User talk:Elockid/Archive 2

Thanks

thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page

sincerely, Thegreyanomaly (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Mupper3445

I've indef blocked the above account as the sock of Nangparbat. After analyzing Mupper3445's edits, I've no doubt in my mind that Mupper3445 = Nangparbat. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Also I would also like to say have a nice day. :) Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Abuse response

Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 79.0.0.0_-_79.63.255.255. A case has been opened.   bsmithme  21:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

thanks

Dear Elockid, thanks for dealing with Nangparbat. He was making inappropriate comments on my talk page. AdjustShift (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I was about to press save regarding an apology on your talk page for making such a lengthy discussion. But it's good to know that you thought I was helping. That's what I was aiming for. Since Nangparbat has made several sock accounts over the last few days. I tagged a couple today, they might get through the semi-protection on your talk page and start making inappropriate comments again. I'll keep a more vigilant eye out. I hope that's okay with you. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Filipino American

Please join this new discussion for an additional third opinion. Thank you in advance. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Gigatron1

This user is back with a new IP 86.158.179.169 hope u can do something about it. He is stalking me, in the way that all his edits were related to my previous edits.Qazmlp1029 (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I can be of much help, sorry. I'm not an admin so I can't semi-protect any of the pages that he's editing. If you already talked to Nishkid or maybe User:YellowMonkey, they should be be able to help because they have dealt with this user before and can fix the problem. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

LOL your mate above is a sock himself Mrpontiac1 anyone? 86.158.179.169 (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't prove it and you were wrong in the past about socks. But you on the other hand are evading your ban. "Blocked users are not supposed to evade their block". Please follow your own advice and just stop. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 20:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Heres your banned mates comments stating the same thing as Mrpontiac1 or he even maybe be Dewan357 who knows but he is a sock and you are pathetic [1] 86.151.122.53 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

A comment like that can't prove everything. Anyone can state it. Also take a look at what I said in the investigations, it sums up nicely about this. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

This guy is back again with one more fancy name Tazer43, he is stalking all my edits, I hope u can do something about it.Qazmlp1029 (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

He is blocked now Just see this Tazer43.Qazmlp1029 (talk) 15:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Here he comes again, 86.162.69.197 (talk).Qazmlp1029 (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No Problem

Anytime Wysprgr2005 (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Brothel

[Erase warning because Elockid was reverting the edits of the banned user Nangparbat] Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I am reverting actions by a banned user, Nangparbat. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You are adding the edits of a banned user Hkelkar [2] that was the original edit now please stop accusing me 86.162.69.86 (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't resolve disputes by edit warring. Report suspected sockpuppetry, continual reversion goes nowhere.Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see the editing behavior of this user. Sock puppetry cases are no longer handled by this user because two Checkusers who are unfortunately offline, are currently handling socks for this user. Please see User talk: Nishkid64 under Nangparbat. Furthermore, banned users are not allowed to edit. Anyone is welcome to revert their edits, that's exactly what I am doing. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Did I mention that they were also block evading? 86.151.122.53 (talk · contribs) Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Elockid is right in this case; 86.162.69.86 is a sockpuppet of the banned user Nangparbat. I've erased warning above because Elockid was reverting the edits of a banned user. I've also blocked 86.162.69.86 for one week. Elockid, you should contact an admin who knows about Nangparbat (Nishkid or BL Nguyen or me) while dealing with a sock of Nangparbat. AdjustShift (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately Nishkid and Yellowmonkey, the people I know that deals with Nangparbat are mostly offline now. Thanks for offering help, I'll be sure to contact you or BL Nguyen next time. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries & apologies for any underserved warnings. It's just that the problem wasn't being solved with the reversion, since it was just being reverted back. It may have been more constructive to warn them (There was nothing on their talk page) and report & wait for administrator intervention. From the outside, it appeared to be a messy edit war. Have a good day. Clovis Sangrail (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem and I completely understand what you were doing. I usually just do "rv banned user, Nangparbat " with Twinkle on my first edit unless someone else already identified it as a banned user then proceed to using Rollback since it's quicker, and is allowed for Rollback. It probably was a little hard to see with all those reverts. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I wont edit those pages just yet do you want to talk this through with me or fight me ? 86.158.179.189 (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Now this is a much better and more civil manner to act in. Please answer me this. Is there a reason why you are so against "pro-Indian" beliefs? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've closed the thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. See [3] I've also blocked 86.158.179.189 for one week because the IP is a sock of Nangparbat. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help! :) Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

TALK?

I wish to talk this through with you If you want to talk me that is do you? If you do create a talk page on my ip adress and we shall discuss this in detail If not just ignore and the war shall continue p.s I have tried being civil with nishkid64 but him being indian means he doesnt want to know I also tried user William Conolley he even wanted to reply to me but the stealth lobbying of Indian admin Nishkid64 meant that he removed my comments from Williams talk page and william under pressure from nishkid64 stoped talking sad really that indian admins have strongly and harshly blocked pakistani users while letting Hkelkar (Indian pov pusher) make his edit and then protect the page Nishkid64 even stated Hkelkar "actually removes POV" I have a diff showing his liking of Hkelkar and obvious siding please reply on my talk page as I beleive adjustshift will block me now lol I need to talk to non indian editors 86.153.131.65 (talk) 16:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

As you can see I have refrained from removing Hkelkars POV from the 3 articles this I hope shows I am serious about talking this through and eventually getting rid of Hkelkars POV from articles 86.153.131.65 (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have already responded to you here. User talk:86.158.179.189. Hkelkar's socks have also been reverted and socks been tagged in the past and if they do come back I will also revert them, but I haven't experienced them yet. But please, for the sake of blocking policy, please stop evading the block and just let it sort out. Like what NW, you can get consensus from other editors, but please do not do it in the same ways as you have been doing. Like stating "Indian POV warriors", "Indian trash", and "Indian nationalist", etc. It's quite rude to say those types of things. You may email them for consensus in the meanwhile. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 16:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for changing my ip again I thought you wouldnt notice my edit on the talk page of the previous ip adress so I messaged you again with this one to make sure you get my message I didnt intend this time to evade a block. Anyways I will reply in detail within a few hours or tomorrow and please could we keep this conversation between me you and adjustshift only and not nishkid64 as I know he will probably just tell you to remove my messages and ignore I realised it was only the Indian admins who did this and non indian admins such as William did not hold such anti Pakistani attitudes I hope you dont fall under nishkids pressure to ignore me but if it means he threatens you with a block then I think you shouldnt risk talking to me William did talk to me because he was a admin himself so Nishkid64 couldnt bully him around but he succeeded in lobbying him to not to discuss anything with me (actually removed all my comments and told william not to talk) that made me very frustrated and angry so I continued to evade blocks and target articles previously edited by Hkelkars socks p.s If you remove Hkelkars edits it means you are restoring a previous version of the article I didnt add anything new to the 3 articles today just removed Hkelkars POV this is your decision anyways cheers 86.153.131.65 (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to wait until AdjustShift has something to say. This might take some time. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Any news ? 86.153.131.65 (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

According to AdjustShift, you may ask an appeal to the WP: Arbitration Committee under WP:ARBCOM#BASC. It has all the info and stuff there. However AdjustShift also said that you must also convince the community that you can edit without and disruption and not engage in sock puppetry. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks Elockid and sorry for wasting your time with all that block evading socks and disruption. I just wished I had asked a neutral user like yourself before about my editing lol better late than never thanks for trusting me again good day friend 86.153.131.65 (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about the time issue. As long as someone thinks I'm helping them in a positive way, then it's not a waste of time for me. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

ok

thanks for speak me bye

Rilsonjoas (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Buenos Aires

Oops, I reverted the 'seventh-largest' change here, but accidentally restored it when I reverted another edit afterwards. Thanks for correcting this. Best regards, Hayden120 (talk) 13:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

DELHI

May I please know that for what reason, except for some repeated stuff, was my article deleted? I didn't enter any unproven information.

I never said that Delhi was beautiful and world standard city on the whole and stuff like that, that could be treated as POV. I simply talked about Delhi's history and culture, which the world knows about!

Why then did you delete my article??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.41.2 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How bout these statements?

"Delhi is one of the most enchanting, colorful and vibrant cities of the world" (POV)

"With its brilliant tree cover, DELHI has well deservedly gained the tag of THE GREENEST CAPITAL OF THE GLOBE!" (POV and unsourced)

"From biting cold winters, with lowest temperatures hovering around the freezing point of water to extremely hot summers, with max. temperatures raging to touch the 45-50 degrees mark, DELHIITES have seen it all!!!" (written like an advertisement)

"No doubts, it is called a MINI-INDIA in the subcontinent of INDIA" (Seems like WP:OR or personal analysis/POV)

"From highly congested areas of Chandni Chowk and Outer areas to the world class New Delhi areas like India Gate, Connaught Place, Chanakya Puri, Lodhi Complex, etc Delhi has it all" (again like an ad and POV)

"Historical buildings in Indian, Persion, Arabian, Chinese and British- all can be seen in this glorious city of Delhi" (more non-neutrality/POV"

"Delhi became the world's most important centre of Islamic learning!" (factual assertion/unsourced)

Please note that Delhi is a Featured Article which means that the article must be neutral and that all potentially contreversial information MUST be sourced. Please see WP:FA and WP:WIAFA. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Lemme tell you something... You live in the U.S. So you can't expect everyone to type on the Wikipedia whatever is accepted in your country. Give one visit to India and you'll know whether or not do we call Delhi a MINI-INDIA. Moreover, I didn't type anything wrong regarding ""Delhi became the world's most important centre of Islamic learning!"" You must update your knowledge regarding the Fall of Baghdad during the Medieval era before proving my point wrong. And yes I did use adjectives to describe Delhi, but they were mostly neither comparative nor superlative, except, of course a few like 'GREENEST CAPITAL', etc. You could have yourself edited them instead of deleting the article as a whole. You could have removed parts like Delhi has it all, Delhiites have seen it all, etc that you found offensive, instead of being so harsh.

KINDLY GIVE IT ANOTHER THOUGHT.... Thankyou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.41.2 (talk) 11:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't need a history lesson. I've already had an accelerated class on World History. It doesn't really matter where I live because what I'm going on is neutrality and generally, I try to go towards what would most people think rather than what would most people think in this specific country. But the point isn't to proving your point wrong, the point is that the passages do not conform to the criteria of a Featured Article. Links to this are on my previous post.

"we call Delhi a MINI-INDIA". This seems like original research and as said before, POV. Wikipedia is strongly against original research per WP:OR.

Also, editing the passage wouldn't be that helpful. As you have stated yourself, some of the information is repetitive with exceptions to the passages I posted above which were identified as POV, so it would be redundant to keep the text. Wikipedia supports a neutral point of view per WP:NPOV and WP:POV, and the rest of the statements are written with bias. Even though we know something is true, it must be written neutrally. See the link I gave for NPOV and POV. Even though the passage may be correct, it still must be cited because Delhi is a featured article. Statements that can be seen as controversial or needs a verification check must have a reliable source. Much of the passage was written with bias and POV so there wouldn't really be anything left. Furthermore there wasn't a single source added to article.

If you wish to have other people look at this, you are welcome to discuss the matter on the talk page of Delhi. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

As you wish, mate, or your Wikipedia...

THANKS FOR REPLYING. GOODBYE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.41.2 (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Good night, my friend. What, in your opinion, does the article about Brazil need to become featured? - --Lecen (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean be assessed to be a featured article? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Lecen, you may wish to submit the article for a peer review to garner suggestions on what needs to be improved. Hope you don't mind me commenting on your talk page Elockid. Hayden120 (talk) 00:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't mind at all. :) Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

ABOUT THE "VANDALIZING". from All BJ.

About the "vandalizing" What i edited on the Cairo page was true information, the information that is currently their is false. I edit wikipedia for the soul purpose of helping it keep to true information. I am studying as a meteorologist and thus i generally edit the climate sections on city or country pages. I have edited several other climate sections with success and so i ask you to STOP deleting and reverting my information that i know to be true. All BJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by All Bj (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I had know idea that the cairo page was already being vandalized, but the info that is currently in place from "BBC weather" is false. The Beirut page was a misunderstanding and i apologize to Wikipedia for editing false information. But what about the Bedford page?? I did not even change any of the weather data on that page, i only wrote a small article on Bedfords climate because it lacking one. Is that vandalizing? As i said i do apologize for the misunderstanding on the Beirut page. But please at least inform me before deleting my edits so that i can check if they are actually wrong, so that i am not blocked from editing "the free encyclopedia". Thank you for replying. All BJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by All Bj (talk • contribs) 07:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for replying with helpful info. I believe that Wikipedia is the best source for information of all kinds and so i have joined this encyclopedia to try to help it provide even more specific information. However i have been very unsuccessful, i have edited only 10 pages so far and on seven of those pages my edits were deleted. How, in your opinion (as i see you are a very experienced editor having edited approximately 4,500 articles) do you successfully edit a page. Thank you. All BJ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by All Bj (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Hello! Please, I need your help to deal with an issue that has appeared in the article about Brazil. See it in here. Thank you very much. - --Lecen (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be an issue that for me will take a while a take in and understand. I'll have a good look when the weekend comes. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. - --Lecen (talk) 01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I will make a brief summary of the problem: I started to rewrite the section “History” in the article on Brazil. The idea was to improve the text changing the old citations based on websites for books written by several renowned historians. I had already rewritten three subsections without having received complains from other users. In the fourth subsection that deals with the reign of Emperor Pedro II, I received serious complains from user Opinoso who made baseless personal accusations against me for no reason. I sent him a private message asking him to get into a peaceful resolution to the matter, but he simply ignored me and kept with the accusations, attacks and ironic remarks towards me. After that he added untrue information in the subsection. And even more serious: he was not faithful to his own sources and created information that did not exist in the sources, as I managed to prove in the discussion page.

Commented on the talk page. The main problem doesn't seem to be the information though. It just seems to be the word choice of the sentences. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, my friend. Unfortunately, things aren't as simple as you imagine. The matter is not about what passage should stay or go anymore, but user Opinoso's actions: he has invented information that his sources did not say, he reverted edits that could no be undone until matter be settled, etc... I have made a summary about the issue and I am waiting for other editor's opinions on it. --Lecen (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll be sure to look at this then when I get the time. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 16:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. - --Lecen (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Elockid. I am once again bothering you. We are trying to settle the matter in the article about Brazil once and for all. Take a look at the 10 points settlement. I do really recommend you to read carefully the other editor's opinions also. This 10 points method is more simples and faster than having to read the discussion page discussion all over it again. I must also warn you (to be careful) that some of the passages in dispute have already been proved that they have no basis on its own sources (that is, they were fabricated). Please, help us on this one. ---Lecen (talk) 13:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Will add a comment probably on Friday or Saturday. That's the best time I can give a detailed comment. I can only read what's going on for now. But commenting takes a while. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 13:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Good night, Elockid. I'd like to comment your thoughts on the Brazilian article, if you don't mind:

1. Change the wording and it should be fine - I must warn you that this passage is unsupported by the cited source. That is, it was one of the fabricated info. How to keep it or change it if the source itself does not talk about it?
2. Perhaps this piece of information should go to the article History of Brazil instead? - Agree.
3. After looking around a bit, Lecen does seem to be correct on this one. - Agree. The number refer to Paraguayans, not Brazilians.
4. If I'm not mistaken, the information about the coffee is correct, but the rest I'm not too sure about - This is another passage unsupported by the cited source. That is, was one of the fabricated info. Again, how to keep it or change it if the source itself does not talk about it?
5. Slave labor was used, so I don't think it should be deleted. Why not add both pieces of information? They seem to be relevant - Yes, slavery was also used, but it is already mentioned in the subsection, wouldn't this be too over detailed?
6. Not too sure about this one, sorry - Another passage unsupported by the cited source. Impossible to keep it if the source itself does not talk about it.
7. Source is temporarily unavailable. Failed verification at the moment. - Another passage unsupported by the cited source.
8. Agree about this staying. This is an interesting piece of information. Agree.
9. This is a direct copy from Encyclopedia Britannica. Probably best to remove the statement or change the wording. - Agree.
10. According to the source, IGBE, the largest group by the end of the 19th century were the Brancos (whites), followed by the Pardos (brown), and lastly the Pretos (blacks or African Americans). So should be changed or removed. Agree, should be on demographics or Brazilian People article.

Note: "There were owners of hundreds of slaves, concentrated in great farms, and, at the same time, people with low income, mostly in cities, that only possessed one or two slaves. The slaves played roles in the productive sphere of the great farms, in domestic tasks, in urban activities, that went from sales of products up to prostitution on behalf of their masters, as "income slaves". Thus the view that associated the slavery in Brazil to the spacial and social organization of the "Casa-Grande" and "Senzala" [Large farms] cannot be generalized for all the country, being a characteristic of some areas of the northeast." (Fausto, p.43)

The coffe farms were in the southeast, while the sugar plants in the northeast. As you can see, over simplifying the matter os slaves-in-coffe-farms is a mistake. - --Lecen (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC) - --Lecen (talk) 01:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for info. Will add to my comments after I finish editing the article below. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

New discussion of list article

A discussion has started at Talk:World_Tourism_rankings#Article_title_and_better_sourcing. As a previously involved editor, you are invited to participate. 91.187.64.100 (talk) 03:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

philippines as a newly industrialized country?

i dont think philippines should be considered a newly industrialized country based on GDP per capita PPP and Nominal. Obviously the human development index is also very low. this indicates that a country is still third world. obviously indonesia's and vietnam's gdp is higher than philippines and it is still considered third world. Why should philippines be considered a newly industrialized country —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.203.92 (talk) 01:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

List of metropolitan areas in Asia by population

Hi. I came across this relatively recently created article that looks like it's mixing up its definitions with regards to population and area. Just letting you since you might be interested in looking this over and cleaning up the list a bit. --Polaron | Talk 17:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It does look like there's a lot of work and cleanup needed. I think I would be interested in fixing up the article when I get the time. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AIV report

This was incredibly helpful in processing your request at AIV; thanks! Kuru ^talk 21:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I should really thank you for helping out. Thanks for blocking the user. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi elockid!

I really appreciate your help and rectifications for the list List of metropolitan areas in Asia by population. The list indeed looks much better than before. But several problems are still there.

Firstly, the ranking is in total confusion. Many cities with lower populations are ranked higher. The ranking has to be cleaned up, or the article will end up looking embarassing. I suggest we use an average of all the given populations, and then rank them accordingly.

Secondly, the images are creating a heck of a lot of problem. I tried to incorprate the image in the table itself, but the end result is disastrous. The image is covering the Country column. I request you not to revert my edits, but to please find a solution and keep the images as they are.

I invite Polaron to come and help ijn the editing process. All comments and suggestions for improvement are welcome.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 15:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Chennai

I see that you revert on the page too. I had to deep revert one of your reverts today as hidden below your revert was an edit by a POV introducer. If you could keep a lookout for him, that'd be good. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 20:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you're technically reverting my edit since it didn't bring back up what I reverted. Anyways, I'll lookout for him. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 20:35, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

On Nangaparbat, I've clarified my post on YM's page. Didn't really mean to comment on the two that you posted, but was asking (both of you) a question about the two I posted. cheers. -SpacemanSpiff 22:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

DrFlower (talk · contribs)?-SpacemanSpiff 05:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have a hunch but I think he needs a check until he acts the usual way (edit summaries and article language). Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 05:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hi! These users might be related to user:Tankiona. User talk:Hawkchoi and User talk:221.139.183.206, though they are not active now but the edit tendency was similar to T. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 05:28, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I already added Hawkchoi though. Adding 221.139.183.206 to the list. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 05:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Hello, Elockid! Good morning! Or at least, I hope it's morning where you live! Anyway, the article Brazil is blocked due to a dispute over a content. I would like to know if you wold be interested in giving your opinion to end it once and for all. In case you do not know much about the subject, I could explain it better to you. This is the link. All help is needed. hank your very much and kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I imagine that you did not have a greater insight about the matter, but that's not a probably. In Brazil, the offical census that is taken from 10 in 10 years have a category called "Pardo" that includes every Brazilian of mixed-race. That happens to simply the study. Brazilian experts, from historians to geographers, divide this category in several sub-categories: offsprings of Japanese and whites are called "Ainocô", the ones of white and Indias "Caboclo", the descendants of white and blacks "mulatto", etc. This is also how it's taught in Brazilian schools. As the Geographer José William Vicentini, said about the official census that it "is noticeable that these data are very questionable, as they do not take in account the ethnic origin of the people (black or Indian ancestry, etc.), but only the color of skin. Moreover, the notion of “Pardo” is not very rigorous, as it includes from very dark Mulattoes to Caboclos and Cafuzos." (pp.117-118) What he meant, in other words, was that Pardo is a broad category that includes all mixed-races Brazilians, not only African descendants as the newspaper's article seemed to suggest. If you want to know more, I suggest that you take a look at this. --Lecen (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Will read soon. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 18:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Nangparbat et al

 Great! job! Keep it going... Anonymous

Thank you. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 16:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Bank Card Number

Hi,

I am writing to you in reference to the link that was removed from the Bank Card Number page.

The reason I added this was i noted in the external links some simple BIN lookup tools, however it lacked linkage to a facility that finds actual numbers that conform to the standards outlined in this article.

The tool that the link I added points to is specifically (and only) designed to find Payment Card Numbers that match the article. In fact some of the content in the article was used when the Tool was created.

The Tool is free and offered to the payment card community. It is often used by auditors looking for numbers that conform to the standard shown in this article.

I decided to proceed in adding this link as t conforms with the Wiki Rules as it is very much in the same positioning as the other 2 links to binbase.com and binchecker.com

Would you please re-consider your position on this. I encourage you to follow the link and use the tool to verify that what it does conforms to the information shown in the article that it is linked from.

Please let me know if you have any more questions,

Thank-you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groundlabs (talk • contribs) 04:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems like advertising. Your username matches the exact name of the website and there is a Wikipedia policy that doesn't allow advertising one's site. You seem to be advertising this site on their behalf. Please see WP:EL#ADV. Please also see WP:ELNO under number 4. This seems to be Conflict of interest, so it's best that the link be removed. Furthermore, I'm not the only one who agrees that this is link spamming. Another editor removed the link you added. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Request for clarification: consensus and insertion of information on Philippines and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--JL 09 _^q?c 14:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Language box

How can I get one of those? Have only been editing WP for 11 months and really should indicate my fluencies (incomplete as they are) on my user page. Martindo (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. All you have to do is copy it"

{{userboxtop
| backgroundcolor = substitute with any color you want
| bordercolor = substitute with any color you want
|Languages}}
{{User en}}
{{User ilo-4}}
</div></div></div>
{{Userboxbottom}}

Where it says "en" and "ilo", replace those with the language codes that you want to add. For proficiency add a dash ( - ) by the language code and the proficiency level (it goes from 0-5). Not adding a proficiency level is treated as a native speaker of that language. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

White Brazilians

Could you please take a look at this?...

[4] Ninguém (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I'll have to wait to comment until tomorrow though since it's getting late where I'm at. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The lead sentence of the total population, I don't see anything wrong with since you're updating outdated information to more current information. The lead paragraphs on the pre-reverted version is largely a block of text without many sources. If more sources were added to support the statements, then editors would more likely support your changes. The same for regions of settlement section. This seems to be also the basis for reverting. Adding more supporting reliable and verifiable sources will solidify your changes and additions. What I think Off2riorob is doing is also reverting lots of unsourced info which is common. Also, in the meanwhile if there is more current opposition, why not start a subpage on your userspace like User:Ninguém/White Brazilian, copy the article and work on it then start a discussion when you're finished with it? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia

Yes, the speedy deletion tag for Indonesia was a total mistake. Huggle was displaying one page, but apparently had Indonesia registered as its current page. Oops. I was heading over to the page to revert, but you were too fast for me. ;) Thanks for reverting. - Pingveno 22:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It happens. I've had the same problems before with Huggle because of the lag. So I understand where you're coming from. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

South America edit

South America really isn't a dog. Why did you erase that part of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.23.103.131 (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it doesn't relate to the article in a constructive manner. Please see WP:Vandalism under "Silly Vandalism". That summarizes it quite nicely to what that edit is. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 02:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding wrong GDP of cities

The reason I changed Bngladesh gdp is coz of the main Daka article itself claims its got 52 billion dollar gdp not 78 billion also plz look at the source I given: http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/richest-cities-2005.html This shows clearly that dhaka has got a 52 billion dollar gdp not 78! sorry for bad english thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.239.16 (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Citymayors page is a copy of Pricewaterhouse Cooper's 2005 list and is what was the article based on before. However, the article was updated and now uses the PWC 2008 list which is more up to date. You can find it here at PWC's site. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 20:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok sorry for trouble bye 86.158.239.16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC).

23prootie3

It may interest you that the banned editor may be editing again, via IP 124.104.35.224. I suspect this IP due to WP:IDART. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why revert my edit?

? --Watkarian (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Because you're are evidently Rayesworied editing the same exact edits and articles. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

But I do not Purpose to vandal on wikipedia. --Watkarian (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia. You may wish to appeal your ban by emailing Arbcomm. But creating more socks will make it much less likely they will lift your ban. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 14:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Elockid. User:110.93.136.252 seems to be performing similar edits as banned user User:Rayesworied. —hike395 (talk) 13:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Filled a sockpuppetry case for the IP. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 13:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Datamix

Re: this edit

There appears to be somebody using multiple accounts to insert that external link into multiple pages. FYI, I put a notice up on Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#Datamix. Feel free to add a comment. Jwesley₇₈ 14:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Keeping an eye on the pages being edited. Will add any other accounts to the SPI page. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 16:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Brazil

Elockid, could you please take a look in here and give your opinion about it? Thank you very much. The editor Rahlgd insists on adding information about projects that did not begin to be developed yet and are nothing more than plans. --Lecen (talk) 03:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah sure. I won't be able to comment until after Christmas though. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Elockid, I need your help. I tried to make modifications in the article Brazil but user Rahlgd has [reverted all of them]. All of them. No one can touch the article and he simply revert it. --Lecen (talk) 01:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, since Arbcom hasn't place restrictions on the article, Rahlgd is free to edit as long as he meets policy guidelines. One of the changes from the diff you showed was actually helpful. Rahgld changed the economy figures from the World Bank to the International Monetary Fund which is the standard being used for country articles. I have to ask, do you think Rahgld editing in a tendentious manner? However, in my opinion it does seem that way since he is being opposed by three other editors while obtaining no consensus. In the meanwhile since it seems like any action taken will result in an edit war and get the page protected again, you might also want to seek a third opinion or a request for comment by placing this template: {{3O}} on the article to see if any other editors agree with shortening the article, or asking opinions from WP:WikiProject Brazil or request for comment. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for answering me. Well, check again the link I sent you. He changed the economy figures while at the same time he undid everything I did before. In his edit there is gives no reason at all to why he did even so I have beem warning everyone of all my actions in the talk page. What he did was nothing more than to camouflage the fact that he reverted all my edits with an apparently harmless change in the economy figures.

That's not the only issue. The article is huge. Simply too heavy. It takes too much to load it because it has overly detailed information that it's not necessary in it. You could help if you participated in the talk page because you don't need to know anything about Brazil to be part of it. After all, the issue it's obvious: the article is too long and full of non important info. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article is too heavy. I made a comment on that on the talk page already. I think it got hidden with all the comments though. I'll respond to some concerns already stated. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 05:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I know you did, but editor Rahlgd ignored it and reverted everything. The discussion is now being held in here. So far, I and other 2 editors answered. It would be good if you could give your opinion too. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Just finished my comment. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 05:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, --Lecen (talk) 05:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I have downsized the article Brazil to 111kb long (from its original 185kb). My last edit was this one. It was originally like this. Please, tell which one you support in the article's talk page. Thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

What a big difference! Also commented on the talk page. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 20:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

New Section

Hi, I don't see how you count my edit (List of Countries and Outlying territories) as vandalism, I simply added the 'Crown Dependencies' and the 'British Overseas Territories' to size of the listed land mass. Other Countries' Territories are counted as part of the land mass of the country, like the United States and New Zealand. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by George2001hi (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The number you keep changing is a sourced number. The figure that kept being added by the IP edit which seems to be you and yourself is not what the source says. Persistently changing sourced data without explanation or anything done can be considered vandalism. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 20:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Spammers

If you get any more hassle from them, drop me a line and give me a few pages to add to my watchlist and I'll try and give you a hand! All the best, HJMitchell You rang? 15:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help! Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 15:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Like I say, if you need a hand with 'em, just drop me a line and I'll do what I can. HJMitchell You rang? 15:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

at D.R. To help you back a bit I've now added your fave page to my watchlist.

And have a great 2010! SamEV (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Have a happy new years!. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 17:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)