User talk:Carbonate

Welcome!

Hello Carbonate, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! -- F a ng Aili ^說嗎? 01:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-27 Gold as a measure of inflation

I've accepted this case, and RandomP's agreed to participate. Discussion is now underway under (strangely enough) the 'Discussion' section. Thanks, Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a comment from the mediation from an IP earlier today, believing it to be from an uninvolved party. However, RandomP has drawn my attention to the fact that it may have been you while logged out. Was this the case? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 16:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you belive we are "good to go" as Random claims?

I can provide quotes that should put to rest the issues of

use of gold since the invention of money
gold's value as measured over millenia
The source, date and venue of the quote which is properly "Gold is money, and nothing else."

I will post it when I read your response to the current discussion

This is beyond ridiculous. RandomP can not take both the role of critique and ignoramous to justify his position. Although there is merit to writing at a level the lay person can understand, an article should not be written as if by a lay person. I aggree that there are minor problems like the per annum and ommision of the dollar sign but come on, the bulk of the rest is utter nonsense.

And I quote "I'm not sure what it means. Was he concerned about the use of silver as money? a central bank circulating unbacked currency? legal tender laws (I thought those had already been in place?)?"

WTF??? I have no idea how to respond to this after more than a week discussion.

US per capita debt

Using the latest number from the debt clock:

$8368014346136.87 of public debt

and the latest number from the US population clock

298,907,487 people in the US

I work out $27,995.33 of debt per capita. Not quite there yet, but it's already increased by a cent since I last did the calculation a couple of minutes ago :-)

RandomP 21:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are saying that the calculation on the website is wrong? Are you the only one who has a firm grasp of the facts in your world? I'm beginning to understand why you like to delete content from articles, if you can't say it first it must wrong or not worth knowing.

""""

Yeah, it's off a bit. It does update the debt, and it's the source I've used for that. It doesn't update the population the way the US population clock does, but doesn't cite a source other than the US population clock, so I assume that's just a delay.

Not that $5 in $28,000 are that significant, anyway.

I like deleting content, in the technical bytes-of-text definition from article if I can do so without deleting content in the encyclopedic-information-conveyed-to-readers definition. Increasing signal-to-noise is a good thing. :-)

RandomP 04:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is crap.The population,and even the debt it self is not nown in such accuracy.All numbers under a certain order are mingnles.--Ruber chiken 10:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

inflation

I see that randomP gives you a bad time.I didn't read all the discution,but may be you would like to hear my POV.The statement "gold is money",i thot the saying was,gold as good as many.Whell the problem with this one is that you don't invent word,and then give them a sence.In a sence it's not maney if you tried to go to the grosery store with gold pouder,i think that you will be turned down.But in a other way if you tried to pay with dollars in eurozone,you'll have the same result.Is dollar less of a curancy when you are in europe?No,acording to randomP(foloing the same logic),and yes acording to you.Aparently you are both rogn.Now if you go in a contry in war you have good chances that your gold pouder is axepted.You are trying to set a frontier that don't exist.When gray becomes black or white?It's an hybrid thing.Gold,has the abarasing property ,that as such is uselles,like curency.But you can't buy any thing directly with it,like commodety,or may be more acuratly,like a foren exchange.An auther example is the ECU,the predecesor of the euro,was regarded as a curency,but was a legal tender nowher(and so not a curency,according to randomP logic)..I sujest ,too have a row description,saying that peopol regard gold,as maney(not a comodity,useles on it's whone),but it's a legal tender,in no contry,and leav it ther.At my nolege,in the breton woods accord,and even in antic times,you couldn't go to the grossery with pouder.Coins wher invented as a standard for exange.

"Gold and silver holding their value for millennia".This is not 100% acurate (for example i think that the gold from the conquistadors lutting,provoced an important inflation in europe at this time).the 2% figure is rather acurate(probably even less,any way,it's a very small increas per year).The resiclement of gold,is extremly hi.Almost all of the gold ever extracted,is still in our volts.The gold of the faraos,of the romans,of the luted incas,gold of the pirets,jews golden teeth...(say that to your wife when she wants a jewl).So probably 2% increase is a hi estimate,it's probaly lower,if you acount extraction for millenias to our present quantities.Thats why every body was so desperate to have gold.

"world's oceans contain gold".You misanderstould this,this gold that the quote refers to,is not the gold in the ocean floar.Is the gold disoved in the water.In theory we can extracte,but at what cost?Combined at an even greater wil to recicle gold.then yes humanity can extract all the gold,that she will ever need(so hubert peak is not an ishue),if she wants to pay the price for a useless metal.In comparison fiat maney is a lot more competitiv.You can not use hubert peack theory,directly,at auther stuf then energy extraction.Energy extraction is limited by her autoconsumption rate,so ponding more technology and maney can't help,since you will consume more energy then that,that you will produce.Commodities are diferent,if you whant to produce more,simply pore in more energy(if you can find it)

"gold-inflation"I think that this is debaded by economists.You have to take some precautions first and sitisfy certain crityria,in order to use it as benchmark.

--Ruber chiken 18:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read further down to the 3rd draft, you will see that the saying has now been sourced and dated.

There are fluctuations in gold production but the conquesedor's are not one as it was only a redistribution of gold that had taken centuries to mine.

In fact, RandomP did eventually provide a reference which I must admit I already knew about. RandomP failed to mention that Nautical Resources was in the very earliest stages of exploration and probably more than a decade from production if they ever reach that stage. To this day, there is no way to mine the gold on the ocean floor.

I guess it comes down to this, as benchmarks of inflation go, gold is second only to labour (see Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations) but it is infinately more easy to document over time than labour.

Carbonate 09:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conquesedor's thing,was just to show that,gold prices are not as stable as the production,because of such event's.RandomP thinks that we can produce as gold as we whant,this is thrue only if you are willing to pay the price.But since gold is,in general,a useless peace of junck lying in the safes of banks,it don't seams that ther will be motivation for expancive extractions.It's more likely that it will be replaced by auther comodities, that will be easier to produce.Gold was chosen in the begining because it was rare(no inflation),because they werent any central empire who could garentie the valieu of fiat corency, because is soft alowing it to be marked easily(it had to be done by hand) and because it don't corode.--Ruber chiken 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, if you want to know what I do or do not think, it's best to ask me.

While I'm flattered by all the attention given to my person, above and beyond what I actually say, the opinions ascribed to me don't actually seem to be close to the truth, generally speaking.

RandomP 14:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replying to Carbonate's message that, with my Austrian persuasion in economics, I am "very fringe." No, I'm not surprised to learn this (or that you think so). Austrian economics is not subscribed to by majorities either of economists or by others (like me) who fancy they know a bit about economics. We are all very much accustomed to being thought of as "fringe" and being treated as such by people who attach what I consider undue value to being "mainstream" (opposite of fringe) in matters of thought and inquiry.

I'm not sure what you know about Austrianism other than that it is fringe, but it might surprise you to learn that practically all Austrians prefer a monetary reform that would restore gold to its position as the basis for all money.

--Joe 00:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oil reservers

It's thrue that spelling and syntax are odd.But the new version,has more conten,i'didn't just reword it.Iraq increase during the war,and that hi reserves gives beter loans,wasn't mensioned in the old version.You just revert it,if you want you can fix it,but don't just revert it,the info is serious.I'm not stoping you from rerighting it like you wahnt,just don't reduce content at any time,it's the olny thing i whant,whith the tags the reeder is alredy warned .--Ruber chiken 13:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some one cleaned the intro.--Ruber chiken 18:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RandomP

You suposing that he making all this out off bad faith.No,if you look more carefully,in his talk page,and his ,arguments as a holle,his,always very strict.Is ither black,or whit.This let you supose that his not acting,in bad faith,he is constant.This type,of personality,is often related to profecions like,lowers,mathematicians,ingeniers,informatitians....Don't try to prouve to him your point,your losing your time.Try to prouve why this or this mast go in the article.And No,this is not personal randomP,but you are being a dick,and i what you to agnoleg that,and stop braking everybodies balls.My perpos is that you understant that you have to change you incivic ways.Someone has too tell you that.---Ruber chiken 19:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

have a look in hubert theory talk page,his planing on doing significant edits,if you see what i mean.I was rogn,thers no way discusisng any thing with him.Even in scientific,uncoutestable stuf.--Ruber chiken 21:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Do you mind if I format the RFC to more clearly show which parts are the old and the proposed new sections? I think we should definitely come up with an RFC that looks good to both of us, then put it up on the RFC page and see what happens ...

If you want to reword your comments, feel free to do so.

RandomP 11:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbert peak theory

I'm having trouble understanding this edit. The issue has been discussed at length on the talk page, and ruber chiken (talk · contribs), along with everyone else, ultimately changed his mind about the issue.

I feel that after that extensive discussion, if you still see a need for the old image caption, you should discuss this change first.

Can you please undo your revert, for now?

Thanks

RandomP 13:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for this edit, which is discussed, and uncontested, on the archived talk page.

Thanks again

RandomP 13:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After going through the archive, it seems the discussion was only between you and RC. And you are wrong on your basic premise that the curve be symetric. There was zero oil produced befor the 19th century so the curve must go to zero on the left but production will never go to zero for the duration of mankind because oil is used to produce medicines and will be produced until the cost to synthesize oil becomes less than production. This means that the production curve must be asymetric.

If you want to reference talk pages, why don't you consider using talk before removing content rather than justifying your deletion with talk after the fact?

Carbonate 14:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was more on Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs)'s talk page. Anyway, the edit is obviously correct.

The "Hubbert curve" is, in that article, defined to be a certain function.
The graph depicts a different function.
Thus, the caption for the graph should not identify it as a "Hubbert curve".

Can you tell me, at least, which step of that you disagree with?

RandomP 14:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the function defined? Carbonate 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From Hubbert curve:

The Hubbert curve, named after the geophysicist M. King Hubbert, is the derivative of the logistic function.

The symmetry property is a consequence of (from logistic function:

A logistic function is defined by the mathematical formula:

P(t)=a{\frac {1+me^{-t/\tau }}{1+ne^{-t/\tau }}}\!

for real parameters a, m, n, and

\tau

.

Do you need a proof? (No offence, honest offer, if you don't see it).

RandomP 15:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as you say it is a deriviative of the function you just quoted. Where is the actual function?

Carbonate 15:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I'm confused.

The Hubbert curve is the derivative of the logistic function. (or a logistic function, if you want to be precise).

A logistic function is defined by the expression

P(t)=a{\frac {1+me^{-t/\tau }}{1+ne^{-t/\tau }}}\!

There's a general formula for the derivative of that expression with regard to t, but it's not too hard to see you end up with something like

P'(t)=\alpha {\frac {e^{-\beta (t-\mu )}}{\left(1+e^{-\beta (t-\mu )}\right)^{2}}}

for the right choice of α and β.

RandomP 15:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is not the function used in the 1956 paper the image is sourced from. Hubbert used the logistics curve to explain the theory graphicaly in the 80's. Where is the original function?

Carbonate 15:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I had no idea you wanted to know the expression Hubbert used in 1956!

As far as I'm aware, there is none (I mean, you could make up one, but Hubbert did not give an expression in that paper). That's not an issue though, because it's clearly not a "Hubbert curve" - Hubbert curves are symmetric, the curve depicted isn't.

I still do not see the issue?

RandomP 16:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hubbert peak theory: EIA quote

Hi again, what about this edit?

I went to the trouble of checking the source, and it turns out that the text you restored clearly misquotes it!

Do you propose to do anything about that, or do you want to leave it in its current, unacceptable, state?

RandomP 16:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing fact tags.

I don't doubt that the fact tags I placed can easily be backed up with reliable sources by you. However, you cannot remove the fact tags without doing so. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation on Inflation

You said in May that you were requesting mediation, and several people supported you. Have you kept your word? It appears not.Kitteneatkitten 20:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That mediation concluded with no agreement. What word am I supposed to have kept? Carbonate 05:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internment Camps: Israel/Gaza

I've put the dispute between you and an IP address concerning your reference in the Internment Camps article to Gaza as an Israeli work camp and your listing of Gaza on the list of Israeli Internment Camps on the Abritration Requested list. Clearly, this dispute will have to be decided by a third party and perhaps enforcement enacted against either or both of you. It's a novel proposition, and as in every case, I hope to learn more about the particulars (facts on the ground). Aside from raising the allegation, however, I must say I haven't found your contributions illuminating. I wouldn't mind, either, if you took a bit more care with typing and spelling. If nothing else, such shortcomings in your contributions suggest the possibility of similar sloppiness in your thinking/fact-gathering processes.

Providing a little information about yourself on your user page might help some of us in communicating with you - that is, if you're interested in being communicated with.

--Joe 16:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonite's argument is obviously Original Research, but there's no way the RFAr is getting off the ground - it's a content dispute and there are no documented dispute resolution attempts. Jumping straight to RFAr is overkill. TheronJ 20:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not original research but I must agree that this was a very premature RfA. Carbonate 08:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonate, you mention having posted (or linked, or otherwise referred to) sources that support your contention. I've looked for these citations and not found any. If you have any, could you edit them onto my Talk page so I can follow them, and perhaps learn? Even though my position against your edits seems to have gained support, it also looks as though my request for arbitration may get rejected, so you might end up not needing advocacy here. As for when/how/whether the locks on the page in question expire or otherwise get lifted, that lies in the vast reaches of my ignorance of Wikipedia procedures, in which, despite my remaining vast ignorance, I have been trying to educate myself.

By the way, have you ever been to Gaza (I haven't)? Israel (not me)? I'm not even Jewish, although you might have thought I was. I had an uncle who was a Nazi, though - a real one, in World War II.--Joe 16:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbonate, to my little surprise, I am entirely satisfied that in Gaza are several large "camps" that are populated by what now are the descendents of people who left their homes in what now is Israel under duress during and after 1949. These unfortunate people now are not allowed to move either to adjacent (and hostile) Israel, where their parents and/or grandparents used to make their homes, nor to adjacent Egypt.

These agglomerations of people qualify in my mind for listing on the List of Camps, despite the fact that the individuals now involved are not the people who were originally displaced. Look at the Discussion of the Internment article to see my arguments leading to these conclusions. As stated there, I do not think they qualify to give rise to an entry headed "Israel," but I do think they might fit under a heading of "Gaza" or under a new heading of "United Nations."

If you're still intent on getting these camps onto the list, give some thought to approaching the goal by either of these avenues.--Joe 15:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA request

I have submited a request for advocacy after at least one of the pages in dispute has been locked by an admin from Israel after removing the contested material. The other party in the dispute is an IP address that may never respond to the RfA and I would like to know what is likely to happen in this case. I was suprised by the RfA because none of the alternate methods of compromise were really persued. I gave a number of reasons that were never addressed by anyone in the discussion even tho I responded to any reasons they raised. This is a very political (and religious) issue at the moment and I am worried that my lack of knowledge of wiki rules may lead me to error in arbitration.

Carbonate 10:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Carbonate, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties. I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Wikipedia to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) Unfortunately, due to the large backlog it may take some time to furnish you with an Advocate, so we ask that you please be patient and bear with us for the time being. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 13:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I seem to have stirred up a real $#(@ storm with this one. And I thought the anti-gold people were bad... Carbonate 19:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Accepted

Hi, I go by the handle Fred-Chess and I'll be advocating you about List of concentration and internment camps.

Basically I will assist you in your proceedings, by giving advice on possible dispute resolutions, and pointing to applicable policies and guidelines.

You can email me to describe what you need assistance with, or write me a message on my talk page if it isn't sensitive.

Fred-Chess 16:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think our main method of communication should from now on be email (or some other non-Wikipedia communication, which ever you prefer). Because I live in Sweden, my time-zone (GMT+1) probably doesn't match yours, so don't expect immediate response or live chat.

Everything private, such as your email, will be confidential and not disclosed.

If you agree to communicate via email, set up your email in your preferences, and then send me a mail.

Fred-Chess 19:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You haven't written my anything yet. I needed to address certain issues through email. If you don't want advocacy, I will soon close the case. If you want a different advocate, you will then need to contact one on your own. / Fred-Chess 10:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reprotected the List of Concentration camps

By continuing to edit war on this article, I feel you have abused my trust. You should work towards reaching a compromise with the editors who oppose the paragraph you've been trying to add, rather than simply push it again and again, accusing them of political motives. Everybody has political motives - you do too. For personal reasons, I can't spend time on wikipedia in the upcoming weeks. You are welcome to seek the assistance of other administrators to unprotect the page, as long as they read the talk page and look at the history of the article, which I am sure any administrator will do before unprotecting, I will not consider it wheel-warring. --woggly 05:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gaza

You are listed in the history page of List of concentration and internment camps as finishing woggly's unprotect. He has again protected it but left this message on my talk page.

By continuing to edit war on this article, I feel you have abused my trust. You should work towards reaching a compromise with the editors who oppose the paragraph you've been trying to add, rather than simply push it again and again, accusing them of political motives. Everybody has political motives - you do too. For personal reasons, I can't spend time on wikipedia in the upcoming weeks. You are welcome to seek the assistance of other administrators to unprotect the page, as long as they read the talk page and look at the history of the article, which I am sure any administrator will do before unprotecting, I will not consider it wheel-warring.

The recent edit I made was a substantial rework that took in to consideration all of the suggestions that were given in the previous discussion as to how I would get this content included in the article. Although the cite references doesn't seem to work properly in my sandbox (I hate cite.php), the new content is at User:Carbonate/Sandbox. I have tried to remove the POV and OR and focus on stating the facts that can be verified with references. But as I decided to stop reverting while the discussion continued (at least of a few hours), I don't think woggly read the new material.

I don't belive the current editor who is reverting the material IronDuke has made any vaild arguments against the material beyond "its anti-israeli". Can you please take a look and tell me what your impressions are?

Carbonate 06:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I appear in the history is due to a request on WP:RFPP for someone to fix the incomplete unprotection, which I did. I did not even look at the article at the time; I just verified the admin's intention to unprotect, and trusted it was just the small mistake of forgetting to actually turn off the protection after removing the template.

I took a look at the page history and the arguments on the multiple talk pages, and I conclude keeping the protection is the best course of action. Protection is not (except in some unusual circunstances) intended to keep an article on a particular revision or prevent certain information to be added to it; instead, it's a way of stopping an edit war in progress, forcing a discussion in the talk page instead of a revert war. Which revision it was protected on doesn't matter (see The Wrong Version for a classic essay on the subject). It doesn't matter if your arguments are valid or not; as long as both sides still intend to keep reverting each other, the page will stay protected (another option would be to block either one or both of the sides of the revert war, but it doesn't apply in this particular case).

--cesarb 15:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, to make the references appear, just add a dummy <references/> on your sandbox (but remember to omit it when copying to an article, which should already have the tag in the correct place). --cesarb 15:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Alert

Carbonate, I am being stalked and harassed by one of the most vitupertiave and vitriolic trolls I've yet encountered on WP, the guy who forged your sig. I'm sorry you got in the middle of it all. I'll try to be more careful reading posts in the future to make sure they are from who they say they're from. In the meantime, I think you accidentally deleted something I meant to keep on the talk page. Am restoring... IronDuke 17:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I reverted over your comments. Please readd them, although I disagree with you I don't think the discussion should be cut short or censored. Carbonate 17:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. And maybe we can use my troll's intervention to take a deep breath and get down to the business of discussion. We both agree that's important. IronDuke 17:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Israel-Lebanon conflict pie chart...

See [1] and [2]. I thank you for making the chart, but could you please provide your sources (if possible, on the image page) so we can keep the pro-Israel as well as the pro-Hezbollah users (which there are few of) from suppressing information from Wikipedia. ~ clearthought 22:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The numbers used were taken from the casualties page listed with the file. They were taken fairly close to the time the file was uploaded if you need to go back in the history. Carbonate 05:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for creating that new version. ~ clearthought 13:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Casualties-of-the-2006-Israel-Lebanon-conflict.png

pie chart

This is what we are talking about incase anyone reading this is wondering...Carbonate 15:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Carbonate 11:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

You're invited to join Wikipedians for Palestine "for Wikipedians working to combat anti-Palestinian and pro-Zionist bias in the English language version of Wikipedia."

Image:Casualties-of-the-2006-Israel-Lebanon-conflict.png

Hi! I liked your chart, but could you make an SVG version so I can edit the text for other languages. I saw it was made in OpenOffice so it should be no problem to cut and paste the cart into OpenOffice Draw and export as SVG. If not just send the file to me and I'll fix it. // Liftarn

Although the chart is created in open office, the ongoing debate as to it's neutrality requires that the text under the legend be added manually. If you would like to make it multilanguage, perhaps you could post the translated lables on my (or the charts) talk page and I will see what I can do about getting new charts out. Carbonate 18:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it have to be added manually? Why not just use a textbox? Anyway, here's a translation to Swedish:

Casualties of the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict -> Dödade i Israel-Libanon-konflikten 2006 Lebanese Civilians -> Libanesiska civila Israeli Civilians -> Israeliska civila Foreign Nationals -> Utlänningar Israeli Soldiers -> Israeliska soldater Hezbollah (confirmed) -> Hizbollah (bekräftade) Other Groups -> Andra grupper UN -> FN Figures are provided by the respective parties -> Siffrorna kommer från respektive part

But I would prefer an SVG version as it scales better and is easier to edit. // Liftarn

Israeli Internment Camps/Gaza Strip

Carbonate, I noticed your efforts at including the Gaza Strip in the [List of concentration and internment camps]. While I think including the Gaza Strip in the list would be a stretch, there are internment camps maintained by Israel that ought to be included in the list. These include Ketziot/Ansar III, where hundreds of Palestinians are "administratively detained" without due process of law, Ofer, and Megiddo. Prisoners in these camps are often denied any contact with the outside world, and human rights groups are routinely denied access to them. Google should provide more information on these internment camps, but here are a couple of links to start with if you are interested: [[3]] [[4]]

RfA

Hi Carbonate. I am quite new in wikipedia. what is that RfA all about, and what should I do there?--Nielswik_(talk) 03:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, is it ok if i fill it hours later, since i have to go now? --Nielswik_(talk) 03:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What copy-pasteing? BTW I have no idea what comment to write, could you suggest some? --Nielswik_(talk) 10:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfArb

I restored the mediation page from the archive, with a note for its deletion upon completion of the case. Sorry I didn't catch that before. -^demon^{[yell at me]} 21:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case

Blow by blow accounts of a war are not bias. Fred Bauder 01:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Israel

For a good RFAr request, you should supply both evidence of prior failed efforts at dispute resolution, like mediation of RFC, and demonstrate a pattern of disruptive behavior. The disruptive behavior is usually something like edit warring or incivility. This is done through diffs to specific edits, and include enough to show a sufficient pattern. Dmcdevit·t 20:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Carbonate, you've just violated WP:3RR. Please self-revert as soon as you can. IronDuke 06:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't. Carbonate 06:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your first edit tonight counts as a revert. IronDuke 06:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it does not. Carbonate 06:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I'm wrong, you have my apologies in advance. IronDuke 06:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted. Please reconsider your veiw on Gaza. I think that if you go to less Americanized sources of information like the BBC or Aljazeera you will begin to see both sides of the story. I'm not sure if you are aware of this but the U.S. used it's veto power to stop a resolution against Israel last week despite the fact that ten other nations on the security council voted for it. Carbonate 06:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isarig

I have had numerous problems with him. Suffice to say that I have seen much evidence of highly manipulative wikilawyering. For example, he is the first to report a 3RR violation in a heated dispute yet he carefully games the 3RR without concern. He has gotten me blocked a couple of times for 3RR violations and then gone ahead and reverted himself a fourth time right at 24 hours and 5 minutes -- this has happened more than once. Of course, at that point I am blocked and can't report him; by the time I am unblocked it is too late to do anything about it, so he gets away with it and has even had his abuses sanctioned by admins. He also argues strategically and not communicatively -- his arguments seem based on what will help him "win" what he wants rather than what he actually believes is true. He assumes the absolute worst in his ideological opponents - numerous instances of WP:AGF violations (with me I have never once seen him assume good faith even at the beginning). In my dispute with him his mission is to turn a biography page into a character assassination, and he will probably be successful. That's my opinion, but all that said, I still try to give him the benefit of the doubt in arguments with him, and even bend over backwards trying to compromise. Honestly I don't know why I bother - I have much more important things to do.--csloat 09:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[5] made on November 15 2006 to List of concentration and internment camps

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 09:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 09:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperinflation

I don't want to engage in a revert war... so let's talk about this first. The issue on hyperinflation is not whether or not there is a contradiction. The contradiction is to blatant: it says x% first, and then y% later. Just because nobody answered me doesn't mean it's ok to leave contradiction on this encyclodepia. And removing them all together doesn't seem encyclodepic either. Fixing it? I wish I could, but nobody is all powerful. That's why the contradiction tag exists in the first place - so that readers are aware of the problem, and if some experts land on the page, they can fix it. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 20:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think I would have fix it if I had found a reliable source? I am no expert on Hungarian economy, and searching on the 2 figures gives approximately the same number of results. However, I am very sensitive to numeric contradiction. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Temp blocked for 3RR

You have been temporarily blocked from editing because of your disruptive edits in article Allegations of Israeli apartheid. You are invited to contribute in a constructive manner as soon as the block expires (24hrs). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change (survey described here). If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]