Doug Weller (talk | contribs) →an arbitration case: new section |
|||
Line 161: | Line 161: | ||
::::::::The closing administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JPG-GR&diff=402812669&oldid=402788576 clearly] has meant for the template to be deleted. That is the purpose of the holding cell. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Night w|<font color="black">Night</font><font color="gray">w</font>]]</span>''' 04:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
::::::::The closing administrator [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JPG-GR&diff=402812669&oldid=402788576 clearly] has meant for the template to be deleted. That is the purpose of the holding cell. '''<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User talk:Night w|<font color="black">Night</font><font color="gray">w</font>]]</span>''' 04:15, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::I'm talking about '''resolutions'''. [[User:Eliko|Eliko]] ([[User talk:Eliko#top|talk]]) 09:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
:::::::::I'm talking about '''resolutions'''. [[User:Eliko|Eliko]] ([[User talk:Eliko#top|talk]]) 09:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
== [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles|an arbitration case]] == |
|||
As a result of [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles|an arbitration case]], the [[WP:AC|Arbitration Committee]] has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Area of conflict|Palestinian-Israeli conflict]], broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|editing restrictions]], described [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions|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 [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Log_of_notifications|here]]. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 11:17, 9 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 11:17, 9 February 2011
Barnstar
The Current (economical) Events Barnstar | ||
Eliko, thank you for your long lasting efforts of improving the First World article by including the correct countries and supporting your reasons with strong facts based on current economical events, so I award you this, the Current and Economical Events barnstar. --Seong0980 04:01, 8 July 2007 (UTC) |
- If you're Korean - please tell me how you say "thanks" in Korean. Please write it in both english letters and korean letters.
- Thanks.
- Eliko 08:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
고마워 Go Mar Wo --Seong0980 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm grateful !!! 고마워
- Eliko 16:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
If you think that the Trade weighted index is not the same thing as the effective exchange rate, then you should re-edit the very article Trade weighted index. Meanwhile, this article indicates that Trade weighted index is the same thing as the effective exchange rate. Eliko (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- If you think the Maltese central bank targeted some trade weighted basket of currencies,[1] then you clearly do not understand how the ERM II works or what "central parity rate" or "15% band" mean. "Effective" there meant there was a notional floating rate, but the effect was that the LM/euro rate was virtually constant apart from bank commissions. The Maltese Lira's trade weighted index moved around in that period because Malta trades with non-Euro countries too, and so in the context the article clearly did not mean what you twice edited it to appear to say.--81.129.142.136 (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- Contrary to what you thought about me, I've never thought that "Maltese central bank targeted some trade weighted basket of currencies"; I just thought that "Maltese central bank targeted some trade weighted basket of currencies, provided that the section refers to the effective exchange rate". Got it? "Provided that...".
- Note that the phrase "effective exchange rate" means: "exchange rate based on a basket of currencies" (It does not mean "in effect...").
- Note that I'm not the editor who has added the word "effective" to the article. I've added the link only.
- Of course, I quite agree with your new edit, which cancels the misleading phrase "effective exchnage rate".
- By the way, Do you speak Maltese? If you do, I may need your help.
- Have a nice day.
- Eliko (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
hi
Ok, Thanks. Sorry, I thought the archive was part of the talk page! anyway, I thought the HDI list is every year, I wonder what's gone wrong this year.
Bye
☆ Muzammil, مزمل ☆ (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Nothing has gone wrong! It has been planned in advance - last year - to publish the next HDI report two years later! Note that the last HDI report - published in 2007 - was called "2007-2008" report, i.e. it's also for 2008! That's why no new report has had to be published in 2008. Bye. Eliko (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Yeh, I realized that too, normally it's every year. But I guess the next one may be more accurate and advanced.
- ☆ Muzammil, مزمل ☆ (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Hoopoe in Yaghnobi
Hello, Hoopoe in Yaghnobi is nišōnasárak (a loan from Tajik) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubossekk (talk • contribs) 00:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
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
Hello. I hope you remember me :p, how are you doing anyway?
bye :)
☆ Muzammil, مزمل ☆ (talk) 22:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of cities by GDP
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
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
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)
NATO
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:
- Our article Enlargement of NATO does not indicate (nor does it hint) that NATO is "Based on Euro-American Common values".
- Our article Future Enlargement of EU indicates:
- 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
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)