EconomistBR

Thanks for uploading Image:Reflections.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Detailed edit counter report User edit counter

Thanks for uploading Image:Reflections.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please don't write on my page anymore. Your behaviour displayed two unacceptable behaviours in Wikipedia: Stalking and Harassment, and I am going to see that you get punished for that. Rsazevedo (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Stop writing on my page. You are only making things worse for yourself. Rsazevedo (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am no stalker I simply want to disscuss with you but as always make false accusations about me.

EconomistBR (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

As noted in bold red type at the top of WP:ANI, that page is not the Wikipedia complaints department. I have blocked both you and Rsazevedo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke��contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 24 hours in order to stop the out-of-control mudslinging, and for the mutual personal attacks exchanged according to the diffs liberally provided at WP:ANI. Once the block expires, you and Rsazevedo are invited to settle your content dispute according to WP:DR. To contest this block, add {{unblock|your reason}} below. Sandstein (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I simply want to discuss with him about his difamation campaign but he deletes those topics and calls me a stalker. I want to discuss with him about all his offenses and ask him to apologize for them. I also would like if he appologized to Hu12, Rsazevedo has defamed his reputation.

How can we solve our problems if he ignores me?? Would it hurt if he appologized for his offenses?

Rsazevedo has also smeared the reputation of administrator Hu12, see here and here, but Rsazevedo also refuses to talk about it.

Rsazevedo called administrator Hu12 a dictator, arrogant, abusive and said that he had bias.

EconomistBR (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I attempted to reach a consensus with Rsazevedo, but he ridiculed me:

• "and much less "CNN talks about it". Oooooh, I'm impressed! :) What kind of an argument is that, "CNN talks about it"? hahahahahah"

Someone who makes this kind of comment doesn't want consensus, he wants to shove his view down everyone's thoats.

Rsazevedo has also offended and ridiculed me other times:

• "Are you mentally challenged?"
• "Now go watch the fireworks in Copacabana and stop crying, Mr Carioca. :)"
• "Man, you really are a nut job! "
• "Get a life, carioca"
• "EconomistBR is the one who is being intolerant"

All I want is to talk with him about this and him to appologize for those uncalled for offenses

All you've done here is provide a rationale for blocking Rsazevedo, not one for unblocking yourself. John Reaves 07:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Crazy prices in Toronto also. Radio Guy (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)iuReply

I would like to, but right now I am not with a lot of free time on hands. You could easily start the article, just search Google for News Articles that can be used as sources for your new topic.

EconomistBR (talk) 03:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just letting you know that the edits the anonymous IP did were based on valid information, just not publicly known yet. The Microprose name and properties were bought out by former Atari Interactive CEO Frederic Chesnais. Microprose Systems LLC. is the consumer electronics division that will be releasing some products this year. They have a web site that hasn't been "publicly launched" yet. Email me and I can give you a link, I don't want to post it publicly yet (not up to me to "launch" it). --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh ok...so feel free to undo my UNDID. The reason I UNIDID is that such huge and important information should be adequately sourced and after I tried to find a source or a reference but failed I decided to make the UNDID, I started to wonder if it weren't gossip.

Feel free then to resurrect MicroProse.

EconomistBR (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I won't undo it yet until the official press announcement comes out. But I'll probably just do a revert when it does, instead of retyping all the info. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've decided it's a new user that is more than a little lost. I left some comments and hopefully things will get better. The edits he made to that Korean soap opera article were valid, but unnecessary. There are two different systems for writing Korean words in roman letters, and he likes a different one than the original author.Kww (talk) 03:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the clarification, I did suspect that at best his edit was unnecessary given that the old edit linked to Wikipedia and his didn't. It was on that fact which I justified my revision. As it can be seen I have no knowledge on which to justify edits about that subject.

I picked the user Sosxana from Recent Changes and decided to check his contributions. EconomistBR (talk) 03:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you please, kindly explain this edit, as well as the surprising edit description? The map reflects pretty fairly the division used in the CIA World Factbook. While I appreciate the fact that you may disagree with their divisions, they hardly are my POV. So far Wikipedia has been recognizing the Factbook as a reliable source - if you want to challenge it, please elaborate. Cheers Pundit|utter 16:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've already explained, I really couldn't believe you distorted what the CIA said in such a way. Western Europe is a geopolitical location not a geographical location. Didn't you know that? Do you really think the CIA considers Germany as Central and Italy as Southern Europe?

What you've done was sad really sad. EconomistBR (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Please, read the source first, ok? Also, try to be civil, assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks, if that is not too much to ask. My response is in the talk page of the article. Pundit|utter 16:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• May I kindly ask why have you removed the source I provided and restored the "fact" tag? Also, if you want to remove a map and in the same time you refuse to look into the source, are you sure this is how Wikipedia should work, after all? You are more than welcome to take your issues to any administrator - in fact, I believe he or she may be more persuasive in trying to convince you that civility in what we write, not making it personal and assuming good faith really ARE rules of Wikipedia and they really make sense. For now, please do not delete the information from CIA Factbook, if you do not have sourced arguments to do so. Pundit|utter 16:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Dear EconomistBR, while I totally understand you perceive CIA World Factbook as a ludicrous source, if you want to remove it from articles, prepare something carrying more weight than your own vivid opinion. I will gladly discuss the sources and arguments you provide, while just piling up adjectives is hardly going to persuade not only me, but any other editors. Pundit|utter 16:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Now you distorted what I said. The notion that the CIA sees Germany and Italy as not part of Western Europe is ludicrous, the the CIA The World Factbook is a very good source.

EconomistBR (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you have trouble with accessing the source you perceive as very good then. I just checked that the CIA World Factbook clearly states Italy as located in Southern Europe and Germany as located in Central Europe. It is difficult to both highly value the source that says so, and still claim that this is ludicrous, but you do. Nevertheless, removing a sourced, valid information basing on your own opinion that this information is ludicrous hardly follows the rules of Wikipedia. Please, restore the information you mistakenly deleted. Pundit|utter 16:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

All I am saying is that you are distorting the CIA claims, the CIA: The World Factbook stated the geographical location whereas the Wikipedia article about Western Europe is a geopolitical assessment of Europe not a geographical one. EconomistBR (talk) 17:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let me try to understand your view better - are you saying that the CIA geographical categorization of countries as belonging to Eastern Europe is not relevant to the article on Eastern Europe (and respectively, Western/Western)? If you do, you are more than welcome to add a sentence clarifying (?) that the CIA World Factbook categories are more "geographical" than "geopolitical", although I find this distinction vague, and also claiming that the US Intelligence unit focuses only on geography is a very bold and unusual statement. Pundit|utter 17:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

No no no, once again I am beign distorted. I never said that: "the US Intelligence unit focuses only on geography". Look, I wrote more evidence to show you the confusion on the right page.

EconomistBR (talk) 17:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you, please, stop making comments like Stop flooding!!! You had your chance to talk, now let Sandstein read my comment. My God! You simply buried my comment under yours, now nobody will bother to read mine? Calling my edits "flooding" is hardly civil. Also, please differentiate your arguments SEPARATELY from my RfC. Request for Comment was directed to other editors, and not to you - I am trying to bring third party views to the table. Your argumentation (long awaited) is of course welcome, but please make a new section. Pundit|utter 03:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Why make a new section, you commented twice on the RfC, why can't I comment once?

Dude I took 1 hour to research those sources, 1 hour!!!! I come back 1 hour later I find out that you added over 3000 characters on top of mine. You don't let me be heard.

Nobody will bother to read my comment, nobody. You should have let someone else reply. That's why I called it flooding. You buried mine comment.

Who is their right mind will bother to read over 6,000 characters? That's what I called it flooding. EconomistBR (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry, but are you declining me the right to discuss? This does not sound fair (not to mention that it would make your omissions, purposeful or not, stay as if nobody noticed them). I don't think I am to be blamed for the time you spend looking for sources (although it definitely is an indicator, that your stance is perhaps more difficult to defend). After all, only the result matters, be it 5 minutes or 50 hours. I was requesting you to make a new section, because your argumentation is way too lengthly for just a comment (also, please note that in my first reply in the RfC I only focused on the definition of the problem as accurately as possible, I was not persuading people to my side). My concern is that people coming to the RfC will see half a page from you and will decide not to enter the RfC at all - while in the same time I am happy that you decided to use rooted arguments and definitely our discussion should be kept in the talk page, although under a separate heading. However, your subjective perception that nobody will read your lines of argumentation because I responded to them should not make you use derogative terms - being civil is not limited to the occasions when your disputant has not had a chance to reply. Pundit|utter 03:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Huh, you don't even want to make a line separator? Be reasonable, make at least SOME mark where your text begins if you refuse to start a new section... I'm not going to change it, but please, think it over and consider formatting (e.g. by making a subsection in the RfC itself). cheers Pundit|utter 03:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi again - a friendly side comment: part of the problem I have with your not separating your argumentation is just with formatting. In our discussions it is clear as well, that you decide not to make indentations for new posts. Perhaps if you considered them it would be more readable and distinguishable from what the previous editor wrote? My aim here is mainly in making clear optical divisions between particular comments (and it is a good Wiki practice to do the same in the discussions). Pundit|utter 03:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Fine. Add the separator, I wished the administrator would solve this issue, but now with the RfC any chance of this being resolved this month is pretty much gone.

Adding the separator isolates my comment from the RfC, and leaves your comment plus (Sandstein's comment saying that he agrees with you, the other party (me) is not represented. I mean that RfC is biased IMO.

Go ahead add the separator, this is going to be one lengthy matter. 04:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the separator. Although typically RfC is used to ask for third-party opinions, please, feel free to make a short comment if it matters for you so much. I don't want you to feel that the "RfC is biased" because of the fact that I commented there. Please note, however, that I was not arguing FOR my point but making the question more precise (as apparently the reader, just by perusing our discussion, was under the impression that we're trying to scientifically decide whether Germany is in Central or Western Europe. In two sentences I explained that the main point of dispute is whether to keep one particular typology or not, and not whether we personally believe or not believe it is "true". I don't think I was advocating my case (any more than by showing the rules of Wikipedia I defend), that's all. Pundit|utter 13:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

hi and thanks for your constructive feedback. I added the Baltic states, added the link to the source description in Wikipedia, increased the color differences (I didn't differentiate the shades though, as this is the cartographic tradition to use same shades for same categories of things, e.g. temperature or height). Let me know if you find the maps ok. cheers Pundit|utter 22:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 19:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, it's been nice editing with you. Although in ardent dispute, we managed to resolve our doubts by ourselves. Thank you for constructive cooperation, looking forward to meeting you in the future. Pundit|utter 02:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just a heads up, this is going up as soon as the approval is up at NTIADTV. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Good news, thanks for the heads up. And nice article! Really nice of you to wait until the official announcement. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

okay smart guy go to cia world fact book web site and look up the the u.k geography and see if it says western europe not northern europe sorry but i am of english decent and the u.n is on drugs great britain is western europe not the nothern i mean it could be called north west europe just as spain is in western europe but is south western at the same time,and when you go lets see if you revert my change again or will you have the honor and admit you are wrong,oh yeah another thing einstein there is a map right under the un map from the cia world factbook map clearly stateing uk in western europe not northern europe--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

You didn't have to be rude about it, dumbass. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Gentlemen, easy. You both cross the line for personal attacks. On another note - EconomistBR, I supported your move here, but I took it farther (it makes no sense to keep the map, unless we know what it shows and by whom, and after all the map itself is not entirely relevant). Pundit|utter 18:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Nice, you removed the map, I support that. I was thinking about removing the map but I really don't want to get involved into another long edit dispute so I just tagged the map. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know, but in this case there is no dispute - our long and occasionally heated discussion was about assumptions, sources and representation of facts, while here we have just a picture, without really knowing what it shows. While it is perhaps a little more in line with my own point of view, it is by far more important to create a good encyclopedia, and thus eliminate unsourced and misinformative paragraphs and pictures... As I assumed you may be reluctant to delete the picture because of your known aversion to the idea it represented, I decided to do so myself :) Pundit|utter 01:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your revisions, I edited it just a little for language, hopefully we have it satisfactory now. Pundit|utter 23:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

HI, I think that if information is sources and reliable it can be included - University of Texas is surely a valid source :) Pundit|utter 17:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Bulgaria is located in Southeastern Europe (Balkans). --Olahus (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

• On another note: EconomistBR, you have ignored my request for clarifying your education twice already. Your name on Wikipedia suggests credentials, such as being a graduate or at least a student of economics. Please, be so kind as to confirm these, as usurping them without grounds is against policies. Pundit|utter 22:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't feel confortable publishing personal information on the internet or giving it to people I don't know. EconomistBR is just a nickname, it doesn't mean anything, get over it.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 01:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, you don't have to reveal personal information to everyone, what will suffice is validating your credentials with any established editor. As a matter of fact, I myself underwent such procedure on the request of one of the editors and I don't find it problematic. Please, confirm the credentials you claim or change a nickname - I hope you understand that these are the Wikipedia policies, not just guidelines. For me what would be even sufficient would be your writing what your credentials are. I believe you would not blatantly lie so I don't need to double-check your status, but I want to know why you call yourself an economist, as some of your edits, and the way you perform dialog with other editors, just make me a little bit cautious Pundit|utter 01:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let's talk to an administrator then.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

No prob, go ahead :) Pundit|utter 02:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

You do it.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

• I asked a couple of people and they seem not to mind (by pointing out that one can be an amateur-economist). As a non-native speaker I trust their judgment. Apologies for the conundrum. Pundit|utter 20:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, in the meantime I would like to request your kind insight into the issue of Romania in Eastern Europe. I tried to come to a truce between the disputants by digging for information and describing Romania under "other countries", with sources for both Central and Southeastern location, but apparently some editors don't like the sources... Your comments, as of a person involved in placating this edit war, are much appreciated. Pundit|utter 18:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

There was recently a discourse here concerning the appropriateness of your username. It was concluded that your name is perfectly within guidelines, and there is no vio here. Just thought you should be aware. Have a nice day, -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

And the discourse took place here, for your records (in case somebody else raised the issue). I was wrong and misunderstood the context of the word (I somewhat assumed it is professional, and cannot be amateur). Please, accept my apologies. Pundit|utter 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Apologies accepted Pundit, it's nice to know that this issue got sorted out. I just didn't know that by "asked a couple of people" you in fact meant the authoritative Requests for comment board. Well, at least now there is a specific RFCN ruling stating that my nickname is not in violation of the guidelines.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 22:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry not to make it clear. I wanted to spare you the stress of being under the RfC in case it went fine (as it did), and the policy in this case does not suggest informing the person whose nickname is discussed (by comparison to other RfC rules it may suggest that it is not encouraged). As you can see from the discussion there, I wasn't pushing my point to much - I just wanted to clarify if an "economist" is understood as professional (like lawyers and doctors). As soon as three people okeyed the nickname, I withdrew my reservations before due time. I am probably overly cautious, but Essjay hoax made me particularly sensitive to matters of authority and its representations on Wiki. In your case it went obviously too far, but I hope you won't bear a grudge, understanding my motives.

Anyway, I hope you will be able to help in dealing with Romania and Europe case, it is silence before a storm, I'm afraid :) Pundit|utter 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

You're absolutley right that it's m2 not km2. Which is why the answer is not 20 (just think about that before reverting it - 20 people on each square meter!

The calculation is:

7.84 km2 * 1,000,000 = 7,840,000 square meters. 160000/7,840,000 = .0204

Bagunceiro (talk) 08:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

There are 1 million, not 1000, square meters per square kilometer:- 1000m * 1000m = 1000000m2. The density is thus .0204 people per square meter, not 20. You really cannot pack 20 people onto each square meter - I don't think you could pack 20 onto any square meter, let alone the average one (although it does feel a bit like that at reveillon! ;-) )

Your figure of 20,400 per Km2 is correct, though (1000000 * .0204) so the article is fine now. Bagunceiro (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Your calculation makes no sense at all. L*L is used to get an area of a quadrangle, not to convert km2 into m2

Yes. In this case the quadrangle in question is a square kilometer.

1Km = 1000 meters. 1Km2 = 1Km * 1Km = 1000m * 1000m. 1000 * 1000 = 1000000. 1000000m2. Check out square kilometer if you don't believe me.

20,400 per km² EQUALS 20.4 per m²

No, it doesn't; it equals 0.0204 per m2. You cannot fit 20 people on a single square meter - an area the length of your arm each side - let alone on each and every square meter.

Divide 20,400 by 1,000 = 20.4

Divide 1 km² by 1,000 = 1 m²

No it doesn't. It equals 1000 m2.

What you are doing is:

Divide 20,400 by 1,000,000 = 0.024

Yes I am. And that is correct.

Divide 1 km² by 1,000 = 1 m²

No it doesn't. There are 1000000 m2 per Km2

It makes no sense at all.

Just think what having 20 people on each square meter would mean and then consider that again. You said that Copacabana is less that 9800m2. Now a football pitch is approximately 5000m2: Do you really believe that Copacabana is less than the size of two football pitches? Bagunceiro (talk) 08:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, yes. I am sorry for wasting your time. You are right, I am completely wrong.

My calculation is the one that doesn't make any sense.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 17:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, in the heat of the edit madness in this article, I added a picture with the CIA World Factbook depiction of Central Europe. I will be grateful for your comments and friendly edits - as we disagreed in the past on the maps, and as you still, in my view, are trying to edit adhering to the rules (which cannot be said of some other contributors to the article) I would like to personally request your opinion and/or changes. Pundit|utter 17:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Edit wars are bad. We've got a policy against them and everything. I have fully protected the article Central Europe, and am formally reminding you about the WP:3RR policy. Further infractions will result in blocking. - Philippe 22:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

You've been named as an involved party in a Mediation Cabal case: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-04-22 Central Europe. Your input is appreciated. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've posted the following in response to you at the Central Europe mediation request: At the time this request was made, you were the strongest opposition to any attempt to even remotely reach a consensus at the article.You weren't able to move past petty personal disputes, and as such were central to the Mediation Cabal request. Plus, your whinging was a quintessential of the way the article had deteriorated into name-calling. Now that consensus has been reached I would support withdrawing this request if so the editors involved wish. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's almost impossible to make one single map with all the divisions, because some of the European countries share 2 or even 3 divisions. This is the reason why I made 3 maps: 1, 2, 3.
--Olahus (talk) 21:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, concerning Panel 2008, Jeremy recommended that we file a report against him, whether it's on AIV, AIN or 3RR. We don't have to wait till he starts edit warring, as he's gone against consensus, and is still edit warring (the 3RR rule doesn't need to be applied to = edit warring). I would recommend filing a report against him on the AIV section. I have so many things on my hands at the moment, that I won't have time to do it until the weekend, but I'd rather have it done now when it's all fresh. If you wish to do it now, that would be great. --Buffer v2 (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agreed, after reading the acronyms, I agree that the report should be filed at AIV.

A class-3 Vandalism Warning has already been issued on Panel 2008's talkpage, IMO once we exhaust the warnings we will have enough evidence to have him succssefully blocked, since we will be able to prove that we attempted to resolve this problem peacefully.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I filled out an AIV actually... they deleted it, and told me to go elsewhere. I took it to AIN, and now AN3 - for the 3RR. He's been warned before for the 3RR, and pretty much everything else - I mean, just look at the discussion pages (and his talk page), he knows the rules of Wikipedia from the back of his head. --Buffer v2 (talk) 04:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm the admin responding to the AN3 report - I'll let you off with a warning this time because your actions are from several days ago. Please refrain from edit warring in the future, and read up on our vandalism policies before accusing others of committing it. east.718 at 05:39, May 14, 2008

No good-faith effort the improve the encyclopedia is vandalism. If you're dealing with a disruptive editor who's edit-warring against consensus and isn't using the talkpage, request assistance at the administrators' or edit-warring noticeboard. east.718 at 20:37, May 14, 2008

Olá EconomistBR! Há uma discussão ocorrendo em Talk:Potential superpowers#Removal of Brazil e gostaríamos da sua opinião. Obrigado pela atenção! Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 22:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you please clarify your vote at the Talk:Potential great powers page on Mexico? If you are voting, please put your vote in the Support Removal or Oppose format that the other votes are in. This will help us tally the votes at the end. Thanks! Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 17:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry Filipe but those two article are two huge cans of worms because there is very little criteria to determine anything. I mean Russia is rated as an economic Great Power, who said that? What was the criteria? In the end I got pissed.

So, this time I will not get involved, but whenever you need something just come over and ask I will be glad to help.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Muito obrigado! It was good to know someone noticed the effort. Aos poucos espero poder levar o conteudo para o artigo em espanhol e português. See you around. Mariordo (talk) 04:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Econ BR you've made great contributions to the subprime mortgage crisis article. Thanks for keeping that table updated until the regular media figured it out!Farcaster (talk) 14:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are the one that deserves recognition, you've kept and expanded that article since November of 2007, while I have mostly only focused on a table that is now deleted. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, very much! Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 23:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Keep up the good work! Mario1987 12:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

I understand that you believe the WP:ATHLETE criteria are too inclusive and allow articles about players who may have reached a top-level professional league, but are still not notable. If you want to try to get more restrictive criteria for whether an athlete is notable, please bring up the topic for discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). I may not agree with you 100% on this but I thnk the issue you are raising is worth discussing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I also want to support your raising it more generally. I suggest you focus on the definition of top-level, and suggest changing it to "highest-level" with a possible variation for certain sports. But I have the handicap in discussing this that i am not myself interested in the underlying subject, and have very little basis to evaluate the articles except formal criteria. DGG (talk) 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

IMO whoever proposes a more restrictive WP:ATHLETE will be up against fans of NY Giants, Manchester United, LA Lakers and many others, therefore IMO it is not reasonable to expect significant changes to WP:ATHLETE. I think that sports fans will easily drive any proposal to no-consesus and it will die.

Either way I could never pull off such a feat, only an administrator such as you two could because of easier access to other administrators.

IMO we could bring WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE closer together either by creating the concept of retired athlete or by creating a minimum standard of quality for WP:ATHLETE protected articles.

I will follow your sugggestion, Metropolitan90 and start a topic of discussion there.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:Infogrames.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I've open a new section about your article creation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#POINTY article creation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Since you commented at the AFD you may wish to be aware of Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_2#Architectural_design_values. Smile a While (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to thank you for removing the deletion tag from the article Open Learning Environment (I hope you remember it). I was hoping that you could review my article and suggest any edits or changes, because it has been tagged for deletion again and the person that is doing it repeatedly won't give me any input on what I can change so he would stop trying to delete it. If you can give me your input I would realy appreciate it. Mariam-t (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Olá EconomistBR! Estou organizando uma força tarefa para levar o artigo "Brazil" ao status de Featured. Antes que eu apresentasse os problemas do artigo, queria saber se você está interessado e disponível. Atenciosamente; Felipe C.S ^{( talk )} 21:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Eu gostaria de participar mas eu agora tô sem tempo mas se houver algum conflito pode me chamar. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think your idea to delete and then move is a good one.

I didnt understand at first! (I'm a bit stupid sometimes) But now i do understand i think it is a very good idea.

Mesoso2 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, given that you agreed I took the freedom to:

1. Remove the mergeto Tag from the Military of Brazil article.
2. Restore the Brazilian Armed Forces article back as a redirect.
3. Request that the Brazilian Armed Forces be speedy deleted.
4. Move the Military of Brazil article to Brazilian Armed Forces once deletion was complete.

As you may notice all those steps have already been taken and the Military of Brazil article has already been moved. The difference between this method and the Copy and Paste method is that the history of the article and its talk page were preserved.

Nice negotiating with you!! Until next time. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Excellent work! Mesoso2 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the failure of this section at BIO highlights the typical failure of subject specific guidelines in two ways: (1) it has been impossible to define an objective set of criteria for an exception to relax the standard of WP:N, and (2) any attempts to do so solicits a barage of "pseudo consensus" from fans. The best course is to make the articles meet WP:N. --Kevin Murray (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

I totally agree with that, WP:N should be the only criteria.

The creation of "subject specific guidelines", as you put it, was a huge mistake indeed. There is no stopping it. Now they want to legitimize WP:FOOTY which was created in a yet another "pseudo consensus" by fans.

I see no way of reverting this. The chance for a consensus is zero. The best option IMO is to let this problem grow and in a few years propose splitting WP:ATHLETE articles from Wikipedia.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 16:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

As you haven't replied on WT:BIO I thought I'd try here. You insist that scrapping WP:ATHLETE and relying on WP:N would somehow rid the project of tonnes of non-notable footballers. You're badly mistaken. Giving WP:N more precedence over WP:ATHLETE would open the floodgates. Media coverage of British football is so comprehensive that editors can easily find multiple independent sources for footballers playing at the fifth level in England and the fourth in Scotland. If you look at football-related AfDs, the problem is that non-notable footballer articles are kept as a result of users bringing up WP:N in the discussion (e.g. here for an AfD on a 20-year old footballer, whose career highlights involve playing at the 3rd level in Sweden or here), not editors using WP:ATHLETE to keep them. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Again, you've misunderstood. Players at the fifth level in England do have entire articles devoted to just them - every time they move clubs there is an article on them. Look at this or this or this. These are not mere mentions in match reports. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

PS - if you want to help get rid of the non-notable footballers, how about contributing to the many AfDs listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football#Nominations for deletion and page moves. Despite your opinions on project members, most of them !vote delete on the majority of the articles nominated. However, there are a few editors who attempt to keep every article going on the basis of WP:N. If you think their arguments are so flimsy, please come and contribute to the debates, as some extremely non-notable footballers are being kept due to their arguments. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

This table will attempt to measure the rate growth of soccer player related articles on Wikipedia. If the rate of growth is small then this number is not problematic.

Just reading your posts from the village pump. I can sympathise with your concern over the football player stubs but I think the truth is that most people who come across one of the crappy stubs don't care too much about the state of it, they read the info and move on (ignoring any blatant vandalism that may be there). In my own experience most non-wikieditors have no idea what a featured article is, even though they've probably read a couple in their travels! It's hard to watch people spend their time on silly things instead of articles with more substance, I sigh when i think of Spoo. However, I think people search wikipedia for these kinds of topics anyway - and wikipedia's not so serious as a result! I urge you to work on the Brazil articles you mentioned, maybe only a handful of people will read the articles anyway but as long as you enjoy and are proud of your contributions then why worry?(see:John Milton (composer)) People will always arrive and make shoddy articles on pop culture. Just be glad you're not one of them! Happy editing. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

For the sake of transparency, it is considered good practice to use strikethrough tags (<s> and </s>) to remove parts of statements instead of simply deleting them. I would ask that you update your deletion nomination statement to include the material that you previously removed. Thanks. GlassCobra 03:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am sorry but since that's not an official Wikipedia policy I will opt to continue to improve my argument by deleting the unneeded parts.

I continue to search for the best argument and that requires constant improvement. I want to express my opinion in shortest possible ammount of space in order to convince the Administrator judging that Afd.

I advise you to do the same.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would consider it highly dishonest of you to continue to refuse to comply with my request. It seems extremely disingenuous to allow the participators of the AfD to express agreement with your statements, then change yours while leaving theirs intact. Please see guidelines for editing one's own comments, WP:REFACTOR and AfD Wikietiquette for notes on the strong precedent of using strike tags. At the very least, include a link to the original nomination statement and a note of when you changed; surely if your worry is space-related, one link wouldn't matter much in comparison to the inclusion of all the material you've removed or changed. GlassCobra 04:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ok, you win the argument. I will adopt strikethrough from now on however I have for the most part added text and not removed, you can confirm that.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 14:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

On a related note, accusing other editors of trying to damage your reputation seems an unduly personal mode of discussion. I agree with you about deleting the article; you're not helping your cause by making the argument about the politics discussed in the current version of the article rather than the redundancy of the article itself. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is there a reason why you nominated New Cold War for deletion, but not Neo Cold War? —Lowellian (reply) 04:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have never "edited" or "reverted" a comment you have made. If you are referring to your editing of your nomination, I attempted to highlight your nontransparent and significant edits, as inclusion of the original nomination in the discussion is important. You refused to edit your nomination transparently, although you did promise to do so in the future (that promise apparently doesn't include the ongoing AfD). My linking to a diff of a comment you added is not "editing" your comments; the edits were yours and yours alone. This is a wiki. (Feel free to respond here if you have any further comments.)   user:j    (aka justen)   18:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, you accused me of "You can't dramatically alter your nom midstream. Place your thoughts in the discussion, like everybody else".

It turns out that I can alter my nom as much as I want for as long as I use striketrough. You tried to deny me that right.

As for the strikethrough, I once again showed flexibility and honesty. I completely changed my position after being shown to be wrong. I will use use strikethrough from now on.

The reason why I didn't use striketrough was that nobody had commented on my comment. For example if I edit any comment now I will use the strikethrough. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 18:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't believe strikethrough is preferable, but it is better than no transparency at all. As of this point, your significant changes to the AfD nom in question remain entirely nontransparent. Do you plan to correct that?   user:j    (aka justen)   18:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

As a compromise I will make sure I add some striketrough to the nom.

But, for example, yesterday I deleted an entire comment. Should I had used strikethrough all over?

I decide not to, nobody had read it or commented on it. So I just deleted it. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 18:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Somebody may have read your comment, but if nobody has actually responded to it or referenced it, I suppose withdrawing a comment by simply deleting it would be acceptable. Just a note, it looks like your signature usually falls to a separate line. If that's the case, you may want to consider indenting your signature just as much as your comments, to prevent any possible confusion. Take care,   user:j    (aka justen)   18:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

GlassCobra's great argument indicated to me that strikethrough is transparent enough. IMO more transparency would be over zealousness, unnecessary and violation editor's rights.

If I wrote something that doesn't reflect my views and opinions anymore I must have the right to delete it, anything short of that is a violation of freedom of speech. The same freedom that allows me to write and edit as I want must also allow me to delete as much as I want, that's editing in the end. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 18:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

(←) I would suggest you consider making your changes transparent in this manner:

Per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. This article is doing a disservice to the history of the 20th Century. Just because some TV pundits and journalists are trowing this expression around, this article is certifying that a New Cold War exists between Russia and USA. This term is being used because it is catchy but it is still a undefined and unrecognized neologism.

To call the US-Russia war of words over the South Ossetian conflict as a full blown Cold War is premature at best, Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTCRYSTAL. This article suffers from the same problem as the Second dot-com bubble.

Such a serious conflict should be unquestionable, an unanimity among historians and clearly defined.

~~~ 02:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the most recent revision to the nomination, as of 20:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC).
Previous revisions on 18 August 2008: first, as of 02:13 (UTC); second, as of 03:19 (UTC); third, as of 16:53 (UTC); fourth, as of 18:56 (UTC)

I think that will allow your comments to be clear, without strikethrough, but help anyone coming across the discussion understand what replies were in response to at particular points in time. If you take out the "~~~" part and just replace it with three tildes, it will sign only the signature part of your name, leaving the timestamp of your original nomination.   user:j    (aka justen)   19:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

No I will not do that, the dishonest tactics you have resorted to in order to get your point across show that I can't trust you.

After four attempts you've finally managed to find a way to reedit my deleted comments just to further your cause. That link is pure dishonesty.

I will follow what GlassCobra said but that's about it.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 20:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please understand that the link is not dishonest; you wrote the comment which I linked to, not me. When I began writing my comment, that was the version of your comment I was addressing. This is Wikipedia; nobody forces you to press "Save page," but once you do, we have to take your comments at their face value. Regardless, calling me "dishonest" is a personal attack, and it is a serious violation of Wikipedia policy.   user:j    (aka justen)   20:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

It is absolute dishonesty from you, you dug up statements which I deleted and quoted them. That's total dishonesty, you should respect what I write and what I take back.

How can one move on if we are held hostage by everything we have ever written and deleted on Wikipedia?

Basically I can never change my views, you will simply quote a deleted statement from 2 years ago and link to it.

I usually say the opposite but I hope I don't ever have to negotiate or deal with you again once this is over. You violated my rights 4 times and finally you found a way to permanently violate them. You can't be trusted and for you the end justify the means.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 01:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

With regard to this, WP:TPG specifically allows for comments to be edited to improve page formatting, such as assisting other editors with indenting their comments. Nevertheless, I will gladly allow you to manage the indenting on your talk page however you wish...  ???   user:j    (aka justen)   20:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Do not edit others' comments, as you did here. You may disagree with J's interpretation of your statement; however, that is not justification to literally go and change what he said. GlassCobra 19:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I will do that but what User:J is doing is complete shenanigans. He is creating links to old versions of my comments that reflect old versions of my opinions and views. That's pure dishonesty, I basically can't take anything I write back ever again.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 20:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Again, if you disagree with his interpretation of your statement, you can feel free to take it up with him. However, you may not edit his comments. GlassCobra 20:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

He is quoting deleted statements and linking to it. If it's deleted that means I took it back, that means I changed my mind, that means I regreted writing it but not for User:J, he will dig it up and link to it.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 01:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just noticed your posts to the deletion review and to the talk page of the "recreated" article. The problem I think you're experiencing is that I think you truly "believe" that Wikipedia should not (under almost any circumstances) have an article on this term, regardless of the content of the article. Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think you take great personal exception to the term. Please know that I truly believe your contributions have been enormously beneficial to the project. I think, in this instance, though, you are unwilling to accept that this term may be notable or should be included on Wikipedia, under any circumstances, regardless of the legitimacy or persuasiveness of the argument (and regardless of who is making the argument, however uninvolved or objective they might be). The deletion review will run its course. If you believe the (rather poor, in my opinion) recreated article should be deleted, I imagine you could readily persuade an administrator to speedy delete. But please know that I mean you no harm, I do respect your contributions, and I want things to be just as fair and as proper as you do. We may not agree on that particular article, but I imagine, in general, we probably agree on a lot of other things. Our contributions to Wikipedia are incredibly important, and I hope neither of us let one article get in the way of that.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

It look like the recreated article was just deleted, as it probably should have been.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

  Thanks for uploading Image:Take Two logo.jpeg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Please never ever call me "anti-Russian" as you did here. This is personal offense. In fact I am Russian patriot. That is why I edit Russian articles. But I am follower of Adam Michnik who said: Patriotism is the amount of shame felt for crimes committed in the name of someone's nation.Biophys (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, I am sorry I didn't mean as a personal offense, I meant it as Democrats versus Republicans kinda thing. Thinking back I should have written pro-Putin, anti-Putin.

But my point was that some editors are allowing their political views to influence their actions on Wikipedia. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 17:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to have to take issue with my edits that you reinstated. I reworded the article to eliminate redundancies and for clarity while reducing the word count.

For example, my edits had only 1 reference to closing the "double envelopment" or pincer movement. My understanding is that, when talking about a plan for the future, the word "would" should be used only once to establish the conditional mood; other sentences in the paragraph can then be assumed to be conditional. This prevents a preponderance of "would"s.

And "they would attack together" is redundant; at least drop the "together".

And yes, I admit I truly screwed up the 10th Air Army bit, on several levels ("it's" for example, and not using my own rules for conditional mood). Sheesh, you'd think I'd NEVER edited anything. Sorry about that.

Anyway, thanks for looking over my edits.

Best of luck.

WeeWillieWiki (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was recently involved in a grueling 2 week long AfD dispute so I completely forgot to make that edit. Yesterday I was finally reminded about it due to the edit made by Pavel.

The sentence about the "double envelopment" IMO is important because the Transbaikal Front was also to meet forces of the 2nd Far East Front, but that's not where the double envelopment takes place. Also the sentence "eastern half of the pincer movement" IMO is relevant because that's the historical role of the The 1st Far East Front in the battle, which was not only to attack but to work as a pincer.

The rewording involving the 36th Army was to emphasize the fact that it was not a part of the pincer even though this Army was under the Transbaikal Front but if you prefer the other way that's fine by me.

⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 02:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. Objection withdrawn.

That's what can happen when you edit without knowing your subject matter.

Talk to you later.

WeeWillieWiki (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey don't feel bad, I also don't know the subject matter at all, everything is based on the Glantz's paper and on the Battlefield series video. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 16:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

AfD user check

Hit count of articles

AfD stats

Flickr advanced search

It takes a fellow Brasilian to appreciate the importance of streamlining and giving legitimacy to policy creation here. Write back if you want to bounce some ideas around. Obrigado, FFDiempredome (talk) 17:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello my friend. If there were to be a Wikipedia Legislature created, would you run for a position there? You seem very wise and I would vote for you, if I can meet the suffrage requirements (age/edit count). You would be a good legislator and rule Wikipedia with a strong hand to bring legitimacy to the process. FFDiempredome (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

You and I could begin to campaign for people's support. With the brazilian team pushing for it, we can make this change happen! Do you want to hear my idea for how the legislative can streamline admin recall problem? FFDiempredome (talk) 23:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Such a change would need A LOT of support, it will take months if it can be done at all.

Sure, tell me your idea about the recall.EconomistBR 00:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I wrote my proposal at WP:VPP. FFDiempredome (talk) 01:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Lets just be totally clear on things, first and foremost is Microprose LLC (parent of Microprose Systems) was bought by Frederic Chesnais former CFO of Atari, Inc under Infogrames. He formed a company called I2G - Interactive Game Group (www.igamegroup.com) to handle licensing.

Legacy Engineering (my firm) licensed the brand and name for use in branding hardware products under the Microprose name. Due to conflicts with the brand owner, imposed restrictions and poor business practices by the brand owner, Legacy Engineering pulled the plug on the relationship as a whole with I2G.

It was inferred directly from Frederic Chesnais in numerous emails (I thought about posting one, but it may not be prudent to post private communications in public) that He purchased, along with the Microprose name and logo, rights to F-15 Strike Eagle, and 5 other MP titles. Also I was told that several software titles were in development to come out under the Microprose name by the I2G company, however to date I have not seen any, just released - Jillian Michaels for the Wii is under I2G and not MP, also I2G has the license for games based on Igor (according to the press release that came out nearly 1 year ago) and I do not know if it too will be under the I2G brand of MP brand. I have absolutely nothing to do with any software development. Legacy Engineering's hardware products are continuing to move into the marketplace, our Classic USB joystick controller just started selling on the 15th and our Arcade Professional and Wii Arcade controllers are following as well.

So at this point, any question comment or issue with MP, software titles, ownership, etc... take it to I2G and Fred Chesnais, Legacy was only a brand licensee and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacyengineer (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for that information, it was incredibly valuable. The news that I2G is already releasing games is very important. EconomistBR 04:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Interesting tone change from "it deceived the general public about its intention to develop video games" and "Microprose System lied", now that one of the main people involved is responding directly to you. I think you owe him an apology. Likewise that you're reading "however to date I have not seen any" to mean there is and will be none in the future. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 04:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes...the recent turn of events have proven that I was wrong in many ways. I am seriously considering asking for an apology for my mistakes not to him but to you, I am just waiting things to settle down. EconomistBR 04:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Consider it accepted, you do a lot of good work and we've done a lot of good work together in the past (Infogrames, etc.) I just hate to see that kind of partnership go down the drain, and I didn't understand where this hostility towards me or towards this Microprose topic was coming from. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I hope that you understand that I am in agreement with you on the delete, and that I was making fun of the moronic idea that this show would be a "documentary". Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Although I thought you were exaggerating, I really thought you were serious specially because TenPoundHammer, who is a very active participant of AfD debates, changed his vote from delete to keep partly because of your comment. I mean, 4 hours after your comment he changed his vote so he also believed you were serious. EconomistBR 18:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

No problems. thanks for the message. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added some references to TabletKiosk. You may wish to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TabletKiosk (2nd nomination). -- Eastmain (talk) 02:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you did it once again. I will change my vote. Thanks for informing me about your changes. EconomistBR 02:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Olá EconomistBR,

Você tem conta na pt-wiki? Tem muita porcaria lá que merece ser apagada (Ver em pt:WP:PE).

Falou, Tosqueira (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Na pt-wiki eu ainda não tenho conta. Me falta tempo para poder contribuir em 2 wikis diferentes, então eu decidi focar nessa aqui pq é nessa wiki que o mundo fica sabendo sobre o Brasil. EconomistBR 01:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

In case you're interested in more on Fred Chesnais/I2G this went up recently. He's second from right in the picture. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to add, did some digging and I-Drs is simply another corporate entity by Chesnais that he created to hold the Microprose name and properties in. If you look at the USPTO documentation, he used the same legal service for both companies. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 20:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Vale do Rio Doce.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Discussion had passed over the 5 day period and was on the WP:RM backlog. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

You are free to open another discussion ... same difference of course. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Concordo com você. Acho q entre a Época, GSF e a página oficial da Marinha, deveriamos optar pela última. Por sinal, parabéns pelas contribuições q vc tem feito nos artigos militares!! Limongi (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Go ahead. Do it, let me know and then I'll restore the protection. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

It's not me who created the content. It was done by someone and was pasted in the Brazilian Navy page. I just created a new page and added the already created content to make the Brazilian Navy page look neat.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh, really? Thanks for your honesty, I really thought that you had done it. I will undo my comment on your talk page then. I will now have to search the History Section, to see who created that very informative table. EconomistBR 04:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the kind words. I wish you award it to the right person who did create that nice section with all those details.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 17:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Olá! Estou precisando de ajuda em dois artigos que criei: Military of the Empire of Brazil e Economy of the Empire of Brazil. Eu pedi para que ambos fossem revisados através do Peer Review. O problema é que não tenho tempo para corrigir os erros apontados pelos revisores, pois assim não conseguirei nunca terminar os outros dois artigos que criei (Platine War e Politics of the Empire of Brazil). Em minha opinião, ambos os artigos estão com um ótimo conteúdo e não é necessário realizar qualquer modificação quanto a este aspecto. O problema é na parte gramatical e técnica. Se você tiver interesse em colaborar (e eu ficaria muito grato) ou tiver conhecidos que tenham vontade em fazê-lo, por favor, o faça. Muito obrigado pela atenção! --Lecen (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Eu no momento estou com pouco tempo para a Wikipedia por isso infelizmente não poderei ajudá-lo. Eu ia sugerir a você postar esse pedido lá no Brazilian Project mas eu vi que você já fez isso. EconomistBR 23:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

What's the matter with you? Just because I edit under my IP address and I express a slightly different opinion doesn't mean I am a sock-puppet. As I reply in the MfD for WP:AEE, if you think I'm a sock-puppet then file a checkuser for me. I can tell you that you will not find any sock-puppet associated with me whatsoever. I also ask you to cross-out the wrongful accusations and personal attacks to me. I have been editing Wikipedia for almost three months so I already knew the Wikipedia community, and I don't need an account to be involved in the community. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is lots of stuff for you to read at Talk:Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945). Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Me again. FYI, I'm not too sure about some of your latest edit. I've read somewhere that the Soviets had over 5,000 tanks & self propelled guns (5,500 I think), which is consistent with Glantz, but why remove the "(including 3,700 T-34s)" bit? If you know it's wrong, that's fine. But outherwise, put a {{cn}} next to it. Similarly the other deletions. Regarding the subamarines, I think I've read somewhere that they had 80 or 90, so 78 is not implausible. Again, if you know it's wrong, then by all means delete it, but if you doubt it, then add {{cn}}. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've just noticed your talk page posting regarding tanks. Fair comment. I'll see if I can track down the source(s) of the information I mention above. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your kind words. I will reply to pdfpdf on his talk because I am likely to be deleted from the 'Manchuria' discussion page Mrg3105--121.218.129.105 (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Please, I need your help to deal with an issue that has appeared in the article about Brazil. See it in here. Thank you very much. - --Lecen (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Transportation - Imperialism II game.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Military units - Imperialism II game.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Productivity - Imperialism II game.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Labor - Imperialism II game.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

WikiProject Brazil has been created is Spanish Wikipedia: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiproyecto:Brasil

I hope that people add it!

--EdgarFabiano (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vale Brazilian Operations 2006.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gump Stump (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Vale's Global Operations.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Gump Stump (talk) 21:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

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) 16:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article Luiz Henrique Koprowski has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about non-notable footballer who never played in a fully-pro league and isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jogurney (talk) 18:34, 23 November 2020 (UTC)Reply