov.sa?

The UN are publishing a new HDI list on November 27 2007. Do You think Saudi Arabia's HDI is going to go down or up?

Sorry I know I'm being a little stupid, but I'm just obsessed with Saudi Arabia!

Thank You Eliko

Muzammil01 17:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. I think it will be in January, but not later than February.
  2. The next HDI of Saudi Arabia is going to be based on the life expectancy rate of 2005 - as was measured by the UNDP; and this figure was - neither 75 nor 72 - but...73. Other institutions have other figures, but none of them will be taken into account in measuring the HDI.
  3. Up of course, since Saudi Arabia had a very nice increase in all three parameters of which the total HDI consists.
  4. The big question still left is whether the next HDI report will eventually classify Saudi Arabia as a high HDI country. Let's wait...
  5. Have a wonderful day, Faisal, wara7mat ALLAH wabarakato.
Eliko 16:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank You so much for all this information. I hope you don't mind me asking all these questions. So this will mean that Saudi Arabia's life expectancy will be 75 or more by 2007! if it's going one year up every year, which it has been doing.

Thank You again

Muzammil01 10:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source

Please may I have the link to the life expectancy of Saudi Arabia said to be 73 for 2005?

Thanks

Muzammil01 16:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Faisal. All of 2005 figures on which the new HDI will be based - were published in World Development Indicators 2007. This publication is available in a CD ROM only, not in the web. I'm sure you'll be able to find that CD disk in academic libraries throughout the world including the country in which you live.
Have a wonderful day and take care.
Eliko 07:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Cool so this does mean that the UN has said that saudi arabia's life expectancy for 2005 is 73, and this number will be on the new HDI list this month?

Anyway I hope Saudi Arabia has reached around 0.8

Mauritius is fully 0.8 so Saudi Arabia must beat it. Lol.

Thanks

Muzammil01 08:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to your first question - The answer is: YES.
As to your "hopes" (lol): we have just 3-4 weeks to wait, and we'd better be patient (lol)...
Take care, and have Ra7matu ALLAH wabarakato.
Eliko 09:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol

Are You Muslim? (lol) I'm just asking because you say Ra7matu Allah Wabarakatu. Also what Country do you live in? (LOL) just asking coz it seem like you live in Saudi Arabia(?). Please don't take this offensively, as some people do!

I was born in Saudi Arabia (RIyadh) and now I live in the United Arab Emirates (Abu Dhabi), I love Saudi Arabia, but for the United Arab Emirates it seems as a developed country anyway, so I don't really bother because it's got a high hdi. And a very high gdp per capita according to the CIA. $49,700 what the hell (lol).

Take care, and have Ra7matu ALLAH wabarakato. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello

Also what is the school enrolement for saudi and what is the literacy rate, both for 2005?

Just Asking

Thank You.

Muzammil01 20:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter, i will find out in 4 days.... thanks anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your questions about Saudi Arabia:
HDI (2005): 0.812
  • life expectancy rate (2005): 72.2
  • literacy rate (2006): 82.9
  • gross school enrollment (2005): 76
  • GDP (PPP) per capita (2005): 15,711

Eliko (talk) 09:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shock

Shock!!! I still can't believe it!! 0.812 that is one of the fastest growing HDI's and school enrolements!!! I'm so happy

Thank You so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries by Human Development Index

Hello Eliko! Thanks ofr your contributions, but I don't understand why add increase/decrease templates in the rank table, is unnecessary. Reegards; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could have asked the same question with regard to the map; why do we need a map whereas all the details are in the table? but the answer is very simple:
The very existence of colorful maps - as well as colorful arrows - in Wikipedia, is required - not for informative purpose - but for didactive purpose; e.g. when one looks for decreasing/increasing ranks in the table - one may find it much easier if the increase/decrease is indicated colorfully and visually - including the direction of the arrows. The same is with regard to the maps, etc.
Eliko (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't see your answer. Wait, I had an idea. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finish! Cheers; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
very nice!!! Eliko (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Eliko

What does annoy me is that there isn't one Muslim Country which is in the 0.9 section of the HDI, there are only 10 Muslim countries in the (category) high HDI list. And in that list there isn't one muslim country in the 0.9 section, the closest are Brunei, Kuwait and Qatar to hopefully be reaching 0.9 by the next HDI list in nov 2008. Brunei is the closest muslim country at 0.894 the following Kuwait at 0.891 and Qatar at 0.875, these three have had a rapid growth since the previous list. I hope that by the next list Kuwait, Brunei and Qatar would be at 0.9. And Saudi Arabia by at least the next 5 odd years reaches 0.9 or maybe even quickly because Saudi Arabia is a very fast growing country. The life expectancy of Saudi arabia hasn't changed since the last one, why is this? it was meant to be 73 years as You said. Oh well it doesn't matter, every thing else changed, education index, GDP index, these two had a very rapid growth which gave Saudi Arabia a HDI of 0.812 which I am very happy of. I want Saudi Arabia to beat Oman, Mexico and Bulgaria I don't know why but just love it when it beats lots of countries which it did, nearly Oman which was 0.814, not much difference, I hope in the next HDI list Saudi Arabia's HDI is around 0.850 which is possible compared to it's rapid growth from 0.777 to 0.812 unexpectidely taking over around 14 countries. WOW!!! Saudi Arabia!!!!.Hopefully Kuwait, Brunei, Qatar or even the rich United Arab Emirates reaching at least 0.9 by next year. Tell me what you think about all this. It's a very long message, LOL!! Sorry for bothering you 20 times. Oh yeh, the other question I have is, are You an Economist, you seem to know a lot about countries and economy.

Bye Mr Economist, haha. Take Care and have a good day

Muzammil01 18:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Muzammil
  • With regard to your question about Saudi Arabia's Life expectancy rate:
Saudi Arabia's Life expectancy rate in 2005 was recorded in the new HDI Report as 72.2, so it did increase - as compared to the rate in 2004 which was recorded in the previous HDI Report as 72.0.
The World Development Indicators periodical (from which the HDI Report takes the data of GDP PPP per capita) measured Saudi Arabia's life expectancy rate in 2005 as 72.6, which was rounded by the World Bank to 73. However, I've just realized that the HDI Report takes the data of life expectancy rate - not from that periodical (from which GDP data are taken) - as I'd thought before, but from "World Population Prospects" periodical.
  • With regard to your being "annoyed" (lol) by the absence of Muslim Countries in the 0.9 section of the HDI:
Look Muzammil: I like the muslim culture, and I have many muslim friends (and arab friends) - although I'm not a moslem myself (nor an arab), but even if I were a moslem - I don't think the absence of muslim countries in the current HDI report should be a good reason for being "annoyed", because everything in the world is rapidly changing and everything is temporary - except for GOD. As you said, it's rather probable that some muslim countries will occupy the 0.9 section in the next HDI report, so let's wait, and let the time do its job.
  • With regard to Saudi Arabia's HDI as compared to other countries:
You've mentioned Oman - but not Libya, why? You've mentioned Bulgaria - but not Romania, why? Romania's HDI (813) is very close to Saudi Arabia's HDI (812), and don't forget: Romania belongs to the Eurpean Union, so maybe the next report will show that Saudi Arabia's HDI in 2006 was higher than that of an EU country!!!
  • Have a nice day, wara7matu Allah wabarakato.
Eliko 20:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Eliko,

1) Sorry, I thought it didn't increase, but I just realized it did increase the life expectancy.

2) I'm not saying that You don't like the Muslim Culture, all I'm saying is that Muslims are meant to be showing an example to the world, and that the Muslim countries should be educational, political, sharing good wealth among people. Also out of 70 countries of the high HDI, there are only TEN which are Muslim countries. But nowadays what Muslim goverments care about is just themselves, not the people, they don't care about poverty in their countries when they are lying down with Millions or Billions of dollers. Not good enough, thats what I was trying to say that annoys me, not that You don't like the Muslim culture.

3) Ok Libya, Ok Romania, but Saudi Arabia has already taken over TWO EU countries which are Ukraine and Russia. Let it take over Romania and Libya next year. We'll just have to be patient.

4) other thing is that are You an Economist (lol) and where about in Israel do You live, let me guess.... Tel Aviv? LOL!

Thanks for Replying and taking your time out on me. Have a nice day

Muzammil01 08:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlan
Just negative answers for all of your questions! (lol):
  • I've never thought you had thought I didn't like the muslim culture.
  • Neither Russia nor Ukraine belong to the European Union, in spite of their being european countries.
  • I'm not an economist, and I don't live in Tel Aviv.
Goodbye (lol).
Eliko 14:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of... GDP, etc

Can you please avoid reverting to your version and do the edits you think are necessary over my version, instead? When you do a full revert, the diff is worthless. ☆ CieloEstrellado 09:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when I revert - I add just the necessary edits, which are three: 1. fixing wrong links. 2. adding back important information to the 1st table .3. adding back bold letters for the ranked countries (i.e. excluding the dependent territories all of which aren't ranked).
Can you please avoid reverting to your version and do the edits you think are necessary over my version, instead? When you do a full revert, the diff is worthless.
Eliko (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're changing the direct IMF URL with the cited data for a link with a list of countries to choose. This goes against Wikipedia policy. You're unnecessarily peppering the CIA data description with information already present in the table itself. You're making the table headings over-descriptive, when it is clear "Value" stands for GDP (PPP) per capita; it's in the bloody article's title! You're trying to differentiate countries from territories by making the former bold. That's unnecessary, as the territories are already unranked. You're adding to the IMF table the last year of official data. That's also unnecessary, as the user only wants to know if the data is an estimation or not, not what year the estimation is based on.
You're only adding clutter to the article, so please stop. ☆ CieloEstrellado 12:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are not authorized to ask me "to stop", just as I'm not authorized to ask you "to stop", because either one of us tries to do one's best to improve the article through one's point of view.
  • After you've just explained that your previous comment about the "value" referred to the "table headings" - I could eventually realize what you had meant in your previous comment about the "value", so I've changed "GDP (PPP) per capita" to "value". You see? better explanation is much better than telling others "to stop"...
  • Now it's my turn to explain my position in other issues, e.g the link: Look, the link in your version is really intended to be more exact - but when one clicks on the link in your version - one receives a wrong message, and that's why I changed the link to another one, which is really less focused - but gives you something, not like your link which gives you nothing - but a wrong message.
  • With regard to the footnote relating to the CIA list: The original footnote which you try to remove - has been deliberately inserted into a footnote only (because of your correct comment); However, it summerizes within 2 lines only - some important information which is not easy to extract from the table! That's why this summerized information (in the footnote) is not needless! If you don't think it's important - don't read it, but you shouldn't prevent others from reading it.
  • With regard to the IMF table: I added back the original third column, since it supplies some important information about the year (of data) on which the figures (for 2006) are based. For example, 2006 figures for the Democratic Republic of Congo are based on 1983 data; As to me (and to many others who have been editing the article during the recent years before your last changes were made), this information about the year (of data) is very important! and this information had been supplied in the article and had existed in wikipedia for some years - untill you decided to delete this important information from the article. If you think this information is needless - don't read it, but why don't you let others read it? What if I had removed from the article some pieces of information which you've added? I've never done that to your important additions in the article, so please don't do that to the important additions which have been added during the recent years by many editors (including me). By the way, today I've added back the third table you'd added - in spite of some trials by others to delete it!
Eliko (talk) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sepedi

I answered your question on User talk:Mark Dingemanse. Tebello TheWHAT!!?? 08:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot! Eliko (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mery Christmas

Hello Eliko, I wish you a merry Christmas to you and your family. Happy new Year

Muzammil01 (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

انا لست مسيحيا
Eliko (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GDP per capita

Thankyou for your comments regarding on the GDP per capita data. I now understand completely what you mean by all the estimates and data facts, after all you have kept on editing the article many times without even commenting on it, you could've atleast spoken about the topic regarding on your edits, all times wasted with me editing. Thankyou anyways. Keep on editing, Happy New Year!

Moshino31 (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for having wasted your time, but I tried to explain my attitude in the edit summaries. If I failed - it was not on purpose. Eliko (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Developed Country

Can you find an updated version of this ranking? This is ranked in 2004… is there any newer ranking? --Kingj123 (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004? The heading of the newest report is: "September 2007 update"!
Eliko (talk) 18:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Kingj123 (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye Eliko (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia's gdp per capita reached $20,700!!!!! 2007 est, look at the world factbook they have the 2007 ests now!

Have a nice day Muzammil01 (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ما شاء الله
Eliko (talk) 09:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello

It is expected that Saudi Arabia's gdp per capita reaches 33,500 by 2020, what do you think? if it's $20,700 in 2007, in 13 years it should be above 33,500. Just tell me what you think. A huge growth for Qatar and Kuwait, it wasn't expected that Kuwait would reach the top 10 at $55,300!. Some countries have fallen this year, e.g. last years (2006 ests) list, the lowest per capita income in the world was $600 and now it's gone down to $300 (Congo Democratic Republic).

Have a nice day Muzammil01 (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
Probably you mean GDP PPP, right?
If you really mean GDP PPP - then your prospect can become an actual fact - provided that the Saudi GDP (PPP) per capita continues to grow - during the next 13 years - as it well did since 2002. Indeed, this condition is rather crucial, because, as you probably know well, the Saudi GDP (PPP) per capita had a severe decline during 1981-1987, and since then: a steady GDP (PPP) per capita during 1988-1989, 1991-1995, 1996-1999, and 2000-2002. Let's hope the Saudi GDP (PPP) annual growth rate per capita - be at least 5% during the next 13 years, which is really a fantastic annual growth rate. If it happens - your prospect will become a fact. However, a little problem still exists: Nobody can tell you in anvance what will happen in the global economy - this year (2008); Nor does anybody can foresee whether the Saudi (or chinese or irish or french) GDP will go up or will fall down - in 2008, so how can you expext I guess what will happen by 2020? We can just make estimations which depend on some assumptions; for example: we can clearly determine that any esitmation which is made in the beginning of 2008 and which considers the last five years only - i.e. not considering the previuos twenty years - promises more than $30,000 GDP (PPP) per capita for Saudi Arabia by 2020. If that's what you've meant - then you've been correct! Cheers!!! However, you shouldn't ignore four important facts:
  1. If such an esimation had been made in 1995 - then it whould have yielded just about $15,000 for the year of 2020.
  2. if such an estimation is made in 2015 - then it will yeald $????? for the year of 2020, which means that everything depend on the estimate timing.
  3. Usually, estimations for 10-15 years forward - should consider the 15-20 years preceding the year in which the estimation is made.
  4. Most of the OECD countries will have more than $45,000 GDP per capita by 2020 - according to the same estimations which are made in the beginning of 2008 and which consider the last five years (or the last 15-20 years).
Goodbye.
Eliko (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the reply I think I do mean PPP I still don't understand the difference between GDP ppp and GDP official exchange and nominal. What are the differences between ppp and nominal? which one would they really earn ppp per capita or nominal. When it is GDP real growth rate, which one is it saying? I just get confused sometimes. Anyway thanks, so I guess we have to wait a while (13 years lol) to find out. There was a huge decline during the 80's and 90's, but now we do have some hope that it will continue the growth. It must be so cool for the Kuwaiti's, they can now say I earn $32,000 more than I earned last year (on average) which is quite amazing! Qatar was expected to be the richest country by 2008 anyway. Another strange thing is that countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Oman.... have high per capita income but not as high life expectancy as with the per capita income, wierd. E.g. Qatar $75,900 per capita (PPP), life expectancy 74??? You'd expect 78/79 years. Oh well it must be to do with different matters. It is sad news for african and some asian countries, which are declining and hardly having a good growth, pretty sad stuff isn't it?

Thank You and Goodbye

Muzammil01 (talk) 08:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
  1. As to your first question regarding the difference between the nominal GDP and the (real) GDP PPP: So, to begin with, let's say the nominal GDP is measured by US dollars - i.e. is measured according to the official local exchange rate, while the real GDP, i.e. the GDP PPP, is measured by international dollars - i.e. is measured according to the local market prices of products. Let me explain that: let's assume you live in Mexico and have got one million mexican pesos - which are worth 300,000 US dollars - according to the official local mexican exchange rate, while I live in Argentina and have got one million argentinian pesos - which are worth 300,000 US dollars - according to the official local argentinian exchange rate. So, according to both (argentinian as well as mexican) official local exchange rates - we have the same amount of money: 300,000 US dollars, so according to both (argentinian as well as mexican) official local exchange rates - we are not richer than each other. However: the prices in the argentinian local markets are twice as much as the prices in the local mexican markets! For example, an average house in Argentina costs one million pesos, while the same house in Mexico costs just 500,000 pesos! So who is richer? I or you? According to the PPP method - you (the mexican citizen) are richer than me (the argentinian citizen), because what you can buy in your (mexican) local market - is much more than what I can buy in my (argentinian) local market! e.g. you can purchase two houses with your 1 million pesos, while I can purchase just one house with the same amount of pesos! Let's put it this way: According to the exchange rate method: you have got 300,000 US dollars and I have got 300,000 US dollars, whereas according to the PPP method: you have got 400,000 international dollars and I have got 200,000 international dollars, i.e. you have got twice as much as I have got - provided the money is measured by international dollars (not US dollars). To sum up: the GDP PPP is the real GDP, because it considers the Purchasing Power Parity, i.e. the local market product prices.
  2. As to your second question regarding the "amazing" fact with the Kuwaitis: nothing is amazing! The CIA estimation made in 2006 of how much money the Kuwaitis were supposed to earn in 2006 - was based on old data of previous years before 2002, because by 2006 - CIA couldn't have achieved the kuwaiti data of recent years, while the CIA estimation made in 2007 of how much money the Kuwaitis were supposed to earn in 2007 - was based on new data of 2002-2006, because by 2007 - CIA had succeeded to achieve those new data, so nothing is amazing!
  3. As to your third question regarding the HDI: I think you've already responded that qusetion, and let me quote what you have written on my talk page some weeks ago: "nowadays what Muslim goverments care about is just themselves, not the people, they don't care about poverty in their countries when they are lying down with Millions or Billions of dollars". This is what you have written, and let me quote what I answered you: "everything in the world is rapidly changing and everything is temporary - except for GOD. As you said, it's rather probable that some muslim countries will occupy the 0.9 section in the next HDI report, so let's wait, and let the time do its job".
  4. Take care and Goodbye.
Eliko (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers!

Thanks for that information, it was very useful. When will the world bank have the latest estimates for ppp per capita? Also Economist inte unit...... when will they have the 2006 estimates for the quality life survey for 111 countries. The world factbook says saudi arabia's gdp real groew at 4.7% from 371 billion ($US) to 572 billion in 2007? i'm sure thats more than 4.7%? Also I did not mention about the HDI, you must have been mistaken, look again lol. Anyway Thanks again and goodbye.

Muzammil01 (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. The estimates for GDP per capita are published - not by the World Bank - but by the International Monetary Fund; The next list of GDP per capita will be published by the International Monetary Fund in April.
  2. The world Bank publishes - not the GDP per capita estimates - but the GNI per capita estimates; The next list of GNI per capita will be published by the World Bank in November.
  3. The Economist has never made it clear whether any estimate for 2006 will ever be published.
  4. Regarding the Saudi GDP growth rate: you shouldn't mix two different esimations for 2006: the old estimation gave the number 371 for 2006 because that estimation was made in 2007 and was based on old data of previous years before 2006, whereas the new estimation gave the number 546 for 2006 (and 572 for 2007) because that estimation was made in the beginning of 2008 and was based on new data of 2006-2007.
  5. Regarding the HDI: it has much to do with the Life-expectancy (since the HDI comprises of GDP per capita, Life expectancy, and literacy). High rate of life expectancy - means that the government supplies good medical servises, so it depends on the government - just as the whole HDI does, and that's why I referred to the HDI.
Have ra7matu ALLAH wabarakato.
Eliko (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H

Thanks again

Last year in 2007, the CIA world factbook made some big edits on the ppp list. There were some changes. I remember saying to you Why has Saudi Arabia's gone down to $13,600 from $13,800, but then went back to $13,800 in late october I think. Maybe the new edits the world factbook made in April or may... are more accurate than the ones they make in January, because it is the begining of the year and can be hard to get all the information so fast.

I'm still studying at school (I'm 15 yrs old), and all these things about economy,HDI and so on.... we study this in Geography which I have always liked as a great subject and very interesting, which is why I have chosen it as a course (and many more subjects). I would like to go into Science when I'm older and become a job to do with science, science is a great subject, it's to do with every matter in life. I've always been good at science and deffinetely would be like to become a something good to with science. I just had a science exam, it went pretty well and was the higher tier meaning you could get the highest possible grade on this paper, e.g. A*A*, AA, BB, CC. C is a pass grade, which is the lowest i can get (.. cool), below a C is a U grade which means ungraded, I'm predicted BB grade which is the second best and exactly what they say you need for a scientific job. How about you, how is your education or degrees? (you don't have to tell me if yuo don't want to but just asking normally).

Thanks

Goodbye Muzammil01 (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.
I'm a mathematician, and like (and have dealt with) science as well, mainly physics, although my main interest is in Maths. I like geography (and geographical economy) too, as you can see on my user page.
Eliko (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Mathematician, thats good no wonder your so good at calculating numbers to do with economy! I have a maths lesson today. We are learning about probability and pie charts, it must be so easy for you (lol). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talk • contribs) 08:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol Eliko (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

list

That person who added the third table on the PPP per capita article needs this love heart to show his love for that third table!!!

What's the point of that third table being there, it's all old data from 2003/4 (on the ppp per capita article) there' no point!!!. That guy just wont listen because he is in love with old data and doesn't like new data, he needs to add a love heart to the third table to show his love for the old data! (lol). It was so better when there were just two lists (IMF & CIA), only when that guy added a third table and now the article looks really squashed with three tables!!! you gotta move on in life, you can't come back to old data from 4 -5 years ago!! but he wont listen, his love will never go for that table!!!!.

Goodbye Muzammil01 (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, like you, feel that the third table is needless, and that's why I don't read it, but I shouldn't prevent others from reading it, as long as I haven't succeeded to convince them that this third table is needless. Eliko (talk) 21:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of countries

  1. Cyprus is recognized by the UN as a sovereign country, and is a UN member as well, so Cyprus should be ranked. Eliko (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this. And Cyprus is indeed ranked in my edits. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. Sorry for my mistake. Eliko (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The official name of Cyprus is universally recognized as Cyprus, in Wikipedia as well as in UN institutions. See the article Cyprus in Wikipedia. Eliko (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I know this. But the CIA gives three values for Cyprus: One for the whole of Cyprus, another one for the Greek controlled part and another one for the Turkish controlled part. So I decided to leave all three in the list, but only rank the one for the whole of Cyprus. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. Sorry for my mistake. Eliko (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. CIA figures for 2007 are estimations based on 2007 data, whereas IMF figures for 2007 are estimations based on data of previous years before 2007. For example: CIA 2007 figure for Chile is based on 2007 data, while IMF 2007 figure for Chile is based on 2006 data. The year having the most updated chilean figure based on data of that very year - is 2006, and so is with the most of countries (excluding Congo etc.). In April, IMF will publish a new report based on 2007 data, so in April we will be able to update IMF list. Eliko (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    They can't be using estimations for 2007 if they're using data from 2007. This has no logic. The CIA clearly states that they're using estimations for 2007. That means it's based on hard data from before 2007, most likely 2006. The CIA doesn't specify on what year they're basing their estimations from. The IMF clearly states what's the base year for their 2007 estimations. When that April report comes along, we will update the table again. The April 2008 report WILL be based on data from 2007. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In April, IMF will publish the 2007 figures based on 2007 data, as well as the 2008 figures based on 2007 data, so 2008 figures will be estimations only - not data, so in April we will be able to indicate just IMF figures for 2007 - not for 2008. With regard to CIA report: it's based on 2007 data - not on 2006 data, although CIA uses the term "est.", which means that those data are not formal - i.e. they were not supplied formally by the governments themselves, but were achieved indirectly by CIA intelligence unit and are supposed to reflect 2007 data. Eliko (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have to provide me with proof that the CIA data for 2007 is based on data for 2007. I can't find this information anywhere. Regardless, even if the CIA *is* using data for 2007 for its 2007 values, then it would be projected data based on incomplete information for 2007. Why include estimations from the CIA and not from the IMF? Both are estimations based on data, to the best of my knowledge, from *before* 2007. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. As to your first remark: the term "est." in CIA report - just means that the data were processed in some manner; Let me elaborate a little bit on that matter: CIA report is being updated online, and every period - you can see it being updated, but this period is not constant: it may vary - from some days to some weeks, because the process of updating the report depends on the abilty of CIA Intelligence Unit to achieve new information (generally informal informatiom). Note that this new information is (for most countries) much more updated than the formal information supplied by the governments to the IMF. Let me give you an instructive example (not a proof - as you've requested, but an instructive example): Andorra's figure (38,800) is for 2005, and so far it has remained the same value - since 2005: i.e., in CIA report published in 2005 - Andorra's value was indicated as being "38,800, 2005 est.", and in CIA report published in 2006 - Andorra's value was indicated as being "38,800, 2005 est.", and in CIA report published in 2007 - Andorra's value was indicated as being "38,800, 2005 est.", and in CIA report published in the beginning of 2008 - Andorra's value is still indicated as being "38,800, 2005 est.". Now, if you had been correct, and Andorra's value (for 2005) had been based on data before 2005 - then a very simple question would have arisen: why does CIA keep the old estimation? Why doesn't CIA update the old estimation for 2006, and for 2007, and for 2008? Look, if CIA can make an estimation for 2005 using data from previous years before 2005, then CIA can make estimations for 2006 (and for 2007 and for 2008) using data from previous years! This is simple mathematics! However, you see that CIA doesn't update Andorra's values (as well as other countries' values), and this is due to a very simple reason: CIA figures (which are named by the slightly-confusing term "est." in CIA report) - are based on online data: Andorra's value for 2005 is based on data of 2005, not on data of previous years before 2005; CIA can't update Andorra's figures, because any new estimation for 2006 (or 2007) must be based upon new data of 2006 (or 2007 - respectively), while CIA Inteligence Unit hasn't been able to achieve that new information - so far! That's why CIA doesn't update Andorra's old figure, so the riddle has now been solved! As I said before, Andorra's case (as well as other countries' case) is not a proof - but is rather just an instructive example. If you want to get more information - we must meet together (wherever you want), and I'll give you some more information: I can't elaborate here on that matter of how CIA collects its data and how CIA processes its data, nor can I detail here about my personal relation to all of that issue. 2. As to your second remark: No difference between IMF and CIA !!! IMF publishes two reports every year: In 2007 - the reports were published in April and in October (though it's regularly September in other years). Now, you can compare the two last reports, and see that both reports base Costa Rica's value for 2005 - on 2005 data; However, April report indicates Costa Rica's value for 2005 (based on 2005 data) as being: 10,773, while October report indicates Costa Rica's value for 2005 (based on 2005 data) as being: 10,814. How come? How can IMF base different figures on data from the same year? The answer is very simple: IMF updates the data (twice a year)! The same is with CIA, Which updates the data (many times a year)! So no difference exists between IMF and CIA (thus responding your question): Wikipedia treats IMF values just as Wikipedia treats CIA values: Whenever IMF/CIA updates the data - Wikipedia updates the lists relating to IMF/CIA (respectively). However: when a "regular" article (i.e. not a "future article") in Wikipedia supplies a list which indicates figures for a given year (say 2006) - then this ("regular") article intends to provide the updated data - i.e. the latest data of that very year, rather than the updated estimations - i.e. the latest estimations based on previous years (regardless the slightly-confusing term "est." in CIA report)! For example: in "regular" articles (i.e. excluding "future" articles), the term "2006 value" - is intended to mean updated data of 2006, not an updated estimation for 2006 - based on data of 2005 ! Anybody who looks for values not based on the updated date - may refer to the "future article": List of countries by future GDP per capita estimates (PPP). Eliko (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Regarding the link: Look, the link in your version is really intended to be more exact - but when one clicks on the link in your version - one receives a wrong message, and that's why I changed the link to another one, which is really less focused - but gives you something, not like your link which gives you nothing - but a wrong message. Eliko (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what link you're referring to. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't know which link we are discussing, so why did you revert my link? I never revert any piece of information if I don't know what I revert. As to your question: I've been referring to the link at the end of footnote no. 2 (in your version), i.e. the link which provides the source for IMF figures. Eliko (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean the IMF link with the HTML table for all the countries? I can see this page fine in my browser. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you mean you see a clear page when you click on the link (at the end of footnote no. 2 in your version)? If you approve - then I accept your testimony, and untill I get your testimony - I won't revert the link. Don't worry: I'm an honest person, and whenever I get convinced - I can accept my colleague's position (as you probably have already realized with regard to Cyprus). Eliko (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With regard to the footnote relating to the CIA list: The original footnote which you try to remove - has been deliberately inserted into a footnote only; However, it summerizes within 2 lines only - some important information which is not easy to extract from the table! That's why this summerized information (in the footnote) is not needless! If you don't think it's important - don't read it, but you shouldn't prevent others from reading it. Eliko (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, I think it's redundant. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't think it's important - don't read it, but you shouldn't prevent others from reading it. Eliko (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We should be economical and not redundant, not because of a lack of space (Wikipedia has a LOT of space), but because we don't want to confuse the reader. with repeated information. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To "confuse" the reader? nothing confuses, on the contrary: it makes the information clearer, since it summerizes within 2 lines only - some important information which is not easy to extract from the table! That's why this summerized information (in the footnote) is not needless - and is (in my opinion) even important! If you don't think it's important - don't read it, but you shouldn't prevent others from reading it. Let me give you an example: I think the third table of Penn. Univ. is totally needless, since it provides old information, so why don't I delete that table? because I say to myself: "If I don't think it's important - I can simply avoid reading it, but I shouldn't prevent others from reading it". that's what I say to myself with regard to the third table of Penn. Univ., and that's what you should say to yourself with regard to the CIA footnote, which doesn't confuse at all, on the contrary - as I explained before.Eliko (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With regard to the IMF table: I added back the original third column, since it supplies some important information about the year (of data) on which the figures (for 2006) are based. For example, 2006 figures for the Democratic Republic of Congo are based on 1983 data; As to me (and to many others who have been editing the article during the recent years before your last changes were made), this information about the year (of data) is very important! and this information had been supplied in the article and had existed in wikipedia for some years - untill you decided to delete this important information from the article. If you think this information is needless - don't read it, but why don't you let others read it? What if I had removed from the article some pieces of information which you've added? I've never done that to your important additions in the article, so please don't do that to the important additions which have been added during the recent years by many editors (including me). By the way, today I've added back the third table you'd added - in spite of some trials by others to delete it! Eliko (talk) 12:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been editing this article from even before you showed up on Wikipedia (I was just using a different account) and that information was never placed on the table. I don't think we should include that column, because none of the other tables have it. It would be asymmetric. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The other tables do include the third column, and it will be assymetric if IMF table solely - won't include the third column. By the way, I'm the person who has edited IMF 2006 data, and the third column had been existed before. If you think the information included in this column is needless - don't read it, but why don't you let others read it? What if I had removed from the article some pieces of information which you've added? Eliko (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The third column in the other tables is NOT related to the third column I deleted from the first table. The third column in the last two tables are indicating to what year the values refer to, while the third (now deleted) column in the first table indicated the last year of hard data. Totally diferent things. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    1. "Totally" different? In some respect - it's really "totally" different; However, every table is "totally" different - in some respect: for example, the first table provides IMF data while the second table provides CIA data, and this difference - between the first table and the second table - is much bigger than the difference between the third column of the first table and the third column of the second table, so what? 2. Furthermore, it will be assymetric if the first table has two columns while the other tables have three columns, and this assymetry is much more severe than the assymetry between the meaning of year in the third column of the first table and the meaning of year in the third column of the second/third table. 3. If you think this piece of information (included in the third column of the first table) is needless (or "assymetric") - avoid reading it, but you shouldn't prevent others from reading it. Eliko (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a a nice day. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You too. Eliko (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for today. ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provided either of us succeeds to convince the other one. Don't worry: I'm an honest person, and whenever I get convinced - I can accept my colleague's position (as you probably have already realized with regard to Cyprus and to the IMF link). Eliko (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lost track of what the problem was. Apparently you don't want to use 2007 data from the October '07 IMF report because it is based on data from before 2007, right? I say, who cares???? This is January February 2008 already! We should be using data from 2007!! It doesn't matter if it is a lame estimation or not, we just need 2007 data if it is available, and the IMF provides it and so does the CIA, so why not USE IT???? It's really simple. Now the U Penn unfortunately doesn't have estimations for 2007, because they work with hard, government data, and then use their collected PPP info over it. It's still valuable, even if it's old, but it's the newest data they have! Cheers. ☆ CieloEstrellado 13:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.
You're talking about "2007 data", and I wish it were 2007 data, but it's rather "2007 estimation", not "2007 data"! Look, in "regular" articles (i.e. excluding "future" articles), the term "2007 value" - is intended to mean updated data of 2007, not an updated estimation for 2007 - based on data of 2006 ! In April we will have 2007 data!
With regard to Penn. Univ. table: I think it's totally needless, since it provides old information, so why don't I delete that table? because I say to myself: "If I don't think it's important - I can simply avoid reading it, but I shouldn't prevent others from reading it".
Have a wondrful day.
Eliko (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Fixing some severe mistakes in Penn. column and WB column:

  1. Dependent territories should'nt be ranked. However, in the columns of WB and of Penn. which you've recently added - this law was not observed, and you also added rankings for dependent territories in the CIA column. So I fixed the mistake.
    The reason dependent territories are ranked is so the automatic sorting works, and notice that they are not really taking a ranking spot, I'm just repeating a ranking from a sovereign country. (e.g. 1. United States, 2. Qatar 2. Macau 3. Japan). Macau is just repeating the Qatar rank.
    Even according to your attitude, you have made a mistake with regard to "Serbia and Montengero": this entity takes a ranking spot in your version, although this hypothetical entity comprises of two separate entities each of which takes a separate ranking spot in your version. Besides, your way of ranking involves two severe problems: 1. How come the dependent territories are ranked in CIA column but are unranked in IMF column? 2. How can two different entities (e.g. US and Bermuda) have the same rank while they have different values? this way of ranking is also incosistent, because sovereign entities having different values have different ranks - even in your version. The rule which should be observed is very simple: Different countries can have the same rank just in case they have the same value.
  2. WB report gives the data of eight Mediterranean/middle-eastern countries just in italics - since those data (for those eight countries) are not for 2006 (but for 2004-2005, as one can see in a footnote at the end of the World Bank report), while the population data are for 2006, so the data you've calculated for those eight countries are wrong. I fixed that by indicating those data as "not available" (thus making those countries unranked).
    I will look into this. It's something I forgot to do.
    Thank you.
  3. I don't accept your opinion about me: Look, I'm not trolling, and the proof for that - is really very simple: If I'd been trolling - I would have reverted your unified table, because of your mistake of ranking dependent territories in that unified table, and because of the wrong values for the Mediterranean countries in the WB column, and because of your continuous effort to delete some important information about which we've been talking many times! Indeed, why don't I revert your unified table - but instead: I take my time to fix your unified table? because I'm not trolling - but am rather an honest person who tries to do his best for improving Wikipedia, and who appreciates also your previous effort to merge the three old tables into one unified table - although I personally prefer the three old tables (and even without the Penn. table) to the unified table; That's why I've fixed all of the severe mistakes you've inserted into the unified table - instead of reverting it! Furthermore: If I'd been trolling - I wouldn't have accepted your opinion about Cyprus, nor about the IMF link, nor about Penn. column! Why don't I delete that column - in spite of the big controversy caused by this column among the editors ? because I'm not trolling - but am rather an honest person who tries to do his best for improving Wikipedia (just as you do). If I'd been trolling - I wouldn't take my time for listening patiently to all of your arguments (some of which have eventually convinced me, e.g. with regard to Cyprus and to the IMF link etc.), and wouldn't have responded you thoroughly and in details, but would rather ignore your arguments! So why have I never ignored any of your arguments - but rather have taken my time to answer you patiently and thoroughly (and even to get convinced by those arguments which were powerful enough to convince me)? because I'm not trolling - but am rather an honest person who tries to do his best for improving Wikipedia (just as you do).
    Ok, you're an honest person. I think I got that. It doesn't bear repetition. I'm sorry for calling you a "troll."
    I forgive you. Don't worry.
  4. Have a wonderful day.

Eliko (talk) 21:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hello

Hello

That person doesn't listen does he? I said before all he needs is that love heart!!!!. Anyway, moving on.... I might be going to Saudi Arabia in March!! not 100% sure yet. But if you do think about it, that third table which you said: I shouldn't prevent others from reading it, who wants to read old data anyway? they want to read new data e.g. for 2007 or 2006! not 2003-4. It looks quite much squashed toghether the article does. He could have just left a footnote saying there is another list of countries by gdp (ppp) per capita but it's all from 2003/4. When did you join Wikipedia anyway? 2006?.


Thanks Bye Muzammil01 (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you realy going to go to Saudi Arabia? That's GREAT!
All of your questions are interesting and worth discussing, but unfortunately Wikipedia is not an appropriate site to deal with all of that stuff. The best is - not to write nor to correspond - but to talk about it together - i.e. by phone etc.
Have a wonderful day.
Eliko (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Qat

Hello.

I've heard that there is an addictive drug in Yemen called Qat (or Khat), it's a plant which grows there. People say that this drug has contributed to the underdevelopment of Yemen, in other words this drug has made Yemen even poor. They chew this 5 hours each day and it's chewed by almost all of the population and has become very addictive and this is becoming a serious issue. They just rely on this plant and spend a third of their monthly income on this plant! maybe that's why they left with no money and left as a very poor country. When growing this plant, it takes in a lot of water which is a problem, people are using water for this plant and not actually drinking it themselves! it makes them relaxed. 90% of the population has this drug as a daily part of their lives. Maybe that's why they are so underdeveloped too. They hardly eat, and all they eat is this plant drug!. Immagine spending a third of your income on this drug they left with nothing then I guess! It's fine to talk about this on Wikipedia because it's about a country and a drug Qat which is also mentioned on Wikipedia see the article (Qat). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've heard of the Qat (sometimes called "Gat"), and I even know some yemeni people who chew Qat. Your thesis about the linkage between Qat and the underdevelopment of Yemen - is well known. Eliko (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bad thing is that it's addictive! and they can't even stay without it for more than 4-5 days. It must be very hard for them to stop eating that plant!! hopefully they'll find a way!
So they came into the Masjid, it was a Friday, it was my day, Khateeb yelling at the people, hurt my feelings, condemnations! lol. Watch it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol. Eliko (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hm

That cool person wont listen will he lol. He just wants 2007 data bless him, he's getting impatiant! April will come so fast that he will think it's still february. You keep repeating your self about that university of Penn table (lol) ( I say to my self I'll avoid reading it, but why prevent others from reading it) you've said that for millionth time now! lol. It does take time to realise the difference between Data and esimation. I think LOL means Luxembourg oh Luxembourg, why are you so rich, or it can mean Luxembourg out Luxembourg, stop being the richest country! lol :). Have you ever been to Saudi Arabia? You can never forget that place especially Makkah and Madinah. I shouldn't get too excited about it yet, we are not even too sure if we are going! Madinah has got so many Plam Trees, they are so beautiful! Have you tried the Saudi Pizza's they are so delicious I can never forget the taste! hot cheese with tomatoes on top hmmmm.. sorry for tempting you but I'm sure you'll have a tekeaway a few roads away from where you live! I wanna go Yemen one day and stop the Qat from growing, then they might get rich noooooot! they will be soooo angry! it would be a bit tight on them if I destroyed the Qat coz it's so addictive! a few countries have been trying to help Yemen in order to stop that relyment on Qat! but they don't listen!

There is some wierd north-south divide saying countries in the north are richer (MEDC) and countries in the south are poorer! as if Poland is richer than Kuwait, as if slovakia is richer than United Arab Emirates! what is this saying, it's wrong. As if Portugal's richer than Israel, and as if Bosnia is richer than Argentina! I've just beat them up with what i've just said! lol. It's not really true is it, as i've just shown some examples of bla bla bla in the south being richer than bla bla bla in the north. Saudi Arabia is richer than Russia but Russia is classed as an MEDC and Saudi Arabia LEDC!, why is this? Is Kuwait still classed as an LEDC? it should deffinetely be classed as an MEDC now, though nowdays people say it's highly developed along with UAE Bahrain, Qatar and so on..., I have actually refered to HDI too, e.g as i've said Poland (0.870) and Kuwait (0.891), Slovakia (0.840), UAE (0.868), Portugal (0.894), Israel (0.928 I think), Bosnia in the north (0.7 something), Argentina (0.869), Russia (0.8), Saudi Arabia (0.812). I haven't just related it to GDP per capita although they are higher for these South countries which I have mentioned, but HDI too is very important. I remember to sign this now lol. Muzammil01 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.
As to your questions:
  1. Never been to Saudi Arabia, nor to any arab country, though I wish I had.
  2. Never tried the Saudi pizzas. What a pity!
  3. The north-south divide between rich and poor countries - is generally true, but not always, as you correctly proved.
  4. Neither Kuwait nor Saudi Arabia are "LEDC": You can find here the list of LEDCs.
I can't understand how you can remember all of these HDI numbers...
Goodbye.
Eliko (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

  1. Ragarding the bold letters - I've answered you on 3 December 2007 (at 9:35), but you haven't responded me yet! An honest person does not revert any version before having responded all of the arguments intended to (apparently) base that version. Eliko (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a stylistic choice. I think bolding sovereign countries to differentiate them from other entities is overdoing it. I don't think it's necessary. Italics vs. nonitalics should be enough to tell the difference, unless you have serious vision problems. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, this is a stylistic choice, and your position is as legitimate as mine, so the best solution for that issue of the bold letters - is: reaching a fair compromise. For example: I think that merging the original tables into one unified table - is unnecessary, and is less asthetic as well, while you hold the opposite position. This is a stylistic choice, and your position is as legitimate as mine, so the best solution for that issue of the unifed table is: reaching a compromise. Can you propose one? I can: For example, every one of us may waive one of his legitimate positions (regarding the bold letters and regarding the unified table). What do think about that compromise? If you don't accept it - you're invited to propose a better compromise. Eliko (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regaring Cyprus: your version has a big mistake, because IMF and WB base their data on the Cypriot governmenatal report which refers to the GDP in the southern part of the island only (the other part of the island is not controlled by the Cypriot government), while your version presents these data under "Cyprus" which includes the northern part as well. Eliko (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will look into this. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already looked into this and fixed it. Eliko (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah? How were you able to tell whether they were using data for all of Cyprus or just the South? I'd like to know, cause they don't specify. ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMF as well as WB (not like CIA) are authorized to indictate formal values only. Please read the introductory section in IMF/WB reports and see that all of data indicated in the IMF/WB reports are based on the "governmental reports" only - which are passed directly to the IMF by the governments themselves. Look: the Cypriot government, which does not controll the northern part of the island, can't supply formal data for earas not controlled by it! just as the Chilean government can't supply data for those antractic areas not controlled by it! By the way: I accept your attitude to omit the third CIA value for the whole island; However, in my opinion, the first CIA value for Cyprus (the state) should be indicated, just as we indicate the cypriot values supplied by the other bodies. Eliko (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have a point there. This is something we might be able to infer from the WB and IMF data, but how about the Penn. data? We don't do guessing here at Wikipedia. ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've really inferred that, and explained above how I infer that, just as you have inferred the WB data although WB does not indicate the per capita data. However, if you don't like that way of inferrence - so let's don't infer: let's quote exactly what the IMF, WB and Penn. indicate: They supply a value for "Cyprus" - without indicating whether it relates to the whole island or to the southern part only, so this is what my version does: quote the word "Cyprus" only - without indicating anything else. The remark which indicates the relation to the southern part of the island - remains in the CIA column only. Eliko (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Regarding IMF which should precede Penn.: I can ask you the same question you've asked me: After the original version had put the IMF at the beginning, what were your criteria for changing it? This is not me who changed the status quo with regard to putting Penn. in front of IMF! Once you show your criteria for changing the status quo - I will show my criteria for keeping the status quo. However, if you are not patient - I can show them to you now: So my criteria (for keeping the staus quo) are very simple: IMF, being an international organization - which receives the formal governmental reports directly from the governments themselves, is much more authorized than Penn. Univ., which is a private body. Eliko (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I gave my criteria three days ago on the article's talk page (look for "Column order"), but you haven't responded yet. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure? Your criteria are "the number of columns for each source", but - in my symetric version - IMF has three columns as well! Now listen: IMF, being an international organization (recognized by 180 countries) - which receives the formal governmental reports directly from the governments themselves, is much more authorized than Penn. Univ., which is a private body, and that's why IMF (having three columns in my symetric version) should precede Penn. (which doesn't have more columns). Eliko (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Read again, my criteria was not by number of columns for each source, it was by number of entries (i.e. countries and entities). ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for having mistakenly understood the word "entries" as referring to the columns - not to the "countries and other entities" (these four words were added by you just after I made my previous remark regarding your criteria). Now, your criteria are the number of entries (i.e. countries and entities), while my criteria are the extent of authoritativity. Your position is as legitimate as mine, so the best solution for that issue - is: reaching a fair compromise. You're invited to propose one (by then - the status quo shall be kept). Eliko (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Who's more authoritative? The IMF or the World Bank? CIA or Penn.? This falls outside the neutrality policy. It's not objective. My criteria is totally objective and neutral. ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My criteria are objective: international bodies should come before private bodies (while the "extent of authoritativity" - is just the intuitive ground for the before-mentioned objective criterion). Note that two international bodies (or two private bodies) should be ordered however the editors wish: For example: Alphabettically (this is my choice, but I don't refuse to accept any other reasonable objective choice). Eliko (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Regarding the 3rd column in IMF list, the footnote in CIA column, and the 2006 IMF data: I've answered all of those questions on your talk page on 3 February 2008: at 11:47 (in sections no. 3,5,6), and at 14:11, but you haven't responded me yet! An honest person does not revert any version before having responded all of the arguments intended to (apparently) base that version. Eliko (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with you on all three points and have told you why already. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look here (in sections no. 3,5,6), and here, and see that you've responded on none of my recent comments regarding these three issues, being: 1. the third column in IMF list; 2. the footnote in CIA column; 3. the relation between 2006 IMF data and 2007 CIA data (="est."). Eliko (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Regarding the dependent territories: of course Hong Kong is a dependent territory, and that's why it's unranked in my version, but why do you rank it? And why do you rank all of the other dependent territories? As I've explained today on your talk page - under the title: "Fixing some severe mistakes in Penn. column and WB column" (in section no. 1), your way of ranking dependent territories involves two severe problems - about which you haven't responded me yet! An honest person does not revert any version before having answered all of the arguments intended to (apparently) base that version. Eliko (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already told you why I think it is necessary to rank all countries. It's for technical reasons. But anyway it doesn't affect the real position of sovereign countries, so it's not a problem. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    not a problem? four severe problems (about none of which you've responded me)! look here (section 1). Eliko (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI I'm giving up on ranking non-sovereign countries. ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't have to give up, but just to get convinced - provided my arguments are strong enough for convincing you. Eliko (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But I did give up. It's a part of reaching a compromise. You lose a little then gain a little. ☆ CieloEstrellado 16:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia does not accept the idea of "giving up"; What might be accepted - is (e.g.) proposing a compromise between two opposite positions - but just in case both positions aren't more legitimate than each other. In any other case, neither compromise nor "giving up" is needed, but rather: getting convinced. If one gets convinced by one's colleague's arguments then one should prefer one's colleague's position to one's position. Eliko (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One last thing, this whole "an honest person..." argument is really getting on my nerves. Stop it. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not authorized to ask Eliko to "stop", as He is not authorized to ask you to stop! Muzammil01 (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't know Eliko had a lawyer. ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I, too, hadn't known that - untill I saw that! Eliko (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Suprisingly Pakistan is not an LEDC! (thank goodness!), it's the majority African countries!. I thought you knew all the HDI numbers of by heart! well not all but some you mentioned months ago. I did stare at it for ages when it came out in nov. I was very exited that Saudi Arabia had the best growth. So by looking at the list one million (oops) times, I can sort of remember the numbers! So is Kuwait an EDC or an MEDC? it should be by at least now! the next HDI list might account Kuwait as a HDI of 0.9 which means it's no longer an EDC, it has to be an MEDC! I know what you meant by "generaly true", most of the countries in the "south" are poorer than the "north" but some aren't.

Goodbye Muzammil01 (talk) 08:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Being a MEDC doesn't depend on HDI only, but also on many other economical factors (about which you can read here). We'll have to wait for the next IMF report: "World Economic Outlook" - for knowing whether Kuwait is already classified as a MEDC. Meanwhile - those reports have not classified her as a MEDC.
Eliko (talk) 10:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok

"those reports have not classified her as a MEDC"? lol, Kuwait must be a girl then. I wonder when the CIA are going to have the latest estimates for literacy rate. Bye.

@@@@ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really a strange property of the english grammer: to refer to countries as if they were women...
I share the same wonder with regard to CIA.
Eliko (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? so you said that "her" to Kuwait, were you mistaken or what? I don't understand?Muzammil01 (talk) 12:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This in not me - but rather: the english grammer - which should be blamed! you see? According to the english grammer, countries are referred to if they were women, got it? For example, we say that "Saudi Arabia is getting more and more developed, so that by the end of our decade she will probably be more developed than Romania (an EU member)". Got it?
Eliko (talk) 13:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is so wierd! i've never heard such a wierd statement like that! she! I got it now. Where do you get all this info from and how so you know all this? the thing is I don't understand why they refer countries to she? Muzammil01 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you really "never heard"? Incredible! You're supposed to speak english, oh man, right? Eliko (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I've heard "she" but I've never heard people refering she to countries! that's what I've never heard. I of course do speak english and have obviously heard "she" (I have 2 sisters!) but how am I supposed to know that they call countries she?! where does it say she to a country give me a source/link to where the IMF or CIA WFB have said she to a country. Wierd. Muzammil01 (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which English do you speak? American or British? I've just finished reading an excellent book: "The American Commonwealth" (2 volumes) by Viscount James Bryce (published in 1888). In vol. 1, chapter 36, the author writes (about Switzerland): "she is a small country...". At the end of Chapter 3, footnote no. 15, he writes: "New York was reckoned among the smaller states...but her central geographical position made her adhesion extremely important". And see in CNN website: "the way USA determines the means to protect her borders", etc. etc.
Of course, it's just an example. Are you really sure you've never heard "she" about countries?
Eliko (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly sure I haven't heard "she" to countries!#2, i speak British english so I might not be so familiar with the "she" heard for countries. Suprising isn't it? you know about this and I don't!! lol it doesn't matter I know now, so next time if someone says she to a country I'll know from now on! Americans probably say she to countries maybe not british!
Goodbye and have a nice day!
Muzammil01 (talk) 12:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is british english your mother tongue? Eliko (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well Yes!, you just replied 3 mins ago! keep it up (lol)!. I can see a pattern on this talk it's going right each time you reply! Muzammil01 (talk) 15:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not having answered you within 3 minutes. Answering Within an hour - is sufficient (lol)...
So, could you understand my response to you (in arabic on 23 January) - here?
Eliko (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The patterns annoying now lol

Of course I understand Masha Allah (ما شاء الله) What God Wills. Do you know Arabic, if you do then that is so cool! the other thing is of course my mothers tongue speaks english! what about you is arabic your father tongue or grandmother tongue, maybe your father's tongue speaks arabic too! LOL))) :))  :)  :(  :) :D :D!! your in a great mood aren't you and you've never left this planet 0 times! and you're a mathie! (don't get too messy while playing with numbers lol). The other thing is, what do you think about nucleur physisyst? cool job man! high pay too!! you need maths and science qualificatons mainly! it seems too hard because you are looking at bubbles all day long! my freind wants to become it and he thinks it's cool! well it is cool becuase you start of with such a high wage and end up with millions of cash in you pocket! I call him (my freind) an extremist because everything he wears is black! he's not a goth but he looks extreme sometimes! anyway moving on swiftly......... I think April will be a dream come true for the 2007 data wanter man! He thought I was your lawyer lol! I am from now on lol. By the looks of it Saudi Arabia seems to be more developed than Romania if you go far in detail:

Life Expectancy: Saudi Arabia 75.9, Romania 71 years! (who's is higher)

GDP (PPP) per capita: Saudi Arabia $20,700, Romania $11,200 (who's is higher!)

Infant mortality rate (per 1000): Saudi Arabia 12.4, Romania 22 (who's is lower)

HDI: Saudi Arabia 0.812, Romania 0.813 (not much difference at all, Saudi Arabia's will surely be higher in next years report) (she will be higher in the next report! lol)

If you think about it what more do you need apart from a high life expectancy and low infant mortality and high wages and a high human development for each citizen? what more I ask!! (not to you but to the EU!) Saudi Arabia again by the looks of she looks more developed than Romania.

The other question is I ask to myself is Which one is more developed Oman or Saudi Arabia, tell me what you think? Saudi Arabia could be possible, she has a higher GDP per capita than Oman now, and she is developing so fast too! lol.

Are you a Jew?, only asking because obviously most of the Israeli population accounts as Jews. Don't get offended coz I've told you I'm a Muslim. I'm a Muslim!.

I find your argument funny with CieloEstrallado ("an honest person") argument! lol it's just a bit funny, you writing thousands of words to him, he doesn't listen, he carries on fighting for his lovely old data, and you giving him lectures about so and so data! it's funny man especially the honest person one!lol...

Vist http://www.3wam.com, they have the latest nasheed (islamic songs) albums!!! they are well nice! Have a good day! Muzammil01 (talk) 18:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eliko&oldid=190674049"