User talk:EconomistBR

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, EconomistBR, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Lysytalk 17:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Reflections.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Reflections.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Reflections.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Reflections.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stalker

Please don't write on my page anymore. Your behaviour displayed two unacceptable behaviours in Wikipedia: Stalking and Harassment, and I am going to see that you get punished for that. Rsazevedo (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop writing on my page. You are only making things worse for yourself. Rsazevedo (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am no stalker I simply want to disscuss with you but as always make false accusations about me.

EconomistBR (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

As noted in bold red type at the top of WP:ANI, that page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. I have blocked both you and Rsazevedo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) for 24 hours in order to stop the out-of-control mudslinging, and for the mutual personal attacks exchanged according to the diffs liberally provided at WP:ANI. Once the block expires, you and Rsazevedo are invited to settle your content dispute according to WP:DR. To contest this block, add {{unblock|your reason}} below. Sandstein (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "I've ridiculed and offended many times by Rsazevedo"

Decline reason: "No grounds for unblocking provided. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.


[edit] User Rsazevedo deletes any topics of discussion I create on his page and called me a stalker

I simply want to discuss with him about his difamation campaign but he deletes those topics and calls me a stalker. I want to discuss with him about all his offenses and ask him to apologize for them. I also would like if he appologized to Hu12, Rsazevedo has defamed his reputation.

How can we solve our problems if he ignores me?? Would it hurt if he appologized for his offenses?

Rsazevedo has also smeared the reputation of administrator Hu12, see here and here, but Rsazevedo also refuses to talk about it.

Rsazevedo called administrator Hu12 a dictator, arrogant, abusive and said that he had bias.

EconomistBR (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rsazevedo has offended me repeatedly

I attempted to reach a consensus with Rsazevedo, but he ridiculed me:
  • "and much less "CNN talks about it". Oooooh, I'm impressed! :) What kind of an argument is that, "CNN talks about it"? hahahahahah"

Someone who makes this kind of comment doesn't want consensus, he wants to shove his view down everyone's thoats.

Rsazevedo has also offended and ridiculed me other times:

  • "Are you mentally challenged?"
  • "Now go watch the fireworks in Copacabana and stop crying, Mr Carioca. :)"
  • "Man, you really are a nut job! "
  • "Get a life, carioca"
  • "EconomistBR is the one who is being intolerant"

All I want is to talk with him about this and him to appologize for those uncalled for offenses

All you've done here is provide a rationale for blocking Rsazevedo, not one for unblocking yourself. John Reaves 07:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Any help in creating a Canada or Alberta housing bubble article?

Crazy prices in Toronto also. Radio Guy (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)iu

I would like to, but right now I am not with a lot of free time on hands. You could easily start the article, just search Google for News Articles that can be used as sources for your new topic.

EconomistBR (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Microprose

Just letting you know that the edits the anonymous IP did were based on valid information, just not publicly known yet. The Microprose name and properties were bought out by former Atari Interactive CEO Frederic Chesnais. Microprose Systems LLC. is the consumer electronics division that will be releasing some products this year. They have a web site that hasn't been "publicly launched" yet. Email me and I can give you a link, I don't want to post it publicly yet (not up to me to "launch" it). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok...so feel free to undo my UNDID. The reason I UNIDID is that such huge and important information should be adequately sourced and after I tried to find a source or a reference but failed I decided to make the UNDID, I started to wonder if it weren't gossip.

Feel free then to resurrect MicroProse.

EconomistBR (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I won't undo it yet until the official press announcement comes out. But I'll probably just do a revert when it does, instead of retyping all the info. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sosxana

I've decided it's a new user that is more than a little lost. I left some comments and hopefully things will get better. The edits he made to that Korean soap opera article were valid, but unnecessary. There are two different systems for writing Korean words in roman letters, and he likes a different one than the original author.Kww (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I did suspect that at best his edit was unnecessary given that the old edit linked to Wikipedia and his didn't. It was on that fact which I justified my revision. As it can be seen I have no knowledge on which to justify edits about that subject.

I picked the user Sosxana from Recent Changes and decided to check his contributions. EconomistBR (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Eastern Europe

Could you please, kindly explain this edit, as well as the surprising edit description? The map reflects pretty fairly the division used in the CIA World Factbook. While I appreciate the fact that you may disagree with their divisions, they hardly are my POV. So far Wikipedia has been recognizing the Factbook as a reliable source - if you want to challenge it, please elaborate. Cheers Pundit|utter 16:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


I've already explained, I really couldn't believe you distorted what the CIA said in such a way. Western Europe is a geopolitical location not a geographical location. Didn't you know that? Do you really think the CIA considers Germany as Central and Italy as Southern Europe?

What you've done was sad really sad. EconomistBR (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • May I kindly ask why have you removed the source I provided and restored the "fact" tag? Also, if you want to remove a map and in the same time you refuse to look into the source, are you sure this is how Wikipedia should work, after all? You are more than welcome to take your issues to any administrator - in fact, I believe he or she may be more persuasive in trying to convince you that civility in what we write, not making it personal and assuming good faith really ARE rules of Wikipedia and they really make sense. For now, please do not delete the information from CIA Factbook, if you do not have sourced arguments to do so. Pundit|utter 16:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Dear EconomistBR, while I totally understand you perceive CIA World Factbook as a ludicrous source, if you want to remove it from articles, prepare something carrying more weight than your own vivid opinion. I will gladly discuss the sources and arguments you provide, while just piling up adjectives is hardly going to persuade not only me, but any other editors. Pundit|utter 16:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Now you distorted what I said. The notion that the CIA sees Germany and Italy as not part of Western Europe is ludicrous, the the CIA The World Factbook is a very good source.

EconomistBR (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have trouble with accessing the source you perceive as very good then. I just checked that the CIA World Factbook clearly states Italy as located in Southern Europe and Germany as located in Central Europe. It is difficult to both highly value the source that says so, and still claim that this is ludicrous, but you do. Nevertheless, removing a sourced, valid information basing on your own opinion that this information is ludicrous hardly follows the rules of Wikipedia. Please, restore the information you mistakenly deleted. Pundit|utter 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

All I am saying is that you are distorting the CIA claims, the CIA: The World Factbook stated the geographical location whereas the Wikipedia article about Western Europe is a geopolitical assessment of Europe not a geographical one. EconomistBR (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me try to understand your view better - are you saying that the CIA geographical categorization of countries as belonging to Eastern Europe is not relevant to the article on Eastern Europe (and respectively, Western/Western)? If you do, you are more than welcome to add a sentence clarifying (?) that the CIA World Factbook categories are more "geographical" than "geopolitical", although I find this distinction vague, and also claiming that the US Intelligence unit focuses only on geography is a very bold and unusual statement. Pundit|utter 17:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
No no no, once again I am beign distorted. I never said that: "the US Intelligence unit focuses only on geography". Look, I wrote more evidence to show you the confusion on the right page.

EconomistBR (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] civility

Could you, please, stop making comments like Stop flooding!!! You had your chance to talk, now let Sandstein read my comment. My God! You simply buried my comment under yours, now nobody will bother to read mine? Calling my edits "flooding" is hardly civil. Also, please differentiate your arguments SEPARATELY from my RfC. Request for Comment was directed to other editors, and not to you - I am trying to bring third party views to the table. Your argumentation (long awaited) is of course welcome, but please make a new section. Pundit|utter 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why make a new section, you commented twice on the RfC, why can't I comment once?

Dude I took 1 hour to research those sources, 1 hour!!!! I come back 1 hour later I find out that you added over 3000 characters on top of mine. You don't let me be heard.

Nobody will bother to read my comment, nobody. You should have let someone else reply. That's why I called it flooding. You buried mine comment.

Who is their right mind will bother to read over 6,000 characters? That's what I called it flooding. EconomistBR (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but are you declining me the right to discuss? This does not sound fair (not to mention that it would make your omissions, purposeful or not, stay as if nobody noticed them). I don't think I am to be blamed for the time you spend looking for sources (although it definitely is an indicator, that your stance is perhaps more difficult to defend). After all, only the result matters, be it 5 minutes or 50 hours. I was requesting you to make a new section, because your argumentation is way too lengthly for just a comment (also, please note that in my first reply in the RfC I only focused on the definition of the problem as accurately as possible, I was not persuading people to my side). My concern is that people coming to the RfC will see half a page from you and will decide not to enter the RfC at all - while in the same time I am happy that you decided to use rooted arguments and definitely our discussion should be kept in the talk page, although under a separate heading. However, your subjective perception that nobody will read your lines of argumentation because I responded to them should not make you use derogative terms - being civil is not limited to the occasions when your disputant has not had a chance to reply. Pundit|utter 03:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Huh, you don't even want to make a line separator? Be reasonable, make at least SOME mark where your text begins if you refuse to start a new section... I'm not going to change it, but please, think it over and consider formatting (e.g. by making a subsection in the RfC itself). cheers Pundit|utter 03:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi again - a friendly side comment: part of the problem I have with your not separating your argumentation is just with formatting. In our discussions it is clear as well, that you decide not to make indentations for new posts. Perhaps if you considered them it would be more readable and distinguishable from what the previous editor wrote? My aim here is mainly in making clear optical divisions between particular comments (and it is a good Wiki practice to do the same in the discussions). Pundit|utter 03:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine. Add the separator, I wished the administrator would solve this issue, but now with the RfC any chance of this being resolved this month is pretty much gone.

Adding the separator isolates my comment from the RfC, and leaves your comment plus (Sandstein's comment saying that he agrees with you, the other party (me) is not represented. I mean that RfC is biased IMO.

Go ahead add the separator, this is going to be one lengthy matter. 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the separator. Although typically RfC is used to ask for third-party opinions, please, feel free to make a short comment if it matters for you so much. I don't want you to feel that the "RfC is biased" because of the fact that I commented there. Please note, however, that I was not arguing FOR my point but making the question more precise (as apparently the reader, just by perusing our discussion, was under the impression that we're trying to scientifically decide whether Germany is in Central or Western Europe. In two sentences I explained that the main point of dispute is whether to keep one particular typology or not, and not whether we personally believe or not believe it is "true". I don't think I was advocating my case (any more than by showing the rules of Wikipedia I defend), that's all. Pundit|utter 13:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] map

hi and thanks for your constructive feedback. I added the Baltic states, added the link to the source description in Wikipedia, increased the color differences (I didn't differentiate the shades though, as this is the cartographic tradition to use same shades for same categories of things, e.g. temperature or height). Let me know if you find the maps ok. cheers Pundit|utter 22:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] thanks

Hi, it's been nice editing with you. Although in ardent dispute, we managed to resolve our doubts by ourselves. Thank you for constructive cooperation, looking forward to meeting you in the future. Pundit|utter 02:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Microprose

Just a heads up, this is going up as soon as the approval is up at NTIADTV. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good news, thanks for the heads up. And nice article! Really nice of you to wait until the official announcement. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] oh really

okay smart guy go to cia world fact book web site and look up the the u.k geography and see if it says western europe not northern europe sorry but i am of english decent and the u.n is on drugs great britain is western europe not the nothern i mean it could be called north west europe just as spain is in western europe but is south western at the same time,and when you go lets see if you revert my change again or will you have the honor and admit you are wrong,oh yeah another thing einstein there is a map right under the un map from the cia world factbook map clearly stateing uk in western europe not northern europe--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

You didn't have to be rude about it, dumbass. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, easy. You both cross the line for personal attacks. On another note - EconomistBR, I supported your move here, but I took it farther (it makes no sense to keep the map, unless we know what it shows and by whom, and after all the map itself is not entirely relevant). Pundit|utter 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice, you removed the map, I support that. I was thinking about removing the map but I really don't want to get involved into another long edit dispute so I just tagged the map. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I know, but in this case there is no dispute - our long and occasionally heated discussion was about assumptions, sources and representation of facts, while here we have just a picture, without really knowing what it shows. While it is perhaps a little more in line with my own point of view, it is by far more important to create a good encyclopedia, and thus eliminate unsourced and misinformative paragraphs and pictures... As I assumed you may be reluctant to delete the picture because of your known aversion to the idea it represented, I decided to do so myself :) Pundit|utter 01:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EE

Thanks for your revisions, I edited it just a little for language, hopefully we have it satisfactory now. Pundit|utter 23:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

HI, I think that if information is sources and reliable it can be included - University of Texas is surely a valid source :) Pundit|utter 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bulgaria

Bulgaria is located in Southeastern Europe (Balkans). --Olahus (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] credentials

  • On another note: EconomistBR, you have ignored my request for clarifying your education twice already. Your name on Wikipedia suggests credentials, such as being a graduate or at least a student of economics. Please, be so kind as to confirm these, as usurping them without grounds is against policies. Pundit|utter 22:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel confortable publishing personal information on the internet or giving it to people I don't know. EconomistBR is just a nickname, it doesn't mean anything, get over it.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, you don't have to reveal personal information to everyone, what will suffice is validating your credentials with any established editor. As a matter of fact, I myself underwent such procedure on the request of one of the editors and I don't find it problematic. Please, confirm the credentials you claim or change a nickname - I hope you understand that these are the Wikipedia policies, not just guidelines. For me what would be even sufficient would be your writing what your credentials are. I believe you would not blatantly lie so I don't need to double-check your status, but I want to know why you call yourself an economist, as some of your edits, and the way you perform dialog with other editors, just make me a little bit cautious Pundit|utter 01:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Let's talk to an administrator then.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
No prob, go ahead :) Pundit|utter 02:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You do it.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I asked a couple of people and they seem not to mind (by pointing out that one can be an amateur-economist). As a non-native speaker I trust their judgment. Apologies for the conundrum. Pundit|utter 20:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Romania

Hi, in the meantime I would like to request your kind insight into the issue of Romania in Eastern Europe. I tried to come to a truce between the disputants by digging for information and describing Romania under "other countries", with sources for both Central and Southeastern location, but apparently some editors don't like the sources... Your comments, as of a person involved in placating this edit war, are much appreciated. Pundit|utter 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RFCN

There was recently a discourse here concerning the appropriateness of your username. It was concluded that your name is perfectly within guidelines, and there is no vio here. Just thought you should be aware. Have a nice day, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And the discourse took place here, for your records (in case somebody else raised the issue). I was wrong and misunderstood the context of the word (I somewhat assumed it is professional, and cannot be amateur). Please, accept my apologies. Pundit|utter 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Apologies accepted Pundit, it's nice to know that this issue got sorted out. I just didn't know that by "asked a couple of people" you in fact meant the authoritative Requests for comment board. Well, at least now there is a specific RFCN ruling stating that my nickname is not in violation of the guidelines.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry not to make it clear. I wanted to spare you the stress of being under the RfC in case it went fine (as it did), and the policy in this case does not suggest informing the person whose nickname is discussed (by comparison to other RfC rules it may suggest that it is not encouraged). As you can see from the discussion there, I wasn't pushing my point to much - I just wanted to clarify if an "economist" is understood as professional (like lawyers and doctors). As soon as three people okeyed the nickname, I withdrew my reservations before due time. I am probably overly cautious, but Essjay hoax made me particularly sensitive to matters of authority and its representations on Wiki. In your case it went obviously too far, but I hope you won't bear a grudge, understanding my motives.

Anyway, I hope you will be able to help in dealing with Romania and Europe case, it is silence before a storm, I'm afraid :) Pundit|utter 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population Density in Copacabana

You're absolutley right that it's m2 not km2. Which is why the answer is not 20 (just think about that before reverting it - 20 people on each square meter!

The calculation is:

7.84 km2 * 1,000,000 = 7,840,000 square meters. 160000/7,840,000 = .0204

Bagunceiro (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There are 1 million, not 1000, square meters per square kilometer:- 1000m * 1000m = 1000000m2. The density is thus .0204 people per square meter, not 20. You really cannot pack 20 people onto each square meter - I don't think you could pack 20 onto any square meter, let alone the average one (although it does feel a bit like that at reveillon! ;-) )
Your figure of 20,400 per Km2 is correct, though (1000000 * .0204) so the article is fine now. Bagunceiro (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


Your calculation makes no sense at all. L*L is used to get an area of a quadrangle, not to convert km2 into m2
Yes. In this case the quadrangle in question is a square kilometer.
1Km = 1000 meters. 1Km2 = 1Km * 1Km = 1000m * 1000m. 1000 * 1000 = 1000000. 1000000m2. Check out square kilometer if you don't believe me.
20,400 per km² EQUALS 20.4 per m²
No, it doesn't; it equals 0.0204 per m2. You cannot fit 20 people on a single square meter - an area the length of your arm each side - let alone on each and every square meter.
Divide 20,400 by 1,000 = 20.4
Divide 1 km² by 1,000 = 1 m²
No it doesn't. It equals 1000 m2.
What you are doing is:
Divide 20,400 by 1,000,000 = 0.024
Yes I am. And that is correct.
Divide 1 km² by 1,000 = 1 m²
No it doesn't. There are 1000000 m2 per Km2
It makes no sense at all.
Just think what having 20 people on each square meter would mean and then consider that again. You said that Copacabana is less that 9800m2. Now a football pitch is approximately 5000m2: Do you really believe that Copacabana is less than the size of two football pitches? Bagunceiro (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yes. I am sorry for wasting your time. You are right, I am completely wrong.
My calculation is the one that doesn't make any sense.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Central Europe

CIA World Factbook classification
CIA World Factbook classification

Hi, in the heat of the edit madness in this article, I added a picture with the CIA World Factbook depiction of Central Europe. I will be grateful for your comments and friendly edits - as we disagreed in the past on the maps, and as you still, in my view, are trying to edit adhering to the rules (which cannot be said of some other contributors to the article) I would like to personally request your opinion and/or changes. Pundit|utter 17:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Wars

Edit wars are bad. We've got a policy against them and everything. I have fully protected the article Central Europe, and am formally reminding you about the WP:3RR policy. Further infractions will result in blocking. - Philippe 22:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

You've been named as an involved party in a Mediation Cabal case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 Central Europe. Your input is appreciated. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reply on mediation request

I've posted the following in response to you at the Central Europe mediation request: At the time this request was made, you were the strongest opposition to any attempt to even remotely reach a consensus at the article.You weren't able to move past petty personal disputes, and as such were central to the Mediation Cabal request. Plus, your whinging was a quintessential of the way the article had deteriorated into name-calling. Now that consensus has been reached I would support withdrawing this request if so the editors involved wish. +Hexagon1 (t) 08:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:map in Eastern Europe

It's almost impossible to make one single map with all the divisions, because some of the European countries share 2 or even 3 divisions. This is the reason why I made 3 maps: 1, 2, 3.
--Olahus (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CE Disputes

Hey there, concerning Panel 2008, Jeremy recommended that we file a report against him, whether it's on AIV, AIN or 3RR. We don't have to wait till he starts edit warring, as he's gone against consensus, and is still edit warring (the 3RR rule doesn't need to be applied to = edit warring). I would recommend filing a report against him on the AIV section. I have so many things on my hands at the moment, that I won't have time to do it until the weekend, but I'd rather have it done now when it's all fresh. If you wish to do it now, that would be great. --Buffer v2 (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, after reading the acronyms, I agree that the report should be filed at AIV.
A class-3 Vandalism Warning has already been issued on Panel 2008's talkpage, IMO once we exhaust the warnings we will have enough evidence to have him succssefully blocked, since we will be able to prove that we attempted to resolve this problem peacefully.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I filled out an AIV actually... they deleted it, and told me to go elsewhere. I took it to AIN, and now AN3 - for the 3RR. He's been warned before for the 3RR, and pretty much everything else - I mean, just look at the discussion pages (and his talk page), he knows the rules of Wikipedia from the back of his head. --Buffer v2 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm the admin responding to the AN3 report - I'll let you off with a warning this time because your actions are from several days ago. Please refrain from edit warring in the future, and read up on our vandalism policies before accusing others of committing it. east.718 at 05:39, May 14, 2008
No good-faith effort the improve the encyclopedia is vandalism. If you're dealing with a disruptive editor who's edit-warring against consensus and isn't using the talkpage, request assistance at the administrators' or edit-warring noticeboard. east.718 at 20:37, May 14, 2008

[edit] Potential superpowers

Olá EconomistBR! Há uma discussão ocorrendo em Talk:Potential superpowers#Removal of Brazil e gostaríamos da sua opinião. Obrigado pela atenção! Felipe C.S ( talk ) 22:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, could you please clarify your vote at the Talk:Potential great powers page on Mexico? If you are voting, please put your vote in the Support Removal or Oppose format that the other votes are in. This will help us tally the votes at the end. Thanks! Felipe C.S ( talk ) 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I am sorry Filipe but those two article are two huge cans of worms because there is very little criteria to determine anything. I mean Russia is rated as an economic Great Power, who said that? What was the criteria? In the end I got pissed.
So, this time I will not get involved, but whenever you need something just come over and ask I will be glad to help.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mariordo

Muito obrigado! It was good to know someone noticed the effort. Aos poucos espero poder levar o conteudo para o artigo em espanhol e português. See you around. Mariordo (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Subprime crisis article contribution

Econ BR you've made great contributions to the subprime mortgage crisis article. Thanks for keeping that table updated until the regular media figured it out!Farcaster (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You are the one that deserves recognition, you've kept and expanded that article since November of 2007, while I have mostly only focused on a table that is now deleted. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Brazil Star

Thank you, very much! Felipe C.S ( talk ) 23:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

Joy

Mario1987 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Keep up the good work! Mario1987 12:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ATHLETE

I understand that you believe the WP:ATHLETE criteria are too inclusive and allow articles about players who may have reached a top-level professional league, but are still not notable. If you want to try to get more restrictive criteria for whether an athlete is notable, please bring up the topic for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). I may not agree with you 100% on this but I thnk the issue you are raising is worth discussing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I also want to support your raising it more generally. I suggest you focus on the definition of top-level, and suggest changing it to "highest-level" with a possible variation for certain sports. But I have the handicap in discussing this that i am not myself interested in the underlying subject, and have very little basis to evaluate the articles except formal criteria. DGG (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
IMO whoever proposes a more restrictive WP:ATHLETE will be up against fans of NY Giants, Manchester United, LA Lakers and many others, therefore IMO it is not reasonable to expect significant changes to WP:ATHLETE. I think that sports fans will easily drive any proposal to no-consesus and it will die.
Either way I could never pull off such a feat, only an administrator such as you two could because of easier access to other administrators.
IMO we could bring WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE closer together either by creating the concept of retired athlete or by creating a minimum standard of quality for WP:ATHLETE protected articles.
I will follow your sugggestion, Metropolitan90 and start a topic of discussion there.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Infogrames.jpeg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Infogrames.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I've left a note at WP:ANI

I've open a new section about your article creation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POINTY article creation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Architectural design values

Since you commented at the AFD you may wish to be aware of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_2#Architectural_design_values. Smile a While (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I wanted to thank you for removing the deletion tag from the article Open Learning Environment (I hope you remember it). I was hoping that you could review my article and suggest any edits or changes, because it has been tagged for deletion again and the person that is doing it repeatedly won't give me any input on what I can change so he would stop trying to delete it. If you can give me your input I would realy appreciate it. Mariam-t (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil

Olá EconomistBR! Estou organizando uma força tarefa para levar o artigo "Brazil" ao status de Featured. Antes que eu apresentasse os problemas do artigo, queria saber se você está interessado e disponível. Atenciosamente; Felipe C.S ( talk ) 21:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Eu gostaria de participar mas eu agora tô sem tempo mas se houver algum conflito pode me chamar. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)