User talk:Massyparcer
List numbering
[edit]Thank you for adding Busan International Finance Center to the List of tallest buildings in the world. Please note that you also need to renumber the list below #108 to account for adding one to the list. Astronaut (talk) 11:28, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Median HH income page
[edit]Hi I need some help with the median household income page. You are right, the Gallup data does not have a direct source, and in addition can only be accessed by subscription. Also, I found some of the figures to be totally wrong. Anyway, the OECD data can be accessed and I will be happy to show you so we can better link the page. However, this one poster keeps putting the Gallup data on despite this. How do I stop him? ~~lneal001 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lneal001 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Best way would be to show him WP:Verifiability and WP:OR. Also respect WP:3RR. Inventing numbers is clearly original research. Massyparcer (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Avg wage
[edit]If you are going to use the ILO, you should use the more transparent and sourced statistics which I have found here:
Lneal001 (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- We do not seem to agree on the use of ILO stats. Like I said it does not exist on ILO website any longer. I even CALLED them and an expert told me that the sources were simply not reliable. I do not see how you can keep justifying it. We already have 2 other lists, and by the way the MATCH ALMOST EXACTLY. As I told you before, some of the ILO stats for some countries are wrong, at least when compared to a figure representing all workers and such. If some countries are left out, then that's just the nature of these statistics. If you insist on ILO, then use it for countries not mentioned in the other two lists. But like I said, the entire list is full of errors as verified by using their own meth., and by the other two lists. They even said so!Lneal001 (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Claiming to have "phoned up" and doing your own math to claim they're wrong is a textbook example of violating WP:OR. You don't seem to understand the root of the problem that was raised not just by myself but also other experienced editors. You just can't remove a sourced list from a reliable organization like ILO, regardless of flaws. Massyparcer (talk)
- Well you do not have to believe my phone call. Why else would it be non existent on ILO today. It was not sourced from ILO to begin with. At the present time it not only is flawed, but simply non-existent. Please find for me these numbers today on ILO. Also, you keep saying I am doing my own math calculations---I provided a source for the numerator and denominator to prove that the US figure was wrong, all from the org which has the official aggregate for wages and earners. It's just further corroboration. At this point we have many sources of evidence which corroborate that the ILO data from BBC was wrong: it does not exist on ILO website, the numbers using their own meth. do not match, the numbers do not compare with the UNECE/OECD figures, and in addition the BBC article is a few years old and these same numbers have not since been reported by anyone. Doesn't that mean anything to you? That is a lot of evidence. Lneal001 (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Again, your conspiracy theory against the BBC seriously needs to stop. We're not the one to judge whether they are flawed or not. Please let the readers make their own judgement about that. You must understand Wikipedia policies which is that sourced content from a reliable reference is perfectly acceptable. Of course the numbers from the BBC will not match up with either OECD or UN. Neither do UN or OECD because all of their methodologies differ. Massyparcer (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- But what is the ILO methodology? They get the "avg wage" and multiply by number of earners, is what I read? Well, what one country gives may not be an apples to apples comparison compared to what another gives. For instance, the US figure is much lower because they used an avg wage figure excluding all supervisory workers, govt workers, overtime, and including part time workers. Otherwise, it would have been higher like the OECD and UN, where they include all workers, extra cash payments like overtime, and convrt to full time. The UN and OECD match exactly---there's just a one year gap.Lneal001 (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Again, your conspiracy theory against the BBC seriously needs to stop. We're not the one to judge whether they are flawed or not. Please let the readers make their own judgement about that. You must understand Wikipedia policies which is that sourced content from a reliable reference is perfectly acceptable. Of course the numbers from the BBC will not match up with either OECD or UN. Neither do UN or OECD because all of their methodologies differ. Massyparcer (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well you do not have to believe my phone call. Why else would it be non existent on ILO today. It was not sourced from ILO to begin with. At the present time it not only is flawed, but simply non-existent. Please find for me these numbers today on ILO. Also, you keep saying I am doing my own math calculations---I provided a source for the numerator and denominator to prove that the US figure was wrong, all from the org which has the official aggregate for wages and earners. It's just further corroboration. At this point we have many sources of evidence which corroborate that the ILO data from BBC was wrong: it does not exist on ILO website, the numbers using their own meth. do not match, the numbers do not compare with the UNECE/OECD figures, and in addition the BBC article is a few years old and these same numbers have not since been reported by anyone. Doesn't that mean anything to you? That is a lot of evidence. Lneal001 (talk) 15:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
- Claiming to have "phoned up" and doing your own math to claim they're wrong is a textbook example of violating WP:OR. You don't seem to understand the root of the problem that was raised not just by myself but also other experienced editors. You just can't remove a sourced list from a reliable organization like ILO, regardless of flaws. Massyparcer (talk)
New average wage sections
[edit]There is someone trying to make duplicate average wage lists, such as the one below. Should they be deleted? Lneal001 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_in_America_by_monthly_average_wage
- Seems unnecessary. We should start a discussion on merging them. Massyparcer (talk) 04:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 26
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seoul, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages SBS, MBC and Driverless (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) 08:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 3
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
- Household income (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Accommodation
- Mobile banking (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Bain
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 22
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seoul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subway (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) 08:56, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 29
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited International rankings of South Korea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IMD (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) 08:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
HDI, average wage
[edit]Hello Massyparcer,
First part of sentence "South Korea is ranked as the world's 12th-most developed country in the Human Development Index" is much better than the previous version, but I still have some objections: HDI does not claim itself to be absolute measure of even "human development", leave alone "development" in general sense- just check the FAQ on the official page. There are many others measures of development, HDI is merely the most popularized one. Besides that "development" is perhaps inherently subjective
Rest of the sentence: "while in terms of average earnings, it is the wealthiest in Asia and 10th richest in the world" as it appears now is terrible from encyclopedic point:
2.) "Wealth" is a concept separate from "average earnings" and include total possessions, rather just a paycheck from employer 3.) Again: "richest country" is an umbrella term, it can mean several different things (average wage, GDP per capita, wealth per capita, total GDP etc.)
Why not just state facts and let the reader decide, what to think about them? That's what encyclopedia is for. Bontairo (talk) 14:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have reflected your views on the article. Thanks. Massyparcer (talk) 02:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Net wages issue
[edit]Hi, please see my message in the talk page for wages. It's regarding the use of tax calculators. Lneal001 (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Sockpuppet in median household income
[edit]Hi there, there is the sockpuppet who keeps taking out my citations and using nominal incomes (not consensus) in the international comparisons. In addition he has been very disrepectful and if you read the edit history he literally said "go fuck yourself." How can this person be blocked? Lneal001 (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, what article are we talking about and who exactly is this sockpuppet? I don't see anything problematic at List of countries by average wage. Report him to the admins via a sockpuppet investigation. Provide proof and that should get him blocked. Massyparcer (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am talking about median household income, where this unidentified user keeps getting rid of the citation and using nominal figures which is against consensus. How do I find an admin to report to?Lneal001 (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, its the same IP address who keeps editing for no reason. So I guess it does not fit the definition of a sock puppet. What avenue do I have here? Lneal001 (talk) 18:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am talking about median household income, where this unidentified user keeps getting rid of the citation and using nominal figures which is against consensus. How do I find an admin to report to?Lneal001 (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, what article are we talking about and who exactly is this sockpuppet? I don't see anything problematic at List of countries by average wage. Report him to the admins via a sockpuppet investigation. Provide proof and that should get him blocked. Massyparcer (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
Ulsan
[edit]I'm just wondering, can you verify the statement on Ulsan? It says "In 2012, Ulsan had a GDP per capita of $79,623, the highest by far in South Korea, substantially higher than the United States, except the District of Columbia, where the GDP per capita was $145,663, and comparable to Luxembourg". I'm just asking because I noticed someone in the history said on November 5 "the gdp wasn't higher than Washington D.C.," but that entire sentence was unsourced also. Thanks, and have a good day. Cara777 (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
- Luxemburg has a GDP per capita of between 100 and 115k depending on your source. Not comparable. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
About Greenhorn38
[edit]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Collision787 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.161.79.187 (talk) 06:19, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm really concerned about your edits on the above article. You have completely changed the article from referencing ethnic issues in Korea, to a list of incidents and excuses for racism, using poor sources and very POV language. Please gain consensus on the talk page, before you add/change/remove anything else major on that article. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am more concerned about your mass removal of the entire article which were heavily sourced. I am very happy to remove the poor sources for better ones and removing POV language but mass wipeout? I thought you would be better editor than that. I'm not sure if you are trying to be constructive here. Massyparcer (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- It might be better to continue this discussion on the article talk page. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- I am more concerned about your mass removal of the entire article which were heavily sourced. I am very happy to remove the poor sources for better ones and removing POV language but mass wipeout? I thought you would be better editor than that. I'm not sure if you are trying to be constructive here. Massyparcer (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 26
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Magok Station, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages BRT and Lotte. 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) 15:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Massyparcer, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Joseph2302 (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
[edit]Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Massyparcer, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, Massyparcer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
South Korea
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at South Korea, you may be blocked from editing. Please read WP:NPOV. IWI (chat) 00:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)