Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Military police, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cundinamarca (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. I just want to let you know that I almost reverted your edit to Pacific Alliance because you didn't provide an edit summary, and I couldn't find sources. Fortunately, I decided to check the website, and indeed the website supports your edits. (I'm assuming that's where you got your information. It's technically not a reliable secondary source, but it's good enough for me. But if you do have a reliable secondary source I couldn't find, that would be helpful.) In the future, it would help if you mention where you got your information, particularly if it's a primary source which won't show up in Google News and may show up way down Google's main search results. Thanks for pointing it out though. I need to update the map. Quintucket (talk) 23:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
- Regarding the Cold War map, the only edits I made were to include the colonial possessions of at the date of the map which other users decided were appropriate to include (though arguably my inclusion of Rhodesia, which was de facto independent under the UDI, is questionable). Because of the subjectivity of alliances, my inclination would have been to include only countries which were either NATO members, or had mutual defense treaties with the US on one side, and the same for the Warsaw Pact/Soviet Union on the other side.
- We include South Africa though, so I'm not clear what criteria we're using. I agree that Colombia has been an important American ally for a long time (I've never understood why Argentina was designated a Major Non-NATO Ally and Colombia was not), however it's a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, and I'm not sure what its status what in 1975. Certainly I don't think despite the recent NATO engagement that it's ever had a mutual-defense treaty with any NATO member, however that may not be the grounds we're using (again, South Africa.)
- Feel free to bring it up on the Commons talk page, since your comment on the EnWP page doesn't seem to have gotten any response. —Quintucket (talk) 04:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Colombia proved oil reserves
Thanks for the note. The cited article states in the first paragraph:
- "Ecopetrol anunció que incorporará a sus reservas probadas 22,4 millones de barriles de crudo,"
As I read the article, it is about a drilling project that just discovered 22.4 million additional barrels, not 22,400 million (22.4 billion) barrels. In Latin America, the function of "," and "." are often reversed from how we use them in English. In fact, in the version I read yesterday (it seems to have changed overnight) further down the article also gave the lower figure of total proved reserves for Colombia. Even if this article means 22 billion barrels, I would be extremely suspicious of a sudden jump of national proved reserves of ~20 billion barrels. It has happened (recently in Venezuela and Canada, but due to commercialization of oil sands, not due to conventional oil discoveries) but if true it would be an important event that would be covered and confirmed by numerous articles worldwide, not just this one. For comparison, the largest sudden jump in US history was ~10 billion barrels in 1970 when Prudhoe Bay (the largest oil field in the US) was discovered. Am I wrong? I certainly could be wrong, but if so, there should be other articles you could cite to confirm the 22.4 billion number. Regards Plazak (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- The cited article, as you say, states 22.4 million barrels. But your edit in the List of countries by proven oil reserves changed it to 22,400 million barrels. Am I missing something? Thanks. Plazak (talk) 16:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tenjo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cardinal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Secondary education, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kids (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Dulles - Bogota - La Paz Service
Greetings. It appears there are some differences in interpretation relative to Avianca's one-stop service from Dulles to La Paz via Bogota. Instead of going back and forth on the articles, let's discuss here. For several months, Avianca has been providing one-stop direct service to La Paz via Bogota. According to the MWAA March 2014 filght time table, Avianca still mainatains once-weekly one-stop direct service from Dulles to La Paz. The flight does make a stop at Bogota; the same flight number and same exact aircraft then continues to La Paz: www.mwaa.com. The other six weekly flights is the same flight number but change of a aircraft at Bogota hence these would not count as direct service in accordance with wiki's avaition regulations. I would like to get your understanding of this matter. Shakbok (talk) 12:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Middle power has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. NeilN talk to me 17:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)