Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-25 Developed country

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article: Developed country
State: Closed

Requested By: Eliko 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Other Parties: Andrew pmk, Eliko, 74.12.182.133, Coloane
Mediated By: Greeves
Comments: Closed due to no response from one party. The page is hereby unprotected.



Contents

[edit] Request Information

[edit] Who are the involved parties?

74.12.182.133, Coloane, Leungli, Andrew pmk, Eliko.

[edit] What is the involved article?

Developed country

[edit] What's going on?

  • Dispute over adding/removing footnotes about Macau Slovenia and Cyprus, and whether Macau should be included in the "developed/advanced country" list.

e.g. my continuously deleted footnote about Macau indicates a debate - between a chinese source and the int'l sources - whether Macau should be considered a "developed/advanced territory", while other editors insist to base Macau's entry - on the (single) chinese source only. A similiar problem exists with my continuously deleted footnotes about Cyprus and Slovenia. 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What would you like to change about that?

Regarding Macau: since there is a debate between China Modernization Report (which classifies Macau as a "developed territory") and the UNCTAD organisaion of the UN (as well as the CIA), classifying Macau as a "developing" territory, therefore I support the current version of the article, i.e. I think Macau should not be included in the "advanced/developed country list", and the debate between the sources should be indicated in a footnote.

Regarding Cyprus and Slovenia: I think my footnotes should be kept (as they are now in the current version of the article), since in my opinion they include important information about the difference between the CIA list and the IMF list regarding these countries.

Eliko 12:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

Hello! I will be your mediator for this case. This is my first time mediating a case, so I hope that I do well! Firstly, who is on whose "side"? Note: I did not protect the article, though I can un-protect it when we are done this mediation. Greeves (talk • contribs) 00:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations!!! hope that you succeed.
1. 74.12.182.133, Coloane and Leungli, who reject the current protected version of the article, support the positon of classifying Macau as "developed/advanced territory" (i.e. they suggest that Wikipedia's classification of Macau should be based on the chinese report only, and they would like to delete the footnote indicating the debate between the chinese report and the int'l reports including the UN report whether Macau should be classified as "developed" or as "developing"), while Andrew pmk and Eliko support the current protected version of the article.
2. 74.12.182.133, Coloane and Leungli, who reject the current protected version of the article, want to delete the footnotes about Cyprus and Slovenia (footnotes which indicate the difference between the CIA list and the IMF list regarding these countries), while Andrew pmk and Eliko support the current protected version of the article.
Eliko 12:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greeves' view on what is happening

Can everyone agree with this statement: There was an edit war because of a dispute over weather we should classify Macau, Slovenia and, Cyprus as developed or developing countries. Andrew pmk and Eliko believe that they are developing based on references from the UN and the CIA (as it currently is in the protected version). 74.12.182.133, Coloane, and Leungli believe that they are developed countries based on a report from the Chinese government.

I probably got a few details wrong, so could you please correct me as before we start the proper mediation, I want to know all of the facts. Thanks! Greeves (talk • contribs) 17:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

You're right that the current protected version accords to Andrew pmk's and Eliko's position, and doesn't accord to 74.12.182.133's Coloane's, and Leungli's position.

However you got few details wrong:

1. Regarding Cyprus and Slovenia:

  • Both sides agree that Cyprus and Slovenia should be classified as developed.
  • The dispute over these two countries is whether the footnotes about these two countries should be kept (this is Andrew pmk's and Eliko's attitude), or deleted (this is 74.12.182.133's Coloane's, and Leungli's attitude).

2. Regarding Macau:

  • Both sides agree that Macau should not be included in any "developing country" list, since the chinese report contradicts such a classification.
  • The dispute over that country is double:
    • Whether Macau should be included in the "advanced/developed country" list: Andrew pmk and Eliko hold that Macau shouldn't be included in the "advanced/developed country" list (since the UN list, as well as the CIA list, contradict such a classification); However, 74.12.182.133, Coloane and Leungli, hold that Macau should be included in the "advanced/developed country" list (since this is what one infers from the chinese report).
    • Whether Wikipedia should indicate the debate between the chinese report and the other international reports (the UN report as well as the CIA report) (this is Andrew pmk's and Eliko's attitude), or should ignore that debate between the sources (this is 74.12.182.133's Coloane's, and Leungli's attitude).

Eliko 20:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Messages left on Greeves' talk page

I got your message. Macau should be on the list under the category of comprehensive list of developed country as I provided the reference of China Modernization Report 2007 in which already mentioned Macau reaching the level of developed country. However, Eliko insisted that Macau should not be on the list because that report I above mentioned didn't provided so-called all countries like CIA or UN's report according to what he said; plus he told me that CIA or UN's report is more superior to any other evidence for sure. Eliko keeps reverting all the time because I added Macau back on the list and refuted that CIA or UN report is not the sole source to prove. Eliko wants to keep this page as his private page and let no one edit and change or add any additional source. That is why the edit war happened. He also have several sockpuppets in order to keep that page unchanged. Please refer to history for more detail. 74.12.182.133 01:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

  • I have no sock puppet accounts, except for Eliko. see my talk page for more details.
  • I don't want to keep this page as my private page. On the contrary: I'm the person who has suggested the debate between us should be resolved by mediation. This means I accept the mediator's resolution in advance. Furthermore: the person who has made the request to protect the article was - not me - but 74.12.182.133. for more details - see my talk page.
  • My position, which accords to the current version of the article, is that all sources (including the UN source) should be respected, not only the chinese source. Now, there is a dispute between the sources: the chinese source classifies Macau as "developed", while the UN and the CIA classifies Macau as "developing". Due to that contradiction between the sources, I've suggested the dispute between the sources should be resolved in favor of neither source; i.e. I've suggested Macau should be included - neither in the "developing country" list (which includes Macau according to the UN and the CIA) - nor in the "developed/advanced country" list (which would have included Macau - had one adopted the chinese report). I've also suggested the dispute between the sources should be indicated (e.g. in a footnote) - not ignored (as 74.12.182.133 suggests).
  • As opposed to 74.12.182.133's position, my positon is that the footnotes about Cyprus and Slovenia should be kept (as they are now in the current version of the article) - not deleted, since these footnotes include (in my opinion) important information about the difference between the CIA list and the IMF list regarding Cyprus and Slovenia.
Eliko 15:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cyprus and Slovenia

Lets start off discussing Cyprus and Slovenia. Party B, 74.12.182.133 and Coloane why shouldn't we keep the footnotes? Party A, Andrew pmk and Eliko, why should we keep them? Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Party A: As I explained above, I think those footnotes (no. 7,11) shouldn't be deleted (as they were continuously deleted by Party B), but should be kept (as they are now in the current version of the article), "since in my opinion they include important information about the difference between the CIA list and the IMF list regarding these countries" (i.e. regarding their being classified in the article as "developed"). If you, the mediator, still have any doubt regarding the importance of those footnotes (no. 7,11), you'll be able to realize their importance - once you simply read them. they are very short.
Eliko 22:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What I was doing

The reason that I reverted the edit by User:74.12.182.133 is that the editor was removing information from the CIA factbook, saying that it is an "American organization but not an international organization". This editor removed a list of developed countries which came from the CIA Factbook diff, and I disagreed. The only reason that I made this edit is that I was searching for vandalism on Wikipedia, and this edit was flagged as content removal by the vandalism patrol tools, so I investigated. I think that this section should be kept (and it is present in the current version) because it is a useful list of human development indexes of developed countries, and the CIA World Factbook is a reliable source (which this user disagrees with - see user's talk page). I was not adding or removing any footnotes to the article. Andrew_pmk | Talk 22:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Macau should be on the list

I don't care about Cyprus or Slovenia. I accidentaly removed these 2 countries when I reverted that topic and let Macau go back on the comprehensive list. The reason Eliko brought up this unnecessary matter with Cyprus and Slovenia because he wanted to make you feel that I removed many information when I reverted and make Macau back on the list. Just like an politican, this is an illusion to make you feel that I make many mistakes, don't believe him and fall on his trap. OK! go back to Macau:

  • There is no such requirement in wikipedia that only CIA or UN's report will be accepted, and other sources will not be accepted in this case.
  • There is no such requirement in wikipedia that Chinese report is not acceptable, esp in this case.
  • There is no such requirement in wikipedia that if the report didn't report all countries in general according to Eliko thought, then it is not acceptable.
  • There is no such requirement in wikipedia that Chinese report about Macau should be put on footnotes instead but not on the comprehensive list of developed countries.

I suggest that Eliko can create an article namely "Developed countries defined by CIA or UN". Then, I will not put Macau back on the list because Macau is not reported by either reports as a developed country or region. However, the name of that article is "developed country", obviously there is no restirction indeed, isn't it? 74.12.182.133 23:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's bring back some order into our discussion

  • Regarding Cyprus and Slovenia:
  • The mediator has suggested we should start off discussing Cyprus and Slovenia.
  • The reason I had brought up this matter (which I find very necessary) with Cyprus and Slovenia - is not because I had wanted to make the mediator feel anything - but because I hadn't thought anyone should continuously delete a piece of information from Wikipedia if no one thinks that information is unnecessary.
  • In my response to the mediator, I explained why I thought the two footnotes regarding Cyprus and Slovenia are necessary and shouldn't be deleted (as they were continuously deleted by Party B during the edit war).
  • In party B's response, it is explained that these footnotes were deleted accidentally, and that party B doesn't care about the issue of Cyprus and Slovenia.
  • Having carefully read party B's response - I think this issue of Cyprus and Slovenia may now be over, provided party B declares these footnotes (about Cyprus and Slovenia) are no longer going to be deleted by party B (as they were continuously deleted by Party B during the edit war).
  • Regarding Macua, here is my response to party B:
  • I've (always) fully accepted party B's first claim that "There is no such requirement in wikipedia that only CIA or UN's report will be accepted, and other sources will not be accepted in this case".
  • However, all sources should be respected/considered - not only the chinese source which contradicts the CIA's and UN's list. Therefore:
  • Andrew_pmk (belonging to my party) suggests that every relevant piece of information - taken from the CIA factbook - shouldn't be removed.
  • I (Eliko) have (always) been suggesting that the debate between all sources shouldn't be ignored, and shouldn't be deleted (as it was continuously deleted by party B), but should be indicated.
  • I've (always) fully accepted party B's second claim that "There is no such requirement in wikipedia that Chinese report is not acceptable, esp in this case".
  • Therefore: I agree that Macau should not be included in any "developing country" list, since the chinese report contradicts such a classification.
  • However, in my opinion, all sources should be respected/considered, not only the chinese source which contradicts the CIA's and UN's list. Therefore, I've suggested the dispute between the sources should be resolved in favor of neither source which contradicts any other source; i.e. I've suggested Macau should be included - neither in the "developing country" list (which includes Macau according to the UN and the CIA) - nor in the "developed/advanced country" list (which would have included Macau - had one adopted the chinese report). I've also suggested the dispute between the sources should be indicated - not ignored and not deleted (as it was countinuously deleted by party B during the edit war).
  • I've (always) fully accepted party B's third claim that "There is no such requirement in wikipedia that if the report didn't report all countries in general...then it is not acceptable". However:
  • In my opinion, being "accepted" - means being "respected/considered", not necessarily being "the source which has the final say of resolving the dispute between that source and other sources"!
  • Although I do accept party B's attitude of "accepting" (i.e. respecting/considering) each source, I still think if there is a debate between two sources, one of which is an international one (e.g. the UN list and the CIA list) which classifies all countries in the world (and puts Macau in the "developing country" list), while the second (chinese) national report refers to the chinese territories only (and classifies Macau as "developed"), then the comprehensive list of the first international source - should be thought of as more authoritative than the second (respected) national source which deals with few territories only; So in case of a contradiction between the international comprehensive source and the national non-comprehensive source, that debate between the sources shouldn't be ignored and shouldn't be deleted (as it was continuously deleted by party B), but should be indicated.
  • I've (always) fully accepted the first part of party B's fourth claim that "There is no such requirement in wikipedia that Chinese report about Macau should be put in footnotes instead". However:
  • The Chinese report about Macau was put in a footnote - not by party A - but by party B.
  • Generally (not as a rule in Wikipedia), debates between sources are put in footnotes, not in the article itself.
  • I won't reject any idea of - indicating the chinese report - in the article itself, provided:
  • It be indicated the chinese report is only a part in the whole assembly of a contradiction between sources.
  • That idea - of indicating the debate between sources (including the chinese report) in the article itself (not in a footnote only) - doesn't turn out to be extremely extraordinary in Wikipedia.
  • I've (always) fully accepted the second part of party B's fourth claim that "There is no such requirement in wikipedia that Chinese report about Macau should be...not in the comprehensive list of developed countries". However:
  • There is no opposite requirement in wikipedia - e.g. that the chinese report about Macau should be in the comprehensive list of developed countries.
  • In my opinion, all sources should be respected/considered, not only that (chinese) source which classifies Macau as "developed" and which contradicts other sources (e.g. the CIA's and UN's list) putting Macau in the opposite list of "developing countries".
  • The only objective fact regarding our issue - is that there is a contradiction between the sources; Therefore, I've suggested the dispute between the sources should be resolved in favor of neither source which contradicts any other source; i.e. I've suggested Macau should be included - neither in the "developing country" list (which includes Macau according to the UN and the CIA) - nor in the "developed/advanced country" list (which would have included Macau - had one adopted the chinese report). I've also suggested the dispute between the sources should be indicated - not ignored and not deleted (as it was countinuously deleted by party B during the edit war).
  • Regarding party B's suggestion "that Eliko can create an article namely: Developed countries defined by CIA or UN":
  • I've never rejected any idea of adding new articles to wikipedia.
  • Anyone who suggests any new idea (e.g adding new articles to Wikipedia) - is invited to apply it himself.
  • Regarding Party B's agreement - not to put Macau back in any list of another new article "because Macau is not reported by either reports as a developed country or region":
  • The main reason for not putting Macau in the "developed country" list - is not because "Macau is not reported by either reports as a developed country or region", but because putting Macau in the "developed country" list - contradicts other sources (e.g. the UN and the CIA) which put Macau in the opposite list, i.e. in the "developing territory" list.
  • Due to a parallel reason, I reject any idea of putting Macau in any "developing country" (unrestricted) list, since such a classification contradicts the chinese report which classifies Macau as "developed".
  • Regarding party B's question: "the name of that article is: Developed country, obviously there is no restirction indeed, isn't it?":
  • Answer: The name is "Developed country", not "Developed country defined by the chinese report".
  • Therefore, any definition of "developed country" mentioned in that article - must be agreed by all well-known sources (including the respected chinese report as well as the respected UN list and the respected CIA list).
  • Therefore, any dispute between those well-known sources should be resolved in favor of neither source which contradicts any other source.
  • Therefore, Macau should be included - neither in the "developing country" list (which includes Macau according to the UN and the CIA) - nor in the "developed/advanced country" list (which would have included Macau - had one adopted the chinese report).
  • Therefore, any dispute between those well known sources should be indicated - not ignored and not deleted (as it was countinuously deleted by party B during the edit war).

Eliko 12:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion moved from the compromises section

Again, Macau should be on the comprehensive list of developed country/region. If Chinese report reported differently from the CIA or the UN, you can use footnotes. There are several lines of introduction written above the table as: The official classification of developed countries is originally made by organisations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other sources that are available. It is agreed that the group of developed countries includes the following countries/regions (in alphabetical order): If it is written as "other sources that are available", then Macau should be on the list even it is not reported by CIA or UN as a developed country/region. Refer to history for more detail: edited by Flavius Belisarius (Talk | contribs) at 22:43, 25 June 2007. If you insist the other sources should not be written, but only CIA or the UN report, then you have to create another article namely as: Developed country defined by the CIA or the UN. 74.12.182.133 19:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

My position is that the article shouldn't be based on any "available source" which contradicts other international sources. Now see the big assymetry between the chinese source and the international sources:
  • CIA list of advanced countries - includes no information denied by any international organisation; On the other hand, the list based on China Modernization Report's classification of Macau as "developed" - is denied by some international organisations, such as UNCTAD organisation of the UN, which puts Macau in the list of "developing countries" (as one can see in page xii table B).
  • The current Wikipedia list based on CIA list of advanced countries - includes no information denied by China Modernization Report (since the current Wikipedia list does not put Macau in any "developing country list"); On the other hand, the list based on China Modernization Report's classification of Macau as "developed" - does include information denied by some organisations, such as UNCTAD organisaion of the UN, as well as the CIA, which classify Macau as a "developing territory".
  • Why do you say that I "insist the other sources should not be written, but only CIA or the UN report..."? I don't insist! On the contrary! I agree with you that all sources should be mentiond! However, note that there is a contradiction between China Modernization Report (which classifies Macau as a "developed territory") and the UNCTAD organisaion of the UN (as well as the CIA), classifying Macau as a "developing" territory. Therefore, the dispute between the sources should be resolved in favor of neither source, i.e. Macau should be included - neither in the "developing country list" - nor in the "developed country list", and the dispute between the sources should be indicated (because I think all sources should be mentioned).
  • Why do you suggest again that I "create another article namely as: Developed country defined by the CIA or the UN", after I've already fully answered you (in my previous response at 12:23) regarding that suggestion?
Eliko 19:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Why other sources shouldn't be based on if it presents differently from the CIA or the UN? You think it shouldn't, but I think it should. You should take particular care that any CIA report or UN report is based on all information provided by the local authorities or local institutions. There is no original research from these reports being independently conducted in any countries. That is why they are all "secondary-hand sources" and you couldn't say that these reports contradicted the Chinese report. There are no representatives of the CIA or UN in Macau to collect the data. Have you ever read the whole report of China Modernization? actually all countries with factors to calculate the index were involved. Macau didn't present itself data to CIA or UN because there is no mechanism at the meantime from DESC to deliver the data to them. That is why CIA or the UN classify Macau itself as a developing country/region and you don't understand at all. Secondly, it doesn't mean that the data of any specific country or region is recognised by the CIA or the UN, the country itself is therefore developed or developing. These international organizations presented the data basically provided by the local authorities, but nothing else. Based on the reason, Macau should be considered and put on the list. The table which tablised and included 2 factors: HDI and GDP per capita, was originally made by myself, not you. 74.12.182.133 00:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Eliko's response:
  • You've written: "You think it shouldn't, but I think it should".
  • You've described the situation - in a precise manner! You're right! There is a dispute between us! that's right. That's why I made a request for mediation, in order to reslove our dispute. I think disputes between respected editors (like you and me) should be resolved by a respected mediator, not by making requests (by a third party) for protecting articles or for blocking editors. We should listen to each other respectively (as we are trying to do now), while the mediator is listening to both of us; Anyway, you should know, Mr. Yee Leung, I respect you as much as I respect the mediator!
  • You've written: "you don't understand at all".
  • The sentence "you don't understand at all" has never been said by me to you, so please don't say that to me. I respect you, Mr. Yee Leung, don't disappoint me.
  • You've written: "You should take particular care that any CIA report or UN report is based on all information provided by the local authorities or local institutions. There is no original research from these reports being independently conducted in any countries. That is why they are all "secondary-hand sources"... There are no representatives of the CIA or UN in Macau to collect the data. Have you ever read the whole report of China Modernization? actually all countries with factors to calculate the index were involved. Macau didn't present itself data to CIA or UN because there is no mechanism at the meantime from DESC to deliver the data to them. That is why CIA or the UN classify Macau itself as a developing country/region...These international organizations presented the data basically provided by the local authorities, but nothing else".
  • Regarding UN: I fully agree with you: The data (i.e. figures) presented in the formal report of the UN (including the IMF) - are based on formal local reports.
  • Regarding CIA: I fully disagree with you. The data (i.e. figures) presented in the formal report of the CIA - are obtained by the CIA's intelligence unit - not by what the local authorities and local institutions present.
  • You've written: "and you couldn't say that these reports contradicted the Chinese report".
  • Regarding CIA: I fully disagree with you. The CIA data (i.e. figures) are obtained by the CIA's intelligence unit - not by what the local local authorities and local institutions present, so the CIA list (which classifies Macau as "developing") does contradict the chinese report which classifies Macau as developed.
  • Regarding both UN and the CIA:
  • Let's distinguish between Macau's "real-objective" status ("developed" or "developing") - and Macau's "formal" status ("developed" or "developing"). As far as the formal status is concerned, there is a contradiction - between Macau's formal status given by the UN/CIA - and Macau's formal staus given by the chinese report. However, as far as Macau's "real-objective" status is concerned - nobody knows what it really is: Even the government of China itself can't know the "real objective" status, since it's not a matter of objective science but of subjective estimations based on figures which are supplied by individulas, and which may change from time to time, and even from one moment to another.
  • Any status, including any economic status (as "developed" or "developing"), can't be based on "real-objective" facts. What Wikipedia can be based on - are just formal sources which supply formal information regarding formal status only. Meanwhile, there is a contradiction between some formal reports regarding Macau's economic status: the formal report of the UN, as well as the formal report of the UN, do contradict the formal chinese report.
  • You've written: "it doesn't mean that [if] the data of any specific country or region is recognised by the CIA or the UN, [then] the country itself is therefore developed or developing".
  • I fully agree with you. However, the same should be said about the chinese report: "it doesn't mean that [if] any economic status of any chinese region is recognised by any formal chinese report, [then] the region itself is therefore developed or developing".
  • What Wikipedia can be based on - are just formal sources which supply formal information regarding formal status only. Meanwhile, there is a contradiction between those formal reports regarding Macau's economic status!
  • You've Asked me: "Why other sources shouldn't be based on if it presents differently from the CIA or the UN?"
  • I've never thought the UN/CIA are the only sources on which the article should be based. On the contrarry:
  • I've always agreed to accept (i.e. respect/consider) every formal source - including the chinese one. That's why I've always added back the passage which refers to all of the (contradictory) formal sources, including the chinese formal report which contradicts the international formal report.
  • I've always agreed to base the article on every formal source which doesn't contradict international formal sources (e.g. the UN list). I also think in case of a contradiction between formal sources (e.g. between a formal international comprehensive list and a formal national non-comprehensive report) the debate between the formal sources should be resolved in favor of neither source; That's why I've suggested Macau should be included - neither in the "developing country" list (which formally includes Macau according to the UN and the CIA) - nor in the "developed/advanced country" list (which would formally have included Macau - had one adopted the chinese formal report).
  • You've written: "Based on the reason, Macau should be considered and put on the list"
  • Not "based on the reason", but based on your own position which ignores the contradiction between formal reports, and which accepts wikipedia articles based on contradictory formal sources.
  • You've written: "The table which tablised and included 2 factors: HDI and GDP per capita, was originally made by myself, not you".
  • So you must be 24.176.138.81, right?
  • Anyway, The "list of developed countries" was made by another person, not by you. The dispute between us relates to that list, and to nothing else.
Have a nice day.
Eliko 10:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
above the IP 24.176.138.81 you mentioned is also mine when I was working in the New York State. Anyway, I am not going to argue with you since it is wasting my time. Don't realise that you are smart and these arguments are wonderful, let me tell you, it is not. You are just showing your stupidity. I am lazy and I don't want to elaborate them. 74.12.182.133 13:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
PS: Yes, it is basically conducted by the CIA intelligent unit, so my question is how CIA intelligent unit obtained the data? e.g. how the CIA intelligent unit obtained the population data in China? did it conduct by itself in Mainland China? well, anyway, use your brain before you want to comment. Finally I am not Mr. Yee Leung, I am Dr. Yee Leung. Goodbye! 74.12.182.133 13:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


Eliko's response:
  • You've written: "I am not going to argue with you since it is wasting my time...I am lazy and I don't want to elaborate them."
Oh, it's up to you, and I respect that, Dr. Yee Leung, just as I respect you!
  • You've written: "Don't realise that you are smart and these arguments are wonderful, let me tell you, it is not."
Oh, I've never considered myself smart, nor have I ever considered my arguments to be wonderful. I think my arguments are very simple - involving no wonderfulness.
  • You've written: "use your brain before you want to comment".
I think disputes between two respected editors (like you and me) should be resolved by listening to each other, while the mediator is listening to both of us and to every comment made by either of us; Anyway, you should know, Dr. Yee Leung, the mediator and me respect you - as much as you and me respect the mediator! Please don't disappoint us.
  • You've written: "You are just showing your stupidity".
The sentence "You are just showing your stupidity" has never been said by me to you, so please don't say that to me. We respect you, Dr. Yee Leung, please don't disappoint us.
  • You've asked: How did CIA intelligent unit obtain the data? e.g. how did the CIA intelligent unit obtain the population data in China? did it conduct by itself in Mainland China?
Our issue is not how the CIA determines the population, but how the CIA determines economic figures (e.g. GDP per capita), as well as how the CIA determines economic status (e.g. "developing" or "developed"). For determining that (as well as determining the population), The CIA uses many sources, some of which are internal, the other being external. Anyway, The CIA economic reports are not based on local governmental reports.
  • You've written: "Finally I am not Mr. Yee Leung, I am Dr. Yee Leung. Goodbye!"
Sorry for my little mistake, which wasn't made on purpose, since I don't know you personally, Dr. Yee Leung.
  • You've written: "Goodbye".
Adeus. 再見 .
Eliko 15:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greeves will try and step in

Firstly, 74.12.182.133, please stay civil and assume good faith. Now, when you (74.12.182.133) said "Goodbye," does that mean you do not wish to continue to take part in this dispute, you do not want to take part in mediation with me, or you are just saying goodbye until the next message? Greeves (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing

Eliko is the only one here, so I will call this case closed and I shall unprotect the page. Greeves (talk • contribs) 01:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Compromises

[edit] Cyprus and Slovenia

74.12.182.133 says that he/she did not intend to remove the footnotes, they just got removed when he reverted the other edits. I shall assume that this issue is resolved unless someone says otherwise. Greeves (talk • contribs) 14:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would happily assume that this issue was resolved - were I sure 74.12.182.133 would no longer remove these footnotes (as they were countinuously removed by 74.12.182.133 during the edit war).
If 74.12.182.133 agrees - then let's go on to the next issue.
Eliko 16:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Administrative notes