User talk:Eliko/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

New Ash Green[edit]

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)

Hello[edit]

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)

Hello[edit]

Hello Eliko

I have some more other questions:

  • When will the CIA have the 2007 est for ppp per capita? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talkcontribs) 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • When 2008 begins. Eliko 16:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • When the UN looks at the measure of HDI, it uses ppp per capita of the world bank not the CIA, it doesn't use the life expectancy which the CIA have figured out. Why is that? maybe if they did get all their info from cia the HDI of maybe Saudi Arabia might have been higher? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talkcontribs) 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right, but the UN counts on UN bodies only (like the World Bank which belongs to the UN), whereas the CIA is a private body - belonging to the US. Eliko 16:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • They say Saudi Arabia's life expectancy is 72 years, but cia says 75.8 years, but the UN have the 2004 ests, and the cia have the 2007 ests!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talkcontribs) 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right. see above. Eliko 16:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • So maybe this is making Saudi's hdi lower than it should be (e.g if they used samples from the CIA thay would probably get a hdi of 0.8 but they use their own "2004" estimates! which give Saudi 0.777 which is just medium, but not as good as it reallt is!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talkcontribs) 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You're right. see above. Eliko 16:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank You Eliko —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muzammil01 (talkcontribs) 20:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

    • You're welcome. Eliko 16:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

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)

  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)

Thank You[edit]

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)

Source[edit]

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)

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)

hello[edit]

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)

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)

lol[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 18:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


Hello[edit]

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)

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

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)

Shock[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 18:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

List of countries by Human Development Index[edit]

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)

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)
Sorry, I don't see your answer. Wait, I had an idea. Felipe C.S ( talk ) 22:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Finish! Cheers; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
very nice!!! Eliko (talk) 23:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

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)

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)

Hello[edit]

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)

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)

List of... GDP, etc[edit]

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)

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)
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)
  • 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)

Sepedi[edit]

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

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

Mery Christmas[edit]

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

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

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

GDP per capita[edit]

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)

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)


Developed Country[edit]

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)

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

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

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

Saudi Arabia[edit]

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)

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

Hello[edit]

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)

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)

Thanks[edit]

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)

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)

Cheers![edit]

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)

  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)

H[edit]

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)

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)

hello[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 08:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

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

list[edit]

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)

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)

List of countries[edit]

  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)
    I know this. And Cyprus is indeed ranked in my edits. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    You're right. Sorry for my mistake. Eliko (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  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)
    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)
    You're right. Sorry for my mistake. Eliko (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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 (being just an example here) is for 2005, and so far it has remained the same value - since 2005: i.e., CIA report published in 2005 - as well as CIA report published in 2006, as well as CIA report published in 2007, as well as CIA report published in the beginning of 2008, indicate Andorra's value as being "38,800, 2005 est.": the same value - since 2005. Now, if your opinion had been correct, and Andorra's value (for 2005) could have been an estimate only (rather than data) - i.e. could have been based on data before 2005 - then a very simple question would have arisen: why does CIA keep the old estimation? Why isn't the old CIA estimation updated 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 the sole remaining reason which refutes your before-mentioned opinion: 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 and your before-mentioned opinion has been refuted! As I said before, Andorra's case (as well as other countries' case) is not a proof - but rather is an instructive example. If you want to get more information - we must get 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 of 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)
  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)
    I don't know what link you're referring to. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  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)
    I disagree, I think it's redundant. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
  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)
    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)
    The other tables do include the third column, and it will be asymmetric 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)
    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)
    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 asymmetric if the first table has two columns while the other tables have three columns, and this asymmetry is much more severe than the asymmetry 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 "asymmetric") - avoid reading it, but you shouldn't prevent others from reading it. Eliko (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)


Fixing some severe mistakes in Penn. column and WB column:[edit]

  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)

hello[edit]

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)

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. The best is - not to write nor to correspond - but to talk about it together - i.e. on phone etc.
Have a wonderful day.
Eliko (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Qat[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 16:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

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)
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 (talkcontribs) 14:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
lol. Eliko (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

hm[edit]

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)

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)

Hello again[edit]

  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)
    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)
    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)
  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)
    I will look into this. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    I've already looked into this and fixed it. Eliko (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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. Note that 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) 21:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
  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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    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)
    I agree. ☆ CieloEstrellado 17:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. Regarding the 3rd column in IMF list, the footnote in CIA section, 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)
    I disagree with you on all three points and have told you why already. ☆ CieloEstrellado 06:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    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 section; 3. the relation between 2006 IMF data and 2007 CIA data (="est."). Eliko (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
  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)
    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)
    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)
    FYI I'm giving up on ranking non-sovereign countries. ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
    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)
    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)
    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)

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

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)
Didn't know Eliko had a lawyer. ☆ CieloEstrellado 11:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I, too, hadn't known that - untill I saw that! Eliko (talk) 13:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

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)

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)

Ok[edit]

"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 (talkcontribs) 18:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)
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)
Have you really "never heard"? Incredible! You're supposed to speak english, oh man, right? Eliko (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Is british english your mother tongue? Eliko (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

The patterns annoying now lol[edit]

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)


Thank you very much for the latest nasheed albums. I like them.
You've asked: "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!)". Well, If you asked the editors of "Human Development Report" - they would answer you that a developed country needs also a high literacy rate. If you asked the EU - they would answer you that an EU country needs also to be located in Europe, of course. However, being located in Europe - is just a necessary condition, yet not a sufficient condition, because an EU country must also be sufficiently developed, and that's why Russia, Ukraine, etc., don't belong to the EU.
With regard to Oman: by 2005 Oman had been more developed - according to the recent "Human developed Report" (which has given Oman a higher HDI than Sadui Arabia's HDI). For knowing the current situation (in 2008) we must collect uptodate data for Saudi Arabia as well as for Oman, but no such data have been collected yet by the governments, nor by CIA, so for answering your question we'll have to wait patiently untill the next HDI reports are published.
The rest of your questions (regarding the nuclear physisist, my parents' arabic, etc.) are interesting and worth discussing, but unfortunately Wikipedia is not an appropriate site to deal with all of that. As I've already told you, the best is - not to write nor to correspond - but to talk about it together - i.e. on phone etc. Have Ra7matu Allah Wabarakato.
Eliko (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

What do you mean by saying: "other users' concerns"? No dispute exists between me and any other user - except for you! Eliko (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So far, just four points of controversy have remained between us (I and you only):

  1. I add the CIA value for Cyprus. Eliko (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    And I disagree. Read the Cyprus footnote in my version. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    I've read it, but you didn't explain why we souldn't indicate at least one of the three CIA values (for Cyprus) - just as we indicate values (for Cyprus) given by the other bodies. Choose one value (according to some criteria which you can choose too and which can be indicated in a footnote), but choose! By the way, your comment about "Korea, South" - is totally unclear (literally): Neither my version nor your version includes the term: "Korea, south" - but rather: "South Korea". I can't understand how the south korean issue relates to our discussion. Eliko (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    There is one CIA value for Cyprus in my version of the article: the one for Northern Cyprus, because it's only one, it's unambiguous. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    Right, it's unambiguous, just as the (single) value for southern Cyprus is unambiguous, just as the (single) value for the whole island is unambiguous. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    For Southern Cyprus, the CIA gives two values. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    Are you sure? two valus? For southern - Cyprus the CIA gives a single unambiguous value. The third value is not for southern Cyprus but rather for the whole island. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    We cannot have TWO values for Cyprus in the same table cell because it's ambiguous. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    Nobody has requested that we have two values in the same table cell. Each cell should have a single value: either for southern Cyprus or for the whole island. You could also have two cells (except for the "Northern Cyprus" cell and except for the "Cyprus" cell), i.e. a 3rd cell for the whole island and a 4th cell for southern Cyprus. I don't recommend this option, but I wouldn't reject it. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    And we cannot keep one and remove the other because we don't know which one is better, because the CIA does not provide info on what each value means. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    So how do you know which value (of the three) belongs to "Northern Cyprus"? Look, my friend (and I really consider you as my friend): We do know that the lowest value is for Northern Cyprus (don't you agree?), just as we do know that the average value is for the whole island (don't you agree?), just as we do know that the highest value is for southern Cyprus (don't you agree?). I can't see any difference between what you know about the value for Northern Cyprus and what you know about the value for southern Cyprus, so I can't figure out why your version discriminates between the values. Note that my version does not discriminate between the values, because my criterion (which accords with my opinion about the data supplied by the cypriot government) is that Wikipedia should omit average values (e.g. for the whole island) in international lists. However, since you do know well which value (of the three) belongs to what entity, so what are your criteria for discriminating between the value for Nortehrn Cyprus and the value for southern Cyprus? Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not changing my position here, so if you don't agree with me on this point, we're going to have to let the community decide. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    "let the community decide"? Well, the community has expressed it's unambiguous dissatisfaction with including the Penn. old data in the article (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of Penn. list? The community has also expressed it's dissatisfaction with the idea of merging the old tables to a unified table (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of the unified table? Do you agree to express here your agreement (in advance) to accept the opinion of the majority? I wouldn't reject any such idea of "letting the community decide" on all of the disputed issues. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. I add the footnote in the CIA section. Eliko (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree. It's redundant. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    That footnote (in the CIA section) 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 fourth list 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 fourth list of Penn. Univ., and that's what you should say to yourself with regard to the CIA footnote. Eliko (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    This is redundant. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I, too, think that the Penn. old data are redundant. If you think it's redundant - don't read it, but you shouldn't prevent others from reading it. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not changing my position here, so if you don't agree with me on this point, we're going to have to let the community decide. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    "let the community decide"? Well, the community has expressed it's unambiguous dissatisfaction with including the Penn. old data in the article (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of Penn. list? The community has also expressed it's dissatisfaction with the idea of merging the old tables to a unified table (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of the unified table? Do you agree to express here your agreement (in advance) to accept the opinion of the majority? I wouldn't reject any such idea of "letting the community decide" on all of the disputed issues. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. I add the third column in the IMF list. Eliko (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    I disagree. Other sources don't have this info. Asymmetry of information. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Asymmetry of info.? So let's remove the third columns from CIA list and from Penn. list, because the other lists "don't have this info." and because we should avoid "Asymmetry of information"! Look my friend: if you think this piece of information (included in the third column of the first table) is needless (or "asymmetric") - avoid reading it, but you shouldn't prevent others from reading it! Eliko (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not changing my position here, so if you don't agree with me on this point, we're going to have to let the community decide.☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    "let the community decide"? Well, the community has expressed it's unambiguous dissatisfaction with including the Penn. old data in the article (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of Penn. list? The community has also expressed it's dissatisfaction with the idea of merging the old tables to a unified table (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of the unified table? Do you agree to express here your agreement (in advance) to accept the opinion of the majority? I wouldn't reject any such idea of "letting the community decide" on all of the disputed issues. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. I hold that IMF list should reflect 2006 data, not 2007 estimations. Eliko (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    CIA data for 2007 are also estimations. Why CIA in and IMF out? You say "because CIA estimates are based on data from 2007." You haven't provided solid proof of this. And, anyway, it's not important: both CIA and IMF are estimates, regardless of the years their data are based on. Both should be treated equally. Both in. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Both CIA and IMF are really treated equally (in my version): The article supplies just the data (given by CIA and by IMF) - not the estimation (given by these bodies)! Look: CIA values for 2007 are data (not estimations - despite the misleading term "est."), while IMF values for 2006 are data too, not like IMF values for 2007 - being estimates - not data. What has confused you - is the term "est." in CIA report, but it just means that the data were processed in some manner, and it doesn't mean that these figures are not data! For more information (including a response referring to your direct request for a "solid proof") - see in my recent comment of 3 February 2008: at 11:47 (in section no. 3). Eliko (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
    Besides the fact that you haven't provided proof for your CIA claim. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    I really haven't provided a direct proof (against your opinion stating that CIA values are estimates rather than data); However, I did provide an indirect proof - based on an instructive example - which you haven't refuted yet: Andorra's figure (being just an example here) is for 2005, and so far it has remained the same value - since 2005: i.e., CIA report published in 2005 - as well as CIA report published in 2006, as well as CIA report published in 2007, as well as CIA report published in the beginning of 2008, indicate Andorra's value as being "38,800, 2005 est.": the same value - since 2005. Now, my (indirect) proof goes as follows: if your opinion had been correct, and Andorra's value (for 2005) could have been an estimate only (rather than data) - i.e. could have been based on data before 2005 - then a very simple question would have arisen: why does CIA keep the old estimation? Why isn't the old CIA estimation updated 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 the sole remaining reason which refutes your before-mentioned opinion: 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 and your before-mentioned opinion has been refuted! As I said before, Andorra's case (as well as other countries' case) is not a direct proof - but rather is an indirect proof based on an instructive example. If you want to get more information - we must get 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. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not going to dwell on it, because it's not the point. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    As you wish. However, nobody (including me) is authorized to base one's arguments (in favor of one's version) on one's wish "to avoid dwelling on another wikiped's argument". Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    The point is that estimates can be used whatever the quality of the data is. It's 2008 and the article should present data from 2007, if available. That's my line of thought. That's what I believe in. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    "the article should present data from 2007, if available"? I absolutely agree! However, There's one simple problem: no data from 2007 are available in IMF report! estimation only is available (for 2007 in IMF report). Furthermore: your "line of thought" (as you call it) is (in my opinion) also incosistent: Really, if you were consistent, then you should hold that the IMF values which will be presented on the article in the beginning of 2009 - should be for 2008 (just as you hold that the IMF values which should be presented on the artice in the beginning of 2008 - should be for 2007); but if so - then you should hold (again - due to apparent consistency) that the IMF values for 2008 should be presented on Wikipedia - before 2009 begins (e.g. in September 2008, i.e. without having to wait for 1 january 2009), because those data will be identical to the same 2008 values which (according to your apparently consistent position) should be presented (on the article) in the beginning of 2009, and because Wikipedia's universal objective is to publicize any relevant informatiom rather than to hide-it-as-if-it-were-a-secret; but if so - then why don't you hold (again - due to apparent consistency) that the article should present now (in the beginning 2008, i.e. without having to wait for September) the current IMF values for 2008? (note that no discrimination should exist between the current IMF 2008 values and the 2008 values which will be published by the IMF in September). The argument of "2008 is not over yet" is not valid, because also before 2009 (i.e. in September 2008) - IMF will have the same 2008 estimation which IMF will have in the beginning of 2009 - and which (according to your apparently consistent posion) should be presented on the article in the beginning of 2009, whereas Wikipedia's universal objective is to publicize any relevant information (i.e. data - in my opinion, or even estimates - in your opinion), rather than to hide-it-as-if-it-were-a-secret! Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm not changing my position here, so if you don't agree with me on this point, we're going to have to let the community decide. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
    "let the community decide"? Well, the community has expressed it's unambiguous dissatisfaction with including the Penn. old data in the article (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of Penn. list? The community has also expressed it's dissatisfaction with the idea of merging the old tables to a unified table (see on the article talk page), so would you agree to "let the community decide" on this matter of the unified table? Do you agree to express here your agreement (in advance) to accept the opinion of the majority? I wouldn't reject any such idea of "letting the community decide" on all of the disputed issues. Eliko (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Look here (in section no. 2), and here (in sections no. 3,5,6), and here, and see that you've responded on none of my recent comments regarding these four issues. Have a wonderful day. Eliko (talk) 00:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S I'm sory for having answered you just now - and not before. I saw your comments - just few moments ago. It was not on purpose. Eliko (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita[edit]

I have been trying to make constructive edits to this page, only to realize that you are actively contributing to an edit war. You have already broken the three-revert rule, but I don't see that anybody has warned you yet. Consider this your only warning — if you do not seek consensus but continue to edit war, you will be blocked from editing. Consider dispute resolution if talk page discussion has reached a deadlock. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

  1. Andrew: Let's assume that these edits are really "reverts". However, in the past 24 hours, I (i.e. Eliko) haven't made more than three "reverts": at 18:15, at 23:58, and at 11:07 (whereas my other edits are not reverts at all, but rather are simple corrections agreed by all parties, e.g. deleting needless spaces etc.). Furthermore, my friend CieloEstrellado, too, has not made more than three "reverts" in the past 24 hours: at 17:38, at 23:36, and at 3:12 (whereas his other edits are not reverts at all, but rather are simple corrections agreed by all parties, e.g. correcting the word "three" etc.). Neither of us is going to make a fourth revert during the current 24 hours - because both of us obey the 3RR.
  2. However, the more important point - is another one! Look Andrew: what you call "reverts" - are not reverts at all (except for one edit as I'll explain soon), nor does either of us (i.e. CieloEstrellado and Eliko) consider this controversy between us as an "edit-war" - on the contrary: this is a constructive sequence of edits upon edits, each of each constitutes an improvement relative to the previous edits: Indeed, note that on 8 February, the dispute between us (i.e. bewteen CieloEstrellado and Eliko), included not less than eight points, but since then: thanks to continuous efforts of common discussions on our talk pages, and thanks to constructive edits (which you mistakenly call "edit wars"), both of us succeeded to bridge the gap by 50%, and now the dispute is over four points only (as indicated at my previous edit summary made at 23:58). Let me give you two examples from the past 24 hours: if you look at the edit summary of my "revert" at 18:15, you can see that this "revert" succeeded to bridge the gap - from six points of dispute (summed up at the last edit summary of 9 February) - to five points only! Furthermore: if you look at the edit summary of my "revert" at 23:58, you can see that this "revert" succeeded to bridge the gap - from five points of dispute - to four points only! My sole real revert which was made during the past 24 hours - is the last one (made at 11:07), however this revert is constructive too, since it reflects (as indicated at its summary) the unability to understand literally CieloEstrellado's recent comment at his recent edit summary, and I'm sure that now CieloEstrellado will clarify what he has meant by that illegible comment, thus we'll be able to bridge the gap - from the current four points of dispute - to three only, or even less than three, so that this constructive process of edits upon edits (which is by no means considered by either of us as an "edit-war") - will eventually end up with no points of dispute between CieloEstrellado and I. To sum up: We've made a long way since we'd had the big gap (which had included eight points that have already been bridged to four only), and I'm sure that (after your having read my explanation here) you will now agree that this constructive process should continue - untill CieloEstrellado and I and you and other editors reach the optimal version, accepted by all parties.
  3. Of course, both of us will keep obeying the 3RR, and will keep avoiding edit-wars.
Have a wonderful day.

Eliko (talk) 11:05, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Korea South comment was not for you. Don't take things so personally. ☆ CieloEstrellado 03:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Phone[edit]

Hello.

What, you want to speak on phone about these little questions I'm asking! lol. I was waiting for an answer for these questions, it's not fair! answer me then you can delete it after you've answered and I've read it! please, it's just a bit of a laugh!

Oh and did you really listen to the nasheeds? which album? the best one there is Duetto Ya lailll, listen to it it's amazing.

Your talk page was absoloutly empty in October, untill I came! now it is so full!!

Goodbye ☆ Muzammil :D (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

My friend Muzammil: As long as you were asking me questions about Wikipedia contents, I found it justified - not only to respond - but also to elaborate in details, as much as I could. However, once you started asking me irrelevant questions - having no connection with Wikipedia (e.g. about the nuclear physisist, my parents' arabic, the nasheeds, Duetto Ya lailll, etc.), I realized that you mistakenly think that we are in a...forum (lol), not in Wikipedia. Look, my friend Muzammil: I don't reject any idea of talking about all of your interesting questions - on the contrary, I think that it could be a very constructive idea. but... please! I ask you - as your friend: Let's talk together outside (e.g. on phone) - not on Wikipedia. Please! Remember that deleted pages are saved in the history page!
I am, sir, your faithful friend.
Eliko (talk) 17:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok Thank You
How about email? do you have an email address? It would be quite good to talk on email! When you upload an image on "Wikipedia" (lol) how come you cannot delete it? and how can you become a Wikipedia deletion? ☆ Muzammil :D (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I can answer all of your questions by sending my answers directly to your email; However, unfortunately, I really don't know where exactly I should send my answers. Have a wonderful day and take care! Eliko (talk) 16:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Article : PHILIPPINES[edit]

Hi Eliko, I just want to ask you why are the informations written in your source International Monitory Fund is quite different from the other articles. For example is when I have edited the article "Philippines", I've updated the article and changed the data about its GDP and GDP per capita as well. I've just copied the informations from the page of "List of countries by GDP per capita and List of countries by GDP". If you're telling me that I have no source, please check first the articles of "List of countries by GDP and GDP per capita both in NOMINAL and PPP" case before you to tell me that I am vandalizing the page. If you're not satisfied you too can edit the pages where I've referred the information that I've written in the article of the "Philippines"!!! Please answer me back as soon as possible.Murano333 (talk)

"Vandalize the page"? I've never used such a term, and never told you that! I've never edit the article: Philippines! You've probably thought I'm another person!
However, I did edit other articles, in which I've just asked to supply the exact sources. Look Murano: there is no such an article: List of countries by GDP per capita and List of countries by GDP, nor is there any article the name of which is: List of countries by GDP and GDP per capita both in NOMINAL and PPP. What exists in Wikipedia are four articles: List of countries by GDP (nominal) - which provides the philippino value: 117,562; List of countries by GDP (PPP) - which provides the philippino value: 509,061; List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - which provides the philippino value: 1,590; and finally: List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, which supplies the following 4 philippino values: 5,365 (in IMF column), 5,473 (in WB column), 3,300 (in CIA column), and 4,344 (in Penn. column).
Eliko (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

CIA news on Cyprus[edit]

Yesterday, February 12 2008, the CIA updated its World Factbook information on Cyprus (updated version here).

Here I present both before and after versions:

Before[edit]

This is the version updated as of January 24 2008, available thanks to the Google cache (link here):

  • GDP (purchasing power parity):
    • area under government control: $21.41 billion; $19.37 billion
    • area administered by Turkish Cypriots: $4.54 billion (2007 est.)
  • GDP (official exchange rate):
    • area under government control: $17.42 billion $17.42 billion (2007 est.)
  • GDP - real growth rate:
    • area under government control: 3.9%; 3.9%
    • area administered by Turkish Cypriots: 10.6% (2007 est.)
  • GDP - per capita (PPP):
    • area under government control: $27,100 $24,600
    • area administered by Turkish Cypriots: $7,135 (2007 est.)

After[edit]

This is the latest version updated as of February 12 2008 (link here):

  • GDP (purchasing power parity):
    • area under government control: $21.41 billion
    • area administered by Turkish Cypriots: $4.54 billion (2007 est.)
  • GDP (official exchange rate):
    • area under government control: $17.42 billion (2007 est.)
  • GDP - real growth rate:
    • area under government control: 3.9%
    • area administered by Turkish Cypriots: 10.6% (2007 est.)
  • GDP - per capita (PPP):
    • area under government control: $27,100
    • area administered by Turkish Cypriots: $7,135 (2007 est.)

As you can see, the CIA has now removed the second value in "GDP (purchasing power parity) / area under government control," "GDP (official exchange rate) / area under government control," "GDP - real growth rate / area under government control" and "GDP - per capita (PPP) / area under government control."

What this means is that the second value (now removed) was an error made by the CIA that they've now corrected.

Now the CIA value for Cyprus will be included, as it is only one. ☆ CieloEstrellado 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello my friend: that's great, becaute it means that the gap beween us is now diminished, so that just 3 disputed issues have remained. I've copied this information - from my talk page - to the article talk page (thus showing that our discussions are fruitful). Now we will have to think together how to bridge the gap still remaining with regard to the other 3 issues. Have you got any constructive idea? Eliko (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection[edit]

Can we agree on not making any further progress until the page is unprotected as a matter of protest? I don't care for how long your version of the page is up there. I'm just not going to make any forced progress just because the page is protected. Do you agree? ☆ CieloEstrellado 21:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes I do agree, my friend, because I think that you're an honest person. Eliko (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree that as soon as ANDREW unprotects the page we begin making edits at List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎/temp, and we work hard to reach a concensus within 24 hours. List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎ won't be touched by any of us. Do you agree? ☆ CieloEstrellado 22:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CieloEstrellado (talkcontribs)

Yes, I do. Eliko (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal by admin[edit]

The admin who protected the page is now offering this:

Ok, how about this: you both agree (by positive confirmation on my talk page), that if I unprotect the page now, you both agree not to make any edits to that list until you have reached consensus on the version at Wikipedia:Sandbox/List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita‎. You will let me know that you have consensus by both stating so on the sandbox talk page. At that time, I will merge the pages to preserve page histories. If either of you fail to abide by this agreement, you will be blocked for 7 days. Sound reasonable? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you agree? If so, please tell him on his talk page. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just approved on Andrwsc's talk page.
P.S. The time here (where I live) is 1:31 after midnight, so I'm going to sleep awhile. see you tomorrow. Goodbye. Eliko (talk) 23:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you in Israel? Edits go here. ☆ CieloEstrellado 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Si. ¿Estás en Chile? Eliko (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
¿Hablas castellano? ☆ CieloEstrellado 02:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
¿Estás en Chile? Eliko (talk) 20:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
¿Estás Cantus? Eliko (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
¿Estás Kiw? Eliko (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Email[edit]

Hello. So are you saying you don't have an email address?. ☆ Muzammil, مزمل ☆ (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never said that. I've just said that I can answer all of your questions by sending my answers directly to your email, and that unfortunately, I really don't know where exactly I should send my answers. Eliko (talk) 22:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Overdeveloped" countries?[edit]

HI! Could you answer to me here, please? I'm so warmed... --Chargin' Chuck (talk) 15:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article deals with the concept "developed country" rather than with the concept "overdeveloped country". Eliko (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR[edit]

As far as I can tell, neither of you violated 3RR. You both hit the limit of 3 reverts, but neither of you actually went over, so consider this a friendly warning. Please do discuss it with him and on the talk page, but you're both OK as far as I can tell. :) Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 02:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have placed a statement about this on a number of admins' talk pages. why? —Random832 03:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Please stop looking for administrator help by spamming many of their talk pages with your request. The correct procedure to follow is to place a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, which is actively monitored by many admins. Thanks — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 03:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I have really placed such a message, but it was removed! Note that it was not archived - but rather: removed! Eliko (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, Eliko; your canvassing is disruptive and, ultimately, futile. Further spamming efforts may instead result in a block. -- tariqabjotu 13:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Why do you say "spamming", "canvassing"? My request on the noticeboard was removed (not archived but rather: removed), so I referred to other admins who may see the objective problem. If you don't see the objective problem - say "I don't see the problem", or "I don't want to", etc., but please don't prevent me from taking legitimate steps for solving what I consider as an objective problem.
Anyway, I didn't ask you to undo the "wrong" version (since nobody can determine that previous versions are "better"), but rather to undo the version which violates the 3RR. Such a request is absolutlely legitimate and backed by objective criteria (not like any hypothetical request for subjectively preferring a "better" version over a "wrong" version). If you don't think that a version which violates the 3RR is illegal, then you're welcome to express your opinion (as emphatically as you can), and I promise that your opinion will be taken into account - just as Od Mishehu's hesitant opinion (which is not less legitimate than yours) will be taken into account. Eliko (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Please cancel an edit violating The 3RR[edit]

  1. Some days ago, an editor made this edit.
  2. On 23 February, at 5:15, the same editor has made his first revert.
  3. On the same day, at 22:23, the same editor made his second revert.
  4. On that very day, at 22:57, the same editor made his third revert.
  5. On the same day, at 23:26, the same editor made his fourth revert.

Please cancel his fourth revert - which violates 3RR. No need to warn him, because I'm sure it was not done on purpose! He's an honest person who is absolutely aware to the 3RR and has always obeyed the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I have protected the article instead. -- tariqabjotu 02:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't reject your idea to protect the article, but the last version you've protected is mistakenly the fourth revert - which violates the 3RR! Please undo the fourth (illegal) revert. Thank you. Eliko (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
No. -- tariqabjotu 12:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Probably you don't see the objective problem: I didn't ask you to undo the "wrong" version (since nobody can determine that previous versions are "better"), but rather to undo the version which violates the 3RR. Such a request is absolutlely legitimate and backed by objective criteria (not like any hypothetical request for subjectively preferring a "better" version over a "wrong" version). If you don't think that a version which violates the 3RR is illegal, then you're welcome to express your opinion (as emphatically as you can), and I promise that your opinion will be taken into account - just as Od Mishehu's hesitant opinion (which is not less legitimate than yours) will be taken into account.
My request on the noticeboard was removed (not archived but rather: removed), and that's why I referred to other admins who may see the objective problem.
Why did you remove the {editprotected} template from my request on the article talk page? I don't want my request to be presented partly. Please put back the template, or remove my request wholly from the talk page. Choose either alternative, but I don't want my request to be presented partly, because presenting my request partly - does not reflect my request. Eliko (talk) 14:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Three points: first, you are mistaken in your "revert accounting". The edit at 05:15 23 February was not the "first revert" — that revision differs from the edit from 11 days earlier. Therefore, each of you two has exactly three reverts in the latest flare-up of your edit war. Second, your request was removed form the noticeboard because you did not follow the directions for reporting an incident there. Third, I repeat my request from over a week ago, when I had protected the article from the previous edit warring incident: please sort out your differences on the sandbox page and cease your disruption of the main article. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Four points
  1. The edit at 05:15 23 February was really the "first revert" (although it slightly differs from the edit from 11 days earlier), because it reverted back to all of the three old points (in dispute) which were included in the first version: a) replacing the IMF 2006 givens by IMF 2007 projections, b) removing the third column from the IMF list, and c) removing the footnote from the CIA secion. However, I asked to avoid warning the user because I think that he is an honest person who has not done that on purpose.
  2. You must be consistent: in another case, you indicated this version of mine - which actually reverted back to a previous version of yours - as if that version of mine reverted back to another person's version, while the only version which was identical to my version - was your version, not anybody else's version.
  3. I can't understand why my message was removed: What was not proper?
  4. How do you suggest that I sort out the differences on the sandbox page - after I have already done that? My recent comments on the sandbox were not referred to!
Eliko (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
If you don't follow the simple instructions to create a 3RR report — and I know you read the example report format because you deleted it in your edit — then it will be removed. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
What was missing? was it an absence of request for warning the user? If the price is warning honest persons whose mistake was not made on purpose - then I waive my right to place messages there. Eliko (talk) 21:17, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My request on the noticeboard was removed (not archived but rather: removed), so I referred to other admins who may see the objective problem.
Why did you remove the {editprotected} template from my request on the article talk page? I don't want my request to be presented partly. Please put back the template, or remove my request wholly from the talk page. Choose either alternative, but I don't want my request to be presented partly, because presenting my request partly - does not reflect my request.
I didn't ask you to undo the "wrong" version (since nobody can determine that previous versions are "better"), but rather to undo the illegal version - which violates the 3RR. Hope you see now what I mean. Eliko (talk) 15:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
You don't need to double-, triple-, and quadruple-post everything you say for your comments to get noticed. People have lives outside of Wikipedia; they'll respond to your messages when they return. The reason your 3RR was removed was because, as Andrew has already said on your talk page, your report was formatting incorrectly. Take a look at the version of AN3 with your report. Look and your report at the bottom, and look at just about every other report on that page. Note also that you deleted the sample report at the bottom that included the template for how to post reports properly. Okay, so, case closed.
I removed the {{editprotected}} template on the talk page of the article because you're canvassing and because your request has been and will be continuously rejected. Your demand that I either remove your entire request or restore the edit protected is wrong; I am not compelled to take either of those routes and, in fact, I believe the one I took is most preferred.
There is nothing "illegal" about the current version of the article. Now, drop this please. -- tariqabjotu 22:21, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I just respond wherever anybody referred to me. You've left a message on my talk page and on your talk page and on the article talk page, so I respond where all of those messages were left.
  • As I said: the original report format - enforces me to ask to warn the user. If the price for having the right to place messages there - is warning honest persons whose mistake was not made on purpose - then I waive my right to place messages there.
  • I'm not canvassing: If you say now that my request (placed on the noticeboard) was removed because it was not placed properly - then I accept that, but please don't say that I'm canvassing: I referred to other admins - before you told me why my message was removed - not after that, so it was not done on purpose.
  • If you think that my request (for undoing the version which violates the 3RR) will be rejected - it's okay (to think so), but please let me see on the noticeboard that my request is rejected (there).
  • The route you have taken - to halve my second request (on the article talk page) into two parts - is illegitimate: The template I had put on the talk page - is an integral part of my request. I don't want my request to be presented partly, because presenting my request partly - does not reflect my request. This is a legitimate request, and this is my request - rather than your request.
  • If you don't think that a version which violates the 3RR is illegal, then you're welcome to express your opinion (as emphatically as you can), and I promise that your opinion will be taken into account - just as opposite opinions of other administrators will be taken into account.
  • As to your advise to "drop this" - please don't prevent me from taking legitimate steps for what I consider to be an objective problem. Thank you.
Eliko (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-02-24 List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita[edit]

I left my comment over there. Although it is not highly related, would you please go there so that we can discuss? please leave your comment on my talk page. Thanks! Coloane (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Eliko (talk) 08:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
pls reply on my talk page, thanks! Coloane (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 Done Eliko (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

SSP case[edit]

Your statements on Thatcher's talk page are wrong. The evidence is not conclusive, it's more in the "likely" category. Do not use any account other than your Eliko account. I'm sure one or more people are watching you closely. RlevseTalk 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't understand why you think that there is anything "wrong" in my statements on Thatcher's talk page. My statement was that you've closed the case with "a final clear conclusion", that's all ! This final clear conclusion you've made - was: "As there is room for doubt, let's watch and see what happens". What was wrong in my statements? Eliko (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eliko, since it has been determined that it is "somewhere between possible and confirmed" that you used sockpuppets abusively within content disputes — especially in violation of a "no edit or be blocked" agreement that you explicitly agreed to previously on your talk page (#Proposal by admin) — I feel that the 7 day block is still justified. I shall seek endorsement (or rejection) of this action before I apply it, but if another admin decides to block you anyway, I would obviously endorse that. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Justified? It would have been justified just in case I had had sock puppets.
The final conclusion on the closed SSP page was: "there is room for doubt". Indeed, one could have made it "Confirmed" in an unquestionable manner - just for Manstorius and for "some" other accounts, e.g. for Manstorius's admitted sock puppets; yet - not for me: as far as I'm concerned, one is only allowed to say: "possible", "certainly possible", "definitely possible", "somewhere between some possible points of likelihood", and the like, which means that there is still "room for doubt", as was finally concluded on the closed SSP page.
Wikipedians should respect final conclusions reached in closed cases, including any closed SSP case.
Eliko (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Sorry. I just think "Taiwan Province of China" is better than "Republic of China" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yxy191 (talkcontribs) 09:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

And I just think that the word China is better than the word PRC. Eliko (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-09 List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita[edit]

I would like to become mediator for the case if both parties approve, please state your opinion on the page. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Sox! 10:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

approve. Eliko (talk) 16:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Exact trigonometric constants[edit]

You asked for a (non-iterative) algebraic expression for the exact trigonometric constants of the form:

These can be calculated iteratively to any particular n using the recursion

But I am not aware of any way to express the general expression in any neater closed form, without having to nest n square roots. Jheald (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

What a pity! I've been looking for a closed, non-iterative formula. Eliko (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe a non-iterative algebraic solution exists. Do you think you have a proof that one exists? Since you are explicitly excluding infinite series, the only solutions you seem willing to accept are algebraic ones, and yet, by the statement of your problem, these must inherently be iterative. linas (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk page contributions[edit]

On talk pages, please do not retroactively change the contents of your contributions if others have already replied to what you wrote initially (of course, feel free to fix typoes and correct broken links). It can be really confusing for readers if requests and replies don't match. — Tobias Bergemann (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

My change was intended to clarify my request, and I think it didn't influence the relevance of any reply there. Eliko (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and next time, please do not post the same question on a bunch of different people's talk pages. Its a waste of time to have a bunch of rather advanced mathematicians all help you with your homework problem, which, oh by the way, provably has no solution. We don't mind being helpful, but it didn't need three of us to provide you with exactly the same answer. linas (talk) 18:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Homework? the last time I attended school was a few decades ago.
Meanwhile, different editors have supplied different answers (unfortunately, none of the answeres were accompanied by proofs, and none of them reached the solution). However, even if they had given the same response - I shouldn't be blamed, since when I posted my question I was not supposed to know whether they'll give the same answer. Eliko (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

General trig expression for pi over 2 to the n[edit]

I understand the question you left on my talk page - - To find the general (non-iterative) non-trigonometric expression for the exact trigonometric constants of the form: . It is a very interesting question. I do not know the answer, but I will work on finding or discovering it.--MathMan64 (talk) 20:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This may not be what you are looking for, but it does allow you to have the answer for any integer value of n
--MathMan64 (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
As you've properly guessed, what you've given me is not what I'm looking for, since I'm looking for a closed formula. Anyways, I thank you for your response. Have a nice day. Eliko (talk) 21:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Excessive cross-posting[edit]

Hi Eliko,

Thank you for your compliments on my contributions.

If you want assistance on a particular question, please use the Wikipedia:Reference desk, as you in fact did at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Mathematics#cos.28.CF.80.2F2n.29 to good effect, instead of posting on multiple talk pages, which is Wikipedia:Canvassing#Excessive cross-posting.

Glad you got an answer (though not what you desired), and see you around!

Nbarth (email) (talk) 00:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Nbarth, glad to meet you.
Posting on multiple talk pages is considered to be a canvassing - just in case it is intended to "publicize a discussion" (taking place in a remote location), which is by no means what I did, since I posted my question on the talk pages before I opened (and before I decided to open) any discussion (in a remote location). Anyways, thank you for your response, and have a nice day. Eliko (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that the page most narrowly references canvassing (talk-page spamming to influence a debate), but the section:
indiscriminately sending announcements to uninvolved editors is considered "talk-page spamming" (or e-mail spamming) and therefore disruptive. Editors trying to attract a larger audience for a discussion should first contact related WikiProjects and/or the Village pump, and use only limited friendly notices to individual editors.
reads as applicable to any contacting of many people individually, rather than using applicable fora.
Anyway, contacting many unknown people individually is the common definition of spamming, and goes against common etiquette as I understand it; however, the lack of a more definitive or forceful Wikipedia policy statement on this suggests that, while it is frowned upon, it is not a high priority concern. Further, given that you clearly upset some people (notably Linas above and myself), it would seem prudent to avoid such mass requests in future.
Nbarth (email) (talk) 07:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Hello Nbarth.
  • Sorry if I've "upset" you, I apologize.
  • I have always been aware of the spamming/canvassing problem (which bothers me too). However, I don't think that we are talking about a relevant case: Your quotation deals with "indiscriminately" sending of annoncement. This was not my case, since I sent my question to only some chosen editors (like you) who have made important contributions to relevant articles dealing with similar questions. Futhermore, the section from which you've quoted indicates that it deals with announcements made for "publicizing a discussion" (which "happens at remote locations in Wikipedia"). This is not my case, since no "discussion" had been happening (at any "remote location in Wikipedia") when I sent my quetion to some chosen editors (who have made important contributions to relevant articles dealing with similar questions).
  • As far as User:Linas is concerned, he explained his remark - by the following reason: "Its a waste of time to have a bunch of rather advanced mathematicians all help you with your homework problem"; i.e. his remark was justified by a wrong assumption: that I'm looking for help with my "homework" (while the last time I attended school was a few decades ago).
  • Except for you and for User:Linas, other users were satisfied by my question, e.g. User:Tomruen claimed (on his talk page) that my question is "interesting", and User:MathMan64 indicated (on my talk page) that my question is "very intersting". Other users too, answered me (on their talk pages) - friendly and to the point, e.g. here, and here. Furthermore, since my question was to the point, it interested some other users I did not refer to, as you can see here (on a user's talk page). I'm not supposed to predict that such an innocent question (being also an interesting question in my opinion) may "upset" the minority of the chosen users I referred to, while most of the users I referred to found my innocent question interesting and/or friendly.
  • Again, I'm absolutely aware of the canvassing problem (which bothers me too). However, I don't think this is the case. I hope you see my point. Anyway, if you don't agree with me - then I really apologize.
  • Thank you again for answering my question. Have a nice day.
Eliko (talk) 12:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Eliko,
No offense taken; however, regardless of whether individuals appreciate it, it is my belief (and my understanding of community norms) that it is almost always inappropriate to contact many people individually, when a communal locus exists, whether it be for canvassing or asking a question, and I would advise against doing so in future: talk pages are to discuss users contributions, not to ask people general questions (which is the purpose of the Reference desk).
Best luck!
Nbarth (email) (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
As a person who has himself been bothered by canvassing - I've always shared with you the opinion that it is almost always inappropriate to contact many people individually. However, as I've explained above, it is my belief that my case is not the relevant one, although you're welcome to disagree with me. Anyway, I wish you my best regards. Eliko (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure thing, and sorry if this was a bit acrimonious!
Nbarth (email) (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a bit, but it was polite too. Take care and have successful edits. Eliko (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I thought more about it, and followed up at the archive page
Basically: trig is very natural in this context, there may be a combinatorics proof, and the result can be sharpened.
Nbarth (email) (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, thank you for following up. I've answered ibid.
Briefly, I'm still eager to know whether such a combinatorial proof exists. Eliko (talk) 08:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The IMF report of April 2008 is already published - for all countries[edit]

Why not update the entire list, instead of having old numbers from October? Turkey's figures have vastly changed due to the new Eurostat standard GDP measurement system, which provided an instant 32% increase in Turkey's GDP figures. I'm sure many other countries have similar updates. Res Gestæ Divi Augusti (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

You're invited to update the article (for all countries), just don't mix different reports for different countries. Eliko (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

CLS[edit]

Remember that any statistics must have a citation. While it may not contradict the website, I could easily post that they accept Native American seashells, but this would not be acceptable, since there is no source to back me up on it. Please post a relevant source if you would like to add Israeli and Mexican denominations. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page. Eliko (talk) 20:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Go for it...just make sure it's cited. Bob the Wikipedian, the Tree of Life WikiDragon (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Eliko (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello![edit]

Hello Eliko! How are you doing?, haven't cantacted in a long time! I thought I'd let you deal with all these issues.

GoodBye

☆ Muzammil, مزمل ☆ (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine, al7amdulillah. How are you? Eliko (talk) 22:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm fine al7amduliallah too.

☆ Muzammil, مزمل ☆ (talk) 18:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-03-09 List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita[edit]

I read your complaint at the Mediation Cabal and I agree with your points. Although I think it will be hard to get all requests through I think we should try, specially your request concerning the restoration of IMF year column.

I started a talk section on the List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita, but thus far I've not received any responses.

How do you want to procede from here? ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I think that the best is to refer to the mediator Stormtracker94, and ask him to promote the issue. Like you, I'm waiting for the mediator's new proposals. Eliko (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This issue is basically abandoned since February 24th, so I think I should try to speed things up.
I haven't received any responses at the talk page section yet. I will let 4 more days pass if nobody responds I am going to add all the changes you requested back.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Before you begin a new edit war (between you and CieloEstrallado) I recommend that you refer to the mediator and ask him for his advice. Eliko (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh ok, nevermind then.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The other party has not responded, so I was not sure if I shopuld go on. Maybe the dispute would be over if the other party was inactive. RedThunder 15:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Checked, not inactive. Maybe another notification would be good. I'll do that. RedThunder 15:57, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
He's not active since yesterday, but I think that one day only is not enough for determining that he is inactive. Eliko (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
That seems like the good decision to make. RedThunder 10:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Which decision? Eliko (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
The arbitration decision. RedThunder 23:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hebrew renditions[edit]

Thank you for answering my questions about Hebrew versions of the angel names! I had been starting to worry that no one was going to answer, but you stepped up to the plate. :) However, could I please ask clarification on a couple of the answers?

First, on Talk:Azrael, User:Ninth Scribe wrote that Azrael is עזריאל, "with no exceptions," which differs from the version you gave, עזראל, by the letter י. So is there or is there not a yod in "Azrael"?

Second, shin has two phonemes, (in IPA) /s/ or /ʃ/, so which of those two ways is the ש in ישרפאל (Israfel) pronounced?

Thanks.

Lowellian (reply) 03:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

As to your first question: I'll give you the facts all, so that you can make the decision by youself:
  1. Azriel is translitrated into Hebrew: עזריאל (with no exceptions).
  2. Azrael is transliterated into Hebrew: עזראל (with no exceptions).
  3. Undoubtedly, both Azrael and Azriel derive from Hebrew, and have the same meaning in (archaic or classic) Hebrew.
  4. Azrael has never been recognized as a name in the hebraic tradition.
  5. Azrael does have a meaning in (archaic) Hebrew (in spite of the foregoing fact, no. 4).
  6. Azriel is a well known name in the hebraic tradition (note that it's just a name, not an angle's name).
You see? Six confusing facts, which enforces you to make the decision by youself!
As to your second question: the ש in ישרפאל is pronounced: s. The word is a combination of two words:
  • ישרפ (generally pronounced in Hebrew: "yisrof", although it may have been pronounced: "yisraf" in archaic Hebrew, i.e. similar to the pronunciation in the arabic angle's name), which means in classic Hebrew (being the original language from which the word derives): "burns (something)", or: "(is) burning (something)";
  • אל (pronounced: "el"), which means "a god" or "God".
So ישרפאל means in classic Hebrew: the burning god (i.e. the god who is burning), or: the god who burns. Note that the verb: "to burn", as well as: "to be burning", should be interpreted here as transitive, i.e. "to burn (something)", "to be burning (something)", so the name is to mean (in Hebrew) something like: the god who burns his surroundings (etc.).
Hope it helps.
Eliko (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

UK/US English[edit]

On developed country you left the following edit summary: "quotation marks come always, and I mean ALWAYS, before periods or other punctuation." In American English it's the opposite (see how I just quotes you above). Which brings me to the question, is the developed country article in UK English? Signaturebrendel 03:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Either. Eliko (talk) 06:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Request Maltese title for "Hoopoe"[edit]

I have asked another user on this regard as I'm not specialised on these types of topics. I will answer you asap... thanks ;) Chrisportelli (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Eliko (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Its name in Maltese is Daqquqa tat-toppu. Chrisportelli (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. Eliko (talk) 11:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

High income country[edit]

Taiwan can't add high income country. because Taiwan is unrecognized country. and Taiwan's GDP per capita and GNI per capita, it is not known exactly. w950712 —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

You've made five mistakes, as following:
  • The list includes also economies which are not "recognized countries". I've given you (on your talk page and on the talk page of the article) 17 examples of economies (e.g. Guam), not being "recognized countries", which are classified by UN as High Income Economies.
  • Taiwan is classified by UN as a High Income Economy. What's the difference between Taiwan and all of the other 16 economies (e.g. Guam)? None of them is a recognized country, so what?
  • The list is not limited to economies whose GNI per capita is known: it includes many countries whose GNI is unknown, e.g. Andorra, Bahama, Liechtenstein, Qatar, and the other 17 economies mentioned above (e.g. Guam), see here on the fourth page and at the bottom of page 3.
  • The list is not limited to economies whose GDP per capita is known. it includes many countries whose GNI is unknown, e.g. Andorra, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Nauru, San Marino, and the other 17 economies mentioned above (e.g. Guam). See the IMF table.
  • Taiwan's GDP per capita and GNI per capita, is known exactly. See the IMF table, here.
Eliko (talk) 10:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

List of countries by Human Development Index[edit]

I have nominated List of countries by Human Development Index for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. OboeCrack (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

hello[edit]

Hello. I hope you remember me :p, how are you doing anyway?

bye :)

☆ Muzammil, مزمل ☆ (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine. :) Eliko (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of cities by GDP[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of cities by GDP. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities by GDP. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

HDI[edit]

I know what you want to do, but let me do the complete first. Wait for 2-3 days. You don't need to revert it. I will fix all first and I will start finding sources.--125.25.243.242 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


The one I put wasn't 2008 report. At least, the 2008 report starts from Iceland, not Norway. And Thailand was 0.786, not 0.797.--125.25.243.242 (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


If I put

template, I know nobody will touch it. But I don't want to lie. Like this, the next time I will be online is tomorrow at 6:00am Thailand time, or 11:00pm UTC. That's because I have to use internet in the office. Now I'm still at the office. But yesterday, I stayed in the office until 9am Thailand time, but my office is 24 hours and I usually work for daytime.--125.25.243.242 (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

WikiCash - new project by me[edit]

I'm not sure you will like it or not. You can use it in the future like passing a block, or buy something for your userpage or your account. You first got 200 WikiCash. In 2011 I will make it an official project that you can really use it.

200 This user has 200 WikiCash.

--125.25.243.242 (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


I like the 3rd one. But can I delay some more? But I must finish arranging first.

But for 4th one, instead of WORD, I recommend using a draft on Talk:List of countries by Human Development Index/draft is better. But 3rd is the best.

PS:I don't know that you prefer replying on my TP or your TP more?--125.25.243.242 (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek Quality of life[edit]

You must understand the following:

Throughout various articles in Wikipedia, the Economist is widely used as the reference for its "Quality of life index". And not by luck. The Economist is a specialized organization dealing with Economics while Newsweek is just a news magazine. Even if you have a look at the methodology used, you can see that the criteria are much more narrow than the criteria used by the Economist. I have given one example (Iceland) in which you insist on giving various excuses, but there are more. For instance the Newsweek list states the UK as no 14 ahead of countries like France or Austria. If you read the Economist methodology, which is by far more accurate, (even for 2005 standards supposely) you will see why it is ranked relatively low. The UK might have a relatively high GDP per capita, but a high social breakdown as well, which offsets any gains in GDP per capita. Whoever has been in the UK, France and Austria knows who has the better quality of life (and this is not the UK). Also placing Czech Republic and Slovenia (two ex-communist countries), which only recently became part of the EU, above Greece sounds a bit funny. The bottom line is that we need to focus on the SOURCE rather than the DATE. The source is always ahead of the date. Newsweek magazine might be excellent in spreading the news, but the Economist is the standard for economic and development matters. Avionics1980 (talk) 19:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Eliko (talk) 06:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm still finding.[edit]

I know that it will be reverted in few hours and I'm finding the sources. If not, I will revert back into the last version until I find one or more and I will revert back to this.--125.25.34.151 (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Laissez-passer in English[edit]

Dear Eliko - six minutes is a new record for a response to my Ref Desk queries - chapeau! I've been using "transit pass" till now and have also considered your suggested "transit permit. Then somehow today it struck me that these smack of a prepaid multi-fare device for public transportation (which I myself use, though not in English). I'll see if there are more responses and a consensus. For now, cheers! -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
!ואחרי שהעלתי את הנ"ל העפתי מבט בדף המשתמש שלך - הפתעה...
07:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice to meet you, Brukhim Haba'im (I wish I had a Hebrew keyboard)... :) Eliko (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Developed countries[edit]

I've released a new version of User:Pristino/Developed countries, which incorporates some of your suggestions. Hope you like it. Pristino (talk) 07:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hola.
Yes, but it's still not the best version, because you could think of many other expressions, e.g. "state" or "market". Additionaly, I'm not sure if the expression "developed nation" has any meaning, except for the racial one given by the Nazis 70 years ago, and by the Neo-Nazis nowadays. A version based on the expressions: "Developed state" and "Developed market" (besides "Developed country"), is much better. Eliko (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Where are you from?[edit]

I want to ask this for long time, I want to know where are you from? Tell me as HDI on 2007's report. I'm from country with HDI 0.783.--125.25.71.94 (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you find it important? Anyways, email me, and I'll tell you. Eliko (talk) 21:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it's important. My country is now 0.654.--125.25.45.45 (talk) 16:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
So email me, and I'll tell you. Eliko (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't have an account, or I give you the email so you can email me?--125.25.45.45 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok, give me your email, and I'll email you. Eliko (talk) 22:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Really, I don't have my own email, but I can give you the public email used by lots of people, don't forget to say "Hi 125.25.45.45", to know you're sending to me. anightoffun4234@gmail.com.--125.25.45.45 (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I emailed you 5 minutes ago. Eliko (talk) 23:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I see already, but only used there for private messages. For others, please use wikipedia. The email is shared. If you know Thai, I can't reply in Thai either. I don't have Thai keyboard (I will have to ask the technician, because I use internet in the office). I quit TV DX now.
If you have a YouTube account, you can chat directly with me.--125.25.45.45 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

HDI works[edit]

It's too hard for me. I've done half of it, with 2 countries passed my country. Please continue and get new data here.

Thailand HDI is now 92th, I don't see any countries moved down under Thailand, but why I see more than 5 moves up?--125.25.45.45 (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

9 countries that were far ahead before your country, are not ranked in the new report: Antigua and Barbuda (was 47), Cuba (was 51), Oman (was 56), Seychelles (was 57), Saint Kitts and Nevis (was 62), Saints Lucia (was 69), Dominica (was 73), Grenada (was 74), Lebanon (was 83).
14 countries that were far beyond your country, are now far ahead before it: Iran (now 70, was 88), Georgia (now 74, was 89), Belize (now 78, was 93), Jamaica (now 80, was 100), Tunisia (now 81, was 98), Jordan (now 82, was 96), Algeria (now 84, was 104), Tonga (now 85, was 99), Fiji (now 86, was 108), Turkmenistan (now 87, was 109), Dominican Republic (now 88, was 90), China (now 89, was 92), El Salvador (now 90, was 106), and Sri Lanka (now 91, was 102).
14 - 9 = 92 - 87.
Eliko (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Why every countries HDI has been reduced by 0.05-0.15? My country was 0.783, now 0.654?--125.25.45.45 (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Because the new report uses a completely different methodology, which resulted in completely new values. Eliko (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
And was this the same reason every year? Why this year so much change? Please tell me new methods of HDI--125.25.45.45 (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
No, they changed the methodology just this year. You can read about the new methodology here. Eliko (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This year first time? Why not correct between 2008 and 2009? 2008 Thailand at 0.786, and 2009 said 2008 was 0.780.--125.25.45.45 (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
2010 HD Report made the first "heavy" change in the methodology, although some little changes were made also in other reports. Eliko (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

HDI map[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your input, but in your comment you said:

Kardrak's map could have been even better, because it reflects the "formal" map presented by HDI Report, however it has no logic of colors (just as Pristino's second map has no logic of colors, unless the black is replaced by white).

The second map was made Kardrak, not me. I hope you correct this. Thanks. Pristino (talk) 23:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Eliko (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Inequality HDI[edit]

The article says:

The "Rank change" column reflects a country's rank difference between both HDI and IHDI lists, when only the 139 countries with a calculated IHDI are considered.

I believe it has been correctly calculated. Pristino (talk) 23:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. thank you. Eliko (talk) 10:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

/* Palestine and the Asian Group of UN */[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Eliko. You have new messages at Talk:United Nations Regional Groups.
Message added 20:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Courtesy notification[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

canvassing[edit]

Posts like this are canvassing of the vote stacking kind and worse, they ask for help in an edit war in a sanctioned topic area. You've been here for years, one would have thought you knew this wasn't allowed. You should undo or strike out all of those posts. If you carry on doing this, you'll be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Eliko, it's ok to make a mistake now and then, but you truly should start undoing those posts now. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Am I to understand, that you're unwilling to retract your other canvassing posts? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks to me as though you've retracted the canvassing for, or been rebuffed by, all editors but this one: User_talk:PalaceGuard008#Hello. Would you be willing to take care of this yourself, too? Gwen Gale (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) As I said, looking back on how you've handled this, it's no big deal at all. I was willing to protect the article, but the edit warring seems to have stopped. If it begins again, please report it at WP:3rr, which is a very bright line. You can also ask for protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. If the dispute is long-standing, a content RfC may bring more input. Please be aware, that topic area is under stern arbcom sanctions: Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Imposed_by_the_Committee. Edit warring won't be put up with on that article for long. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


NATO[edit]

Hello, I thought Nato's issue is irrevelent in discussion board of Visa waiver program... I gat my intership in Nato office in Ankara and since 10 years i am realy focused on political articels So if you are interest in i would like to talk with you...

Nato is A Euro-Atlantic organization.Unless for enlargement agenda there is No speech about Being European or Northen American ...but also it is nearly impossible to get new members out of this region...Becasue it is Based on Euro-American Common values http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO

You can Consider it like European Union... Country Should be a Member of Coucnil of Europe( it has same flag and same anthem with EU) ...Altough There is no speech about that in EU ...only non-member of council Belarus is not in enlargement Progress of EU, unlikley Cyprus is member of both EU and COE ...But also Other aplicant of EU; Morocco, refused by council becasue not considering EUROPEAN... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_enlargement_of_the_European_Union#Progress

EU and Nato have totaly different mechanism but in some cases They work more or less same...Like Enlargement Progress

--Aegeanfighter (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Aegeanfighter,
Just to make things clearer:
Morocco submitted an application to join the EU (then EEC) in July 1987, but it was rejected by the European Council later in the year on the grounds that it "did not consider Morocco a European country".
This proves that every EU member must be considered a European country.
  • However, look at our article Enlargement of Nato. When discussing Armenia, being a totally Asian country, the article adopts quite other reasons - for explaining why Armenia is "unlikely" to join EU. This proves that being a European/North-American country, is not a necessary condition for membership in NATO.
All the Best, take care.
Eliko (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is located here. Nightw 08:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Template:Palestine foreign relations[edit]

I've reverted your removal of the TfD tag from this article - this should not have been removed why the discussion is ongoing. That's a hard and fast rule regardless of whether you think the TfD has merit. If you don't think it has merit you get the TfD closed first before removing the tag. Additionally there is no such thing as a "final decision" on wikipedia (See WP:Consensus can change). In general starting another XfD with the same arguments in a short space of time would be seen as disruptive and speedy closed but in this instance the nominator has given a valid reason for a quick renomination, namely that the article has changed enough that there is no longer any point in merging the information. In short it's best to let this TfD run. Dpmuk (talk) 10:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about, because the situation is the other way around! As opposed to what you've claimed, the merge does make sense and is still relevant, because it relates to preferring more updated documents of 2007 and of 2010, to some outdated documents of 1986 and of 1998, so as I've stated, the situation is the other way around. Anyways, I'm not going to remove the {{Tfd}}, because two editors, namely you and User:Nightw, think that the re-nomination is reasonable. Eliko (talk) 11:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I wasn't commenting on the merits of their argument, merely that it was a valid argument and so deserved a discussion as the page to be merged to has definitely changed quite a bit since the last TfD. Dpmuk (talk) 12:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
That's exactly what I've been referring to. Notice that you're still claiming that "the page to be merged to has definitely changed quite a bit since the last TfD", so my response to that hasn't changed - and is still as before: All of the changes this page has undergone, have nothing to do with the (apparent) need to merge, because the page (to be merged to) - still contains the same outdated documents of 1986 and of 1998, instead of the more updated documents of 2007 and of 2010, while the discussion about the merge - referred to those more updated documents, whereas the resolution of that discussion was "merge". Eliko 13:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
But my point is that it's obvious that the page has changed a lot. It's then your opinion that it hasn't changed enough to change anything why another user disagrees and this is best sorted out at the TfD where you can make arguments like above. You shouldn't be removing the TfD template based on your opinion that nothing has changed - you're way too involved to be making decisions like that. Dpmuk 13:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
You're talking about the "obvious", i.e. about undisputed facts, and I too am talking about the obvious and about undisputed facts: Nobody disagrees that the page (to be merged to) - still contains the same outdated documents of 1986 and of 1998, instead of the more updated documents of 2007 and of 2010, and nobody disagrees that the discussion about the merge - referred to those more updated documents, and nobody disagrees that the resolution of that discussion was "merge". Eliko 13:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
To couple what Dpmuk is trying to get across: it says quite clearly at WP:GTD, "You must not modify or remove the AfD notice." And at WP:DEL, "If you disagree: Go to the relevant process page and explain why you disagree. Do not remove the tag from the page." It's not about opinions (neither yours nor mine), you shouldn't have removed the tag whilst discussion was ongoing. Nightw 13:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is permitted to by-pass a resolution of "merge", by putting a tag for deletion before the the template is merged. Eliko (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

They're not bypassing it, they're enquiring whether the "merge" consensus still exists - as stated above consensus can change. Adding a speedy tag would be wrong but a request to see whether consensus has changed is perfectly allowable. Dpmuk (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you just "updated" the template. It's not transcluded anywhere and only still exists so it can be merged. Updating it seems pointless. The update should occur to the article and it's objected to discussed there. Dpmuk (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I just added the information taken from the article. Eliko (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Why would you do that? The article is the appropriate place for it and this also violates WP:COPYPASTE. As such I've reverted it. Dpmuk (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

This does not violate any copy right, because it's indicated in the edit summary that the update is taken from Wikipedia. Eliko (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Does now, although your first edit didn't. But either way that still doesn't answer the question why you think that is appropiate. The article should be being updated not this template. Why are you updating the template and not the article? Dpmuk (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Why do you think the article only should be being updated and not the template? Both the template and the article should be updated. As for the article: two users have been trying to update it, but somebody prevented them (by violating the 3RR) from updating the article, so, at the mean time, the template is being updated. Eliko (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Because that sort of thing is not appropriate for a template - it's not what templates for. That sort of information goes in the article. If other people revert your additions you discuss it on the articles talk page, you don't add it to an alternative version (see WP:CFORK) which is effectively what this template is. Dpmuk (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm sure you don't know what you're talking about. The template needed an update, because it contained serious errors, which have already been fixed in the article, so I simply fixed the errors (that had existed in the template) by copying the corrected information from the article (e.g. the updated information about the correct number of countries having diplomatic relations with Palestine, the updated kind of diplomatic relations each country has with Palestine, etc.). Eliko (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
But if the template isn't used why does it need updating? The only reason the template was kept was so it could be merged and then deleted (although it now looks like deletion isn't possible). It was not intended that it be updated. Dpmuk (talk) 22:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Was the template really kept "so it could be merged and then deleted"? Notice that the original discussion ended up with the resolution: "The result of the discussion was merge"; No word about "deletion", because if any resolution about "deletion" is ever agreed upon (which I doubt, like you do), it will also have to be decided whether the template or the article should be deleted - after they are merged into each other. Note also that: being nominated for deletion - doesn't mean that it's going to be deleted. Additionally, as you've pointed out, it now looks like deletion isn't possible anyway, so, at the mean time, both the article and the template should be being updated, untill a new resolution is reached. Eliko (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The closing administrator clearly has meant for the template to be deleted. That is the purpose of the holding cell. Nightw 04:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm talking about resolutions. Eliko (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

an arbitration case[edit]

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
  • The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
  • Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. Dougweller (talk) 11:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hitting a brick wall[edit]

OK, maybe that wasn't the best phrase to use as it appears you misunderstood it. To quote from [1] it means to "waste one's time trying hard to accomplish something that is completely hopeless". More specifically, what I meant by it was that you're actually missing the point of what I'm seeing and no matter how I rephrase things you don't seem to get the point. I'm going to assume (in a good faith way) that this is because we're having a problem communicating and as such there seems little point us carrying on discussing things as I feel I'm not making any progress. Hence why I asked for someone else to take a look. Dpmuk (talk) 11:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Why Hopeless? Look at this diff (between the article and template), and see that it's a very easy work. Unfortunately, when I tried to do that myself, I was reverted by violating the 3RR. Eliko (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Will you accept the suggestion to userify the material, blank the template and protect it, if that is in fact the only way to do this? Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Userfying is a reasonable suggestion, which lets the original resolution be fulfilled, so I accept it, although I can't do that myself. Eliko (talk) 12:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Note that at the TfD discussion then please, and perhaps this can be resolved. I'm still trying to figure out the history issue, and if anything has been copied to the article without attribution we have copyvio problms. Dougweller (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Done. Eliko (talk) 12:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I can help with that? It is a giant mess, and I know I'm quite involved, but if there are any questions I can clear up, just give me a buzz. Moved to appropriate thread. Nightw 12:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Since your're heavily involved, you can't do that yourself. Eliko (talk) 12:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Template[edit]

See User:Eliko/temptemplate - I'll delete it tomorrow. Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear that just because the original WP:TfD closed as merged that doesn't mean that all, or indeed, any of the template has to be merged. What to merge is still an editorial decision and if there is disagreement it should be discussed on the talk page. You cannot try to force through your changes by quoting the TfD result, that result just says there should be a merge, not what text etc should actually be merged. Dpmuk (talk) 13:41, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Just to make it clearer:
The sequence of events was as follows:
  • On 17 December 2010, it was decided (per this resolution) to merge a template into the article.
  • On 9 February 2011, it was decided (per this resolution) to delete the template, which was userified to Eliko's userspace by Dougweller.
  • On that very day, few hours after the template was deleted and userified, User:Eliko merged it (i.e. parts of it) to the article.
Now please pay attention to the following 5 points (please don't skip any - if you really want to know what's going on here):
1. Notice that the first resolution to merge - has never been canceled.
2. Notice that any legal attempt (not violating any Wikipedia rules) to comply with the first resolution to merge - should not be regarded as an attempt to "force" anything (as you called that), but rather as a definitely legitimate attempt to comply with that resolution - i.e. to contribute to Wikipedia; just like the other legal edits in other articles on Wikipedia, which should not be regarded as attempts to "force" anything, but rather as definitely legitimate attempts to contribute to Wikipedia.
3. Notice also that the merge carried out by User:Eliko on 9 of February (at 20:26) and by User:Alinor on 10 of February (at 13:05) - was the only merge that has ever been carried out - since the first resolution to merge was made, so your edit summary here - which was made on 9 of February (at 14:49) before User:Eliko's merge - includes a wrong claim.
4. Notice also that the merge edited by User:Eliko and by User:Alinor on 9-10 of February - is rejected by a single user only, and is supported by two users, i.e. User:Eliko and User:Alinor.
5. Notice also that no Wikipedia rules (nor Wikipedia policy) were violated by the merge edited by User:Eliko and by User:Alinor on 9-10 of February; On the contrary: this merge complied with the first resolution (that has never been canceled) to merge (parts of the template to the article).
Hope this helps to figure out what's going on here.
Eliko (talk) 20:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Foreign relations of the Palestinian National Authority. Thank you. Dpmuk (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Eliko (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)