User talk:HOTmag

Hello.

Where are you from? --Rayesworied (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Where are you from? HOOTmag (talk) 00:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am from in South Korea. --Rayesworied (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Semitic languages

I thought I'd better reply to your question on WP:RD/L#Leaving out the word "the" when English is not one's primary language here rather than continuing on the reference desk. I've studied many languages over the years, more out of an interest in how they work rather than to be able to speak or read them. As I was brought up vaguely Jewish, my experience of Hebrew goes back further than most languages: I can read it to a degree, but not really speak it. I have looked at Arabic, Amharic and Akkadian at various times, but never got very far into any of them.

On the subject of smikhut, I think it's interesting that many uses of this construction in Biblical Hebrew are not possessives, but would be translated into European languages as noun phrases with adjectives or attributives. --ColinFine (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So why don't you mention Hebrew on your talk page, among French etc.? HOOTmag (talk) 09:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I see Russell Global Index is not internationaly list.

I see internationaly list only FTSE list and MSCI list. --211.179.112.25 (talk) 12:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Can you prove what you see? Why do you think that FTSE list and MSCI list are more "international" than Russell Global Index list? I see no distinction between these three lists, but if you think you can prove any such distinction, then we'll accept your opinion. HOOTmag (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Please edit emerging markets article

FTSE Group announcemented new global index (http://www.ftse.com/Indices/Country_Classification/Downloads/FTSE_Country_Classification_Sept_09_update.pdf). I have seen this and edited developed market and frontier markets. But I have created an account not over 3 days. emerging markets article is semi-protected article. --Cccbut (talk) 10:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. HOOTmag (talk) 21:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Rhotic accents

Replied. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 20:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

OECD

Hi, HOOTmag. I explained in more detailed in the OECD talk page what the Convention of the OECD says. If you read these pages you referred carefully, you see that they talk about the membership after acceding to the Convention, not after signing the accession agreement. Please see also the most recent accession case of Chile. The accession agreement was signed on 11 January but it became a member on 7 May. I kindly ask you to revert your edit adding scheduled signing dates – these are not accession dates. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 19:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not see you already revert. My apologies. Beagel (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:Reference desk/Mathematics

Hello, HOOTmag. This revision is rather odd, removing other users replies and a whole section. I had to undo it, but you can make the changes you intended to make again. I assume this was due to a server glitch - if you notice this a lot, you should probably make an enquiry at WP:VPT. Intelligentsium 17:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I've made the changes I'd intended to make. HOOTmag (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Riddles on RD

I have noticed your tendency to post riddles you've made up and ask others to discuss it on the RD. Recently, you mentioned that the RD "welcomes" riddles. That is not true. Your repeated attempts to stir up a discussion on the RD is not welcomed. The reference desk is for collecting references, not for discussing riddles you've made up. If you want a reference about riddles or a reference about a certain type of riddle, please ask away. Just trying to get discussions going is for a discussion forum. -- kainaw™ 02:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've responded to you at this discussion. HOOTmag (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Relevant to Kainaw's comments above (with which I agree, btw), you should be aware of this discussion of another aspect of your riddles - the hiding of some responses, which I also find inconsistent with the RefDesk. -- Scray (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just responded to you ibid. HOOTmag (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Estonia is not advanced economy country.

See p 150 table 4.5.. --211.179.112.45 (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This is IMF Report of 2010. I'm talking about IMF Report of 2011 (p. 172, table B). HOOTmag (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

So? HOOTmag (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita

This issue came up at the Administrators' Noticeboard. Since you're editing the article, you should be aware of the active dispute - and you may wish to comment. FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pariah state, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Visa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of Nochoje

Random IPs coming out of nowhere are putting back the now decade old and defunct 2005 economist quality of life list. I know you were involved in this back then and the new IPs with zero edit history are emulating the indefinitely blocked Nochoje - even down to the expressions and wordings. This seriously needs to stop and I have opened up a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nochoje where your input would be appreciated. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it may not be that fruitful to block sporadic IPs here and there. Once you block one, another comes out. I recommend that you ask for semi-protection. HOOTmag (talk) 00:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Interest in my interests

Hi, whats up? Could you explain why you are asking about my interests, personal or professional on subjects at Wikipedia?--Mark Miller (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Pariah state". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 9 August 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Pariah state, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Can we talk this out on our own?

Our mediator is of the opinion that we can work this out on our own, and I would certainly like to give it a try. I would like to attempt to reach a resolution, even without mediation. The same conditions will apply:

• I commit to discussing content ONLY, and I mean that as the most sincere promise I can give.
• I would strongly prefer no nomination for deletion (if you agree to talk this through on our own, then only during the period we are talking)
• I will not request further mediation or arbitration, or other outside formal 3rd party resolution process (again, as long as we are still talking)
• If we begin to talk this through, and we reach an impasse, we should say so clearly and let the other person know, thus releasing us from those two commitments: not nominating for deletion and not asking for mediation or arbitration or other outside help or intervention.

Again, in no case do I intend to bring up the other issues you so strongly opposed, even if we reach an impasse. I have brought that as far as I care to go, and a lack of admin action means to me that 1) I did not make that case, 2) I was wrong in my assessment of the facts, and/or 3) your counter-argument was superior to the case I made. I accept that.

I do not know how to make this a more private discussion, but that might help, and this entire message can be moved there if you have an alternate suggestion. (Isn't there a way to make a page under our userspace?)

If we discuss content only, I think we truly can fix this article to everyone's satisfaction. That bulleted list at the bottom of the RfM page is the only content I am asking to discuss, though if you would like to add other items for content discussions, I would certainly welcome that. (This is not my show.) Content issues only, if you can agree to that, and if we can both agree to the goal of trying to improve the article to the point that it clearly meets GNG standards and it is clearly encyclopedic in nature. That is what I would like to strive for.

We can start with a clean slate. Sunray will delete the RfM page altogether, so the issue of striking or deleting the objectionable content is no longer an issue. I will not bring that up again while we are talking. (I have no intention to bring it up again in any case. At least one admin has seen it all already and chosen not to act on my comments, and that is that. I feel no need for any further talk about it.)

If you and I together can come up with a plan that we agree on, I think we stand a much better chance of getting others onboard. I think my proposals outline a process, at least to start with, that everyone (except those most determined to argue) can live with, if not feeling entirely satisfied. I expect I will not be entirely satisfied either, but I am ready to negotiate, give & take, if it means getting this fixed up and put behind us. If others do insist on persistent reverts without consensus AFTER you and I have agreed on a new format for the article, I will again take that problem on, via mediation or some other remedy if necessary.

Thank you for considering this. Dcs002 (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The next steps I recommend, are the following:

• According to the principles you have just presented on the article's talk page, you propose a new version for the article, and put it in your sandbox.
• I review it, and fix what I think should be fixed.
• You do the same in your turn, until we get a common version for the article.
• We propose the new version on the article's talk page, in order to reach a consensus on it.

Good luck. HOOTmag (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - I didn't see this response. I thought I would get something on my watch list telling me you responded. I have already posted a proposal on the article's talk page (on which no one has commented yet), and I have added the first of my proposed changes in the article. (I hope it's not too controversial - I really don't think it should be so far.) I did not mean to do an end run around you like that. I guess I neglected to put your talk page on my watch list. But the article itself should give you an idea where I'd like to go with it, provided it hasn't been reverted yet. I don't think I've made any controversial changes yet. I'll make sure to add this page to my watch list and not make anymore edits until I hear more from you. I really do apologize. I didn't mean to leave you out! Dcs002 (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

When do you think you will finish re-writing the new version in your sandbox? HOOTmag (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

In another day or so I think I can have a working page ready, but if I work like this, it will be a page according to my proposal, meaning no list, only a few examples within the prose of the article. Please keep in mind that I am not working on what I think will be the final product. I did not source the material for this article originally, and I don't know what all the sources say. I intend to ask for help every step of the way. My goal is to get the content in place, roughly.

I'm not sure about being the one to select a few sample nations though. The "Background" section all comes from Lawal right now, and it could use more sources, but since it covers the idea of regional pariah statehood I think Israel should be one of the examples, because it is obviously surrounded by neighbors who are not happy with them being there. And since it is Israel's neighbors who treat Israel like a pariah, the article can say so while also saying Israel also has diplomatic ties and friends outside the neighborhood. That way Israel is not treated in a bad light. Listing Arab states in the region will be more difficult, and I think unnecessary. They tend to have good diplomatic ties regionally but whether they get on well internationally generally seems to depend on how much the US finds them useful. That's a powder keg. Right now I'm not thinking of another example of regional pariahood. I've only gotten a rough start to that section.

I think it would really help if you gave your comments along the way, taking one issue on at a time. If we disagree on a single issue, I think it will be easier to negotiate our way through it rather than waiting until the whole thing is done and then taking on a multiplicity of problems all at once.

BTW, there is an RfC about whether having a list is OR. I voted no, I don't think it's OR. I think it's a bad idea for a couple reasons, but not OR - not merely having a list. You might wanna sound off if you haven't already. Dcs002 (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

There are others now who are showing an interest in this process. I'm starting to wonder whether we should join an open discussion concerning the re-write in the article's talk page? One editor brought up the idea of more etymology, for instance, and I like that idea. Any thoughts? Dcs002 (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it rather difficult to give my comments before seeing the whole product.

As for the four specific issues you've brought up here:

• Etymology: Hasn't it already been given in our article Paraiyar? I think the natural place for the etymology is there, isn't it? Btw, what do you mean by "one editor" (who brought up the idea of etymology)? Wasn't this editor...you?
• Pariah state list: Like you, I think it should be omitted. By claiming it's OR, I don't mean that its content is OR, but rather that it is OR as a list. However, I wouldn't claim that quoting Lawal's list (p. 233) should be considered as OR, because that list was not created by Wikipedia.
• Examples of pariah states: Lawal gives examples, both for regional pariahood - which he calls "the subjective case", and for universal pariahood - which he calls "the objective case"; So, if the article includes examples of the first type (if at all), then the article should certainly include examples of the second type - being the more unambiguous case.
• Regional pariahood: Lawal (p. 237) indicates four examples of non-arab countries: South Korea (which doesn't have diplomatic ties with North Korea, although it does have full diplomatic ties - with its other two neighbors: Japan and China); North Korea (which doesn't have diplomatic ties with two of its neighbors: South Korea and Japan, although it does have full diplomatic ties - with its other neighbor: China); Israel (which doesn't have diplomatic ties with two countries it borders: Syria and Lebanon, although it does have full diplomatic ties - with its other two bordering countries: Egypt and Jordan); Taiwan (which has diplomatic ties with none of its neighbors). Anyways, as far as my private opinion is concerned, I think all of those four examples - given by Lawal - for what he calls "the subjective case", are rather bad examples, for the following reason: Taiwan is not a UN member; While the absence of diplomatic ties - with some of the neighbors of North Korea South Korea and Israel, is just because of the state of war between - every country of the four - and those neighbors (so that every party involved in that state of war defines the other parties as its "enemies"), and I suspect that - absence of diplomatic ties - caused by a state of war, is not a real matter of pariahood, but rather a matter of animosity.

Hope this helps, HOOTmag (talk) 20:15, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• Etymology: Agreed. <Blushing> Yes, that was me. When I read the comments by our ip friend 24.151.10.165, I clicked on the link he gave to the version of the article and I made the leap to etymology in my head, thinking it was him. And yes, the Paraiyar article is the perfect place for nearly all of the etymology, except a sentence referencing it I think. I didn't realize that article existed.
• Pariah state list: Agreed, but for different reasons. Usually, in academic publications, using a list in toto requires permission from the original author though. I don't know if that's an academic courtesy or not though. It's usually accompanied by a statement like, "Table X from Source Y," or "courtesy of Source Y." There "might" be a copyright issue there. I would strongly prefer we take examples from his list and use a few of them in the prose where appropriate. We both seem to want to nix the list though, and that seems like an agreement.
• Diplomatic ties: Not quite on the same page, but not far apart either. Lawal makes the point early on that diplomatic ties are not necessarily related to pariahood. On page 226 he says, "What makes the study more important is the attempt to differentiate Pariahood from severance of diplomatic relations." In chapter 7, his subjective case study was Cuba. If we make the distinction between subjective and objective cases (which I think we should, as that's at the crux of the controversy), maybe we should stick to Cuba. I don't know if that would upset politically conservative American readers (I am American, though not conservative) who might perceive it as more objective, but it seems like it's at least minimally controversial - less controversial than any other that comes to mind from the list in the article. (Might be a good place to include an extended quote rationalizing the choice of Cuba.) By definition of the subjective case, it seems that a single powerful nation or coalition must push for the pariah designation on another state out of its own subjective interest, and that leaves few choices. As far as I can tell (and I don't know much), subjectively designating pariahood is something disproportionately American. (I'm thinking of Nicaragua under Ortega and Panama under Noriega 1988-89 too, and any of a number of nations with freely elected leaders whom US government administrative officials didn't like.)

Lawal doesn't really say much about regional pariahood beyond his comment at the end of the first paragraph on the first page. I thought somehow this might lead to a less controversial way to talk about Israel, but looking at it again, that is not indicated, not on a regional basis. At least not using Lawal as a source. I so badly want to diffuse the explosiveness of the Arab-Israeli sentiments, and I thought this approach might help, but it is not indicated by this source. The statement I put at the end of the Background section (based on the end of the first paragraph in Lawal) will have to suffice unless something more clear comes along.

I'm encouraged so far, but from here on my limited knowledge of international relations is going to be a limiting factor. I have an idea where to continue with the 5 categories from Lawal's table, but I think we need more than Lawal as a reference for different criteria and examples, and I think some of that will have to come from other sources used in the current list. (Maybe they can be listed as additional proposed criteria, and the example nations pulled from Lawal's list?) Let's see how it goes from here. Dcs002 (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

As for mentioning specific countries, I think the most reasonable attitude goes through giving historical examples only (e.g. Albania in its "isolation period"). Btw, if I were (hypothetically) asked to give criteria of my own, I would suggest the criteria indicated in Henley's table (as it appeared in the stable version of the article by 21.7.2014), because those criteria can be translated into clear precise figures, thus making these criteria more objective. HOOTmag (talk) 13:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning concerning the Henley table, but unless Henley described those measures as surrogate measures for pariah statehood, or otherwise related the data to pariah statehood, or if some other RS used the Henley data in that way, then I can't see any way around it being OR/SYNTH. It's certainly objective (assuming the nations Henely included are truly representative and not biased in his/her selection - I haven't read the source for that data), but it's about visa requirements unless the source says otherwise. If we had something to bridge that gap we would have an objective source, but then there's still the issue of the table attracting attention and gut reactions about being listed as "good guys" and "bad guys." I'm very happy with the way things are going so far, and I'm content to move slowly at this point. My proposed rewrites are about at the stage where examples are going to be required (or omitted altogether, depending on where consensus leads), and that discussion is going well so far, I think. Dcs002 (talk) 00:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

First draft complete. (Hooray!) See it in my sandbox: User:Dcs002/sandbox I posted a notice on the article talk page too because this discussion has begun to involve several people. Dcs002 (talk) 05:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh! I forgot - In Lawal's table, the column in the middle is marked "Contested". He doesn't explain exactly what that means anywhere in the article, but I think it simply means pariah status is (or has been?) contested, so I left it out of those criteria. Is that how you understand that column in the table? Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• The draft: I've made some changes - improvements - in your sandbox, mainly by fixing dead links, and by classifying - all of the definitions mentioned in the article - into two main categories. Feel free to make additional changes in your turn.
• "Contested": it may mean: either that the very pariah status is contested (maybe because some scholars do not consider those countries as pariahs); or, it may also mean that: only the reason - for considering those countries as pariahs - is contested among the scholars (maybe because various reasons have been proposed by different scholars). I can't decide which option is more reasonable.
• Henley's table: Please notice that Henley's table is comprehensive and complete, i.e. it ranks every country in the world, according to the number of countries its citizens can enter freely (i.e. without a visa). This is the big advantage Henley's table has: for every country in the world, you can immediately decide how far it is from being objectively considered as an outcast (yet on a universal basis rather than on a regional one) - by just looking at its rank and mainly at the specific objective figure mentioned above. Additionally this table has another advantage: the table is updated every year, thus making - the very pariahood of every pariah country - changeable. However, unfortunately, this table does not mention the very term "pariah", and that's why I've indicated I'm talking about an objective criterion of my own. Anyways, if this table is presented in the article without claiming this table can be used as a criterion for pariahood, then I can't see the problem. For example, see our article developed country: It gives a few tables, that do not mention the very term "developed country", so no problem has arised from them.

HOOTmag (talk) 12:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• I like what you've done with the definitions section - a lot. It badly needed organization. It was just a list without... well, any organization, and your categories are descriptive and meaningful. It would be a stretch, but such a categorization might be objected to on the grounds of WP:SYNTH. I think that kind of objection would be pretty over-the-top, but we might want to be ready for it. In such a case, we could keep the order and paragraphs the same, and use connecting phrases like, "Also employing criteria of consequences to the state" to connect the definitions. Just a thought in case it comes up. I like it how it is. It makes sense to the reader, though when we get this beast all organized we're gonna probably want to go around and make the whole article more readable, like a newspaper or a magazine (like Popular Science, not People). Organization first though.
• Lawal's contested column - well, whatever he meant, it sounds like it should be left out of our article. It seems, by either definition, it can only invite controversy.
• Henley's table... I see your point about the types of tables in the Developed Country article, and I like your reasoning too. It's objective, all-inclusive (except maybe unrecognized states?), and automatically updating. But three nagging thoughts occur: 1) Has there been a long and deep-rooted controversy about who gets included on which list in the Developed Country article (like we've had here)? We might just have so much more emotion-driven controversy (and maybe people who thrive off of it) working on this article that we might not get to enjoy that level of flexibility - for a while anyway. We might need time for cooling down, healing, and getting used to seeing the article in a new way. 2) Requiring entry visas might reflect other factors than pariahood, such as a nation's limited ability to track and police organized crime and drug trade within their own borders (not usually pariah criteria if domestic issues only) due to an under-funded police system in poor but not necessarily corrupt nations, or special public health conditions within the country, requiring a review of immunization records or health history, or maybe a physical exam, before approval. I doubt citizens of Sierra Leone can go anywhere now due to their ebola outbreak, for example. It will be short-lived, and maybe not be detected on Henley's annual survey, but other epidemics of longer duration could happen. These are confounding variables - variables unrelated to the variable we are trying to measure that might throw us off. 3) I still have that nagging dislike of tables and lists giving people a gut reaction and a reason to feel offended if their country stands out. Adding a table or list feels like something we might want to try after the article has been up for a year or so and people have moved on and calmed down. (Did you notice someone put the US back on the list?)
• Further issues requiring work: So far the draft article depends way too heavily on the Lawal article. I kinda figured that would happen. Many of the non-Lawal references are still "as cited in Lawal (2012)." Also, the more I look at the draft, the more convinced I become that the paragraph in the Objective Criteria subsection with the six categories doesn't need examples at all. In the other sections I think examples are needed to clarify the points being made, but if examples are not needed to clarify something they should probably be left out. Just because they can clearly be used doesn't mean they should be used. The more examples we give, the more people will likely want to add. I threw a bone to the US-is-a-pariah crowd with the Chomsky and Parry citations, but someone is going to want to add Israel somewhere, at some point. Right now, my desire is to make the article as resistant as possible to POV pushing. I go back to the stupidity article, with no examples given, and none needed.

I'm really, really happy with what we have here, and with the overall tone of the discussions everyone is having. No hint of fighting so far - just the drive-by USA addition to the list. We're so close I can taste it! Dcs002 (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the list and posted the version from my sandbox, without the examples given in the sources in the first "Objective designation" for reasons I explained in the talk page. They don't seem to be needed for clarity, and I think they made for clunky reading. Have a look and see what you think. Dcs002 (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language

There's no need to be so confrontational Hoot. You can tell me you think I am wrong without shouting and using lots of exclamation marks. Myrvin (talk) 09:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember I have ever been "shouting" at anybody (mainly not at you, whom I appreciate).

I don't remember "lots of exclamation marks". What do you mean by "lots"? How many is "lots"?

I don't remember I've ever been "confrontational". I'm just responding (as quietly as I can) to responses addressed to me. Do you really prefer my ignoring the responses addressed to me? If I were really "confrontational", I would reject "an hypothesis", but I didn't (I've only rejected "an hypothesis" with a sounded aitch).

Anyways, if you got insulted by any of my responses (I don't know which one though), I apologize from the bottom of my heart. HOOTmag (talk) 15:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This was about the sarcasm thing. But that's OK. Nuff said! :-) Myrvin (talk)

Preview button

HOOTmag, when you edit at the refdesk (or elsewhere), can you please make it a habit to use the "preview" button and think thoroughly about what you want to write before sending your edits off, and then making your contributions in a single edit, rather than tinkering with each contribution a dozen times afterwards? It gets extremely annoying to follow edit histories and watchlist entries on those pages when you flood them with minor edits like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

High their :)

Thank you for your comment. I've always been aware of this button, and I use it of course. Further, I tend to review every post of mine - lots of times - before sending it, and I don't send it - before I've made sure it contains no mistakes (and no need to improve). The problem is another one: I review the post also after I send it, and then I tend to find again other mistakes (or points that should be improved). Had I avoided reviewing it after it's sent, it would have contained more mistakes and likewise... HOOTmag (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For answering my query over the Refdesk. —Eat me, I'm an azuki (talk · contribs · email) 09:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Rutherford

Contact Basemetal here 09:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. HOTmag (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Tuber

Hey, I have no idea about the Tuber. But here you can find a list of existing Mushrooms in Tunisia but unfortunately without a local name. --Helmoony (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. According to the pictures, it's probably the White Truffle (Lt. Tuber magnatum. Fr. Truffe de piedmont).

Are you sure this list exhausts all mushrooms in Tunisia? HOTmag (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Try to contact the scientist [1] .--Helmoony (talk) 05:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Tasmania

Hi. Well, these would be on my list of to-do things, but my tastes as a 65-year old Aussie male may well differ from yours as a 17-year old American female. Also, you wouldn't get to see all of these in only 2 days, but it's a starting point. I've focussed only on the two largest cities, Hobart and Launceston. There's a lot more to Tassie than that, of course.

Hobart

• Salamanca Market (the market is on Saturdays only, so make sure you schedule the trip for a weekend)
• Museum of Old and New Art (MONA)
• Mount Wellington (Tasmania) (but be prepared for very high winds and cold and possibly snow, especially in July)
• Port Arthur (probably requires a whole day trip)
• Royal Tasmanian Botanical Gardens
• Cascade Brewery
• Constitution Dock
• Cadbury's Chocolate Factory, Tasmania (they used to have tours of the factory, but now there's just a shop where you can buy chocolate products to your heart's content)
• Maritime Museum of Tasmania
• Battery Point
• Mount Nelson, Tasmania
• Sandy Bay
• Richmond, Tasmania, including Bonorong Wildlife Sanctuary and ZooDoo
• Huon Valley (day trip)

Launceston

• Cataract Gorge
• Tamar Valley
• National Automobile Museum of Tasmania
• Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery
• Queen Victoria Market
• Boag's Brewery

Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 04:58, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Study more

Wikipedia rules are useless if you don't study or are in bad feith.79.19.186.41 (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

IMF and UN/World Bank data

On List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita difference between data from the IMF and UN or World Bank can be quite significant. For instance, the value for Equatorial Guinea according to the IMF is 14,817 (#53), over 50% higher than 9,850 according to the UN or World Bank (#66 or #69). JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 16:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The value for Equatorial Guinea on List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita according to IMF is also >40% higher than value from the World Bank/UN. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 06:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Correct, but why are you telling me what I'm quite aware of? HOTmag (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

List of freedom indices

You are right, thanks for correcting me!

94.66.221.110 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC):

You're welcome. HOTmag (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

To USD

Hello, where does the 2021 data come from? Thanks. Trigenibinion (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@Trigenibinion: It's World Bank data. HOTmag (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

That is 2020, not 2021. I did not see 2021 there. Trigenibinion (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct. The name of the template should have been: To USD/data/2020. However, please notice that this template is more accurate than the current template To USD/Data/2020, which contains some mistakes about Belarus, Cuba, Liberia, Venezuela, and French Polynesia. For more details about those mistakes, see the notes at the bottom of the template To USD/data/2021 (which contains also Taiwan's data by the way). HOTmag (talk) 22:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Help me. List of Japanese films of 2021 --55go (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. HOTmag (talk) 11:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. --55go (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Why did you delete the notes? You asked me to help you, so I did as you asked, and the list of Japanese films works properly, doesn't it? HOTmag (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Never mind.--55go (talk) 12:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Why did you change the list of Japanese films? Didn't it work properly, after I added the notes to the template? HOTmag (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I don't need the Notes. [2]--55go (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I think now the notes are not shown, so you can change the list of Japanese films, back to the old version. HOTmag (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. 55go (talk) 22:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)