User:Harland1/Archive (March 2008)
 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
German and UK economies
I've read your recent edits on Europe's talk page. You reacted affirmative to a statement that the two mentioned economies are of similar size. Is this really your opinion. Perhaps you've simply confused the statement with the recent changes in the article itself, where it is about the economic sizes of the UK and France respectively. Otherwise, I can easily provide you abundant sources show a distinct gap between Germany's economic volume and that of the UK. This gap is of the order of 30% !! Tomeasy (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Europe rv
Sorry for reverting your edit. To me it looked like a disguised deletion of information. You commented that you had added a ref and then I saw that one piece of information was taken out without substitution. In addition to that the ref did not work. So I was simply not convinced that this edit served any good. You are right, I did not look into Mathsci's talk page to see that you two had come to an agreement and I also did not open a discussion before reverting. Perhaps, it would have been a good idea for the comment to hint on your agreement, rather than doing as if only a ref was added. My apologies again for acting too swift. Tomeasy (talk) 12:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your kind understanding. I will try to step more gently in the future. Tomeasy (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I avoided making a statement on this, because I am currently in another difficult issue on the Europe article, which has to with the countries mentioned in the list. As you can imagine this is a Gordian knot and takes a lot of time, but since you've asked me...
- What I find the most important with respect to economy sizes in Europe is that the UK, France and also Italy have almost identical volumes. Whoever is placed number 1 among these three today might be number 3 in 5 years. Apparently, France and the UK have just swapped their positions, mainly due to the strong Euro. Actually, I find this a very interesting piece of information, because (as Mathsci pointed out) it shows how close they are. Now Matsci's conclusion was to leave it out, exacly for this reason; to make the content less volatile to day-to-day fluctuations. However, we want to state facts here, i.e. number one Germany, number two ... In addition to that these facts should be as recent as possible. The source, FT, is absolutely reputable and it adds exactly the kind of information that I would seek to convey, that a differentiated ranking between France and the UK is not reasonable. Or to say the least, that it depends on day-to-day fluctuations. That's also why I did not revert back after recognizing that I should not have done it at first. I leave it up to you. You thought much longer about it than I. Tomeasy (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- I avoided making a statement on this, because I am currently in another difficult issue on the Europe article, which has to with the countries mentioned in the list. As you can imagine this is a Gordian knot and takes a lot of time, but since you've asked me...
- I'm not altogether sure that I should be the one to decide as a resident of the UK I am not afraid of that. As a good wikipedian, I expect you to seek for a neutral, reasonable and interesting message and I am sure you are doing that. Wasn't it you who originally introduced this FT citation. If you satisfied your own concerns than you would not have done so, since according to UK POV this might make their star shine less. No, I have the feeling we agree that these are not the aspects that interest us.
- You're right, the gap between Italy and the others is significantly bigger (about 20%) than between the UK and France. But who knows in 5 years. Anyways, I do not want to complicate things here and it's not my intention to bring Italy into the text.
- Was that too wordy? How did you know that? I really think so :-) Obviously, I appreciate your strive for an equilibrated statement, but why does the Dollar come into play here. If the Euro rises against the Pound, obviously the Euro-Dollar ratio raises compared to the Pound-Dollar ratio. I would also mention the UK volume earlier. So, if I may have a try on your draft: The United Kingdom comprises the region's second largest national economy ($2.756 trillion (2007 est.)) and the fifth largest globally.[1] However, the economy of France is of a very similar size ($2.515 trillion (2007 est.)). As recently, the Euro has been strong against the Pound the volume of the French economy has surpassed the volume of the UK economy (ref to FT).
- Reading your Euro-Dollar-Pound formulation once again. I am not quite sure if we are on common grounds on how exchange rates function. Clearly, if the UK economy is now smaller in size than the French one, this is the case for any currency. Suppose that in the future the Pound raises again against the Euro (while both economies stagnate) such that UK's size surpasses France's size once again, then (again) this is the case independent from the currency you use for measuring the size. In other words, rankings do not depend on the measuring currencies [unit], but in the course of time well on the exchange rates. Perhaps it was just a misunderstanding. If so, I hope you do not mind getting explained what was already known to you Tomeasy (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- Apologies for being ignorant. No apologies necessary. I am slightly confused by your argument. Yes, I think I did not put it as clear as it is. Ok, for simplicity let's stick to the current situation. The Pound weakens against the Euro and strengthens against the Dollar. Now what I am trying to explain is that from these two statements it already follows that the Euro strengthens against the Dollar. The latter statement is not independent from the two earlier ones. With respect to your draft this means that you can save many words and, moreover, I think you've had a wrong understanding. Ok, this last statement might be controversial. Therefore let me elaborate on what I think you've misunderstood. My apologies, if I am wrong:
- You wrote And as recently the Euro has been strong against the Pound the UK economy when compared by Pound to Euro as opposed to Euro to Dollar and pound to Dollar is worth less than that of France. But, it is also true that the UK economy is worth less than the French when compared by Pound to Dollar and Euro to Dollar respectively, i.e. when economical volume is measured in Dollar. The condition you introduce is absolutely not a condition for the basic statement. As I stated earlier, if one economy has a larger volume now, then this is the case independent of the currencies underlying this measurement. So, your statement should be simply And as recently the Euro has been strong against the Pound the UK economy [...] is worth less than that of France.Tomeasy (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- In deed this is not the case. However, I have never claimed so. Please cite with more care. What I said is that from the two statements: (1) Pound weakens against Euro and (2) Pound strengthens against Dollar, a third statement can be derived, which is not independent from two earlier ones: (3) The Euro strengthens against the Dollar. Please make sure you observe the difference between this and your citation. I would like to motivate you to understand this, since it makes life much simpler than the ideas that you've had previously. I think you imagined the whole stuff to be very complex and then you tried to formulate precisely. Where it went wrong is that, actually, it is not a complex issue. Could I help?
- Do you understand now, why the ranking of economy sizes is independent from the currency used to measure the volume? I have just imagined a nice analogy. I hope you like it: If you are taller than I, then this is independent whether we measure height in feet or meters. Now, you may wonder, why then the whole fuzz about France overtaking the UK due to exchange rate changes. Therefore, if you allow, I have to strain the analogy a little bit. Imagine you are 6 ft tall, no matter what the length of a feet is in meters and I am 1.8 m tall. Imagine further that the exchange rate between feet and meter is changing daily. Now, you will be taller than I as long as the foot is stronger than 0.3 m. :-))) It would make me really glad, if I had helped you with this example. Please, hit me back in any case.Tomeasy (talk) 15:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, I like your edit on the page very much. Now, we are stating that according to all annually updated sources the UK economy is larger the French one. However, in addition to that the reader also gets a feeling how close the two are, because the mere fluctuation of the exchange rate has recently made the two swap positions. Now, let's just hope Mathsci will also like it, when he bumps into it again. As I understood your communication with him, he was not very much inclined to the FT ref. Tomeasy (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)
 Issue XXIV (February 2008) | |
|
New featured articles:
New featured lists: New A-Class articles: |
| |
| |
|
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. | |
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
10th Cavalry Regiment (United States)
No, your standards are not too high. It fails the citations criteria, which is a pity because it's otherwise excellent. Otherwise all going well ? --ROGER DAVIES talk 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Don't bother to :) Leave the checklist alone for something that short :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
2007 Chinese anti-satellite missile test
I noticed you rated the article B-class. I just wanted to know one thing that this article has been rated start class in other project. But you rated B-class. What are the criteria for B-class. I am not aware of it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
re BCAD
No, it doesn't :) What it means is that there's a general Tag & Assess (which Worklist B is really a part of) starting mid-April and we'd like to get the B-class articles completely finished by then. Do you fancy doing some on Worklist A? If so, I'll see if some can be freed up for you. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It all carries awards and the work being done now on B is simply work that would need doing in a month or so anyway. So you're helping get the overall size of the main T&A drive down. :) --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- At time of writing, an A list range is free. --ROGER DAVIES talk 20:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about keeping both frankly. You won't be the only one with two on the go :) That bit was only there anyway to stop people reserving several ranges when we just had the A list. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your participation!
Hello, and thanks for your participation in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop. While I wasn't able to win you over to support in the actual RFA, I hope that I'll be able to do so now that I'm an admin. Thanks again for taking the time to leave a comment! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: BCAD - Albert, Duke of Saxony
I considered that family chart as a diagram and so I marked it meeting that supporting material criteria. --SMS Talk 19:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Happy First Day of Spring!
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Russian submarine Kursk explosion
I noticed you assessed the article start class. But in other project, it is rated B-class. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, you failed Royal Australian Navy Submarine Service for B-class as it doesn't have enough citations. I wrote most of the article, and the current cites do cover all points. Could you please flag the areas which you think need specific cites? thanks, --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- No worries. I probably should add some more specific cites to that article anyway. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Judgement
(Replying here since I dislike cluttering RFAs with excessive threaded conversation.) A casual glance at the opposes should be more than enough to demonstrate MFC's poor judgement and childishness. If it's not, check out the activities at User:Sharkface217/Award Center sometime. It's a bunch of kids patting each other on the back over how many vandals they've warned- and then making lots of edits talking about the awards they give each other. Sure, dealing with vandals is necessary, but I distrust anyone who appears to enjoy it too much. Making it more work than it needs to be (i.e. by keeping elaborate score) shows foolishness. The absolute best is this edit, where MFC is seen giving out a barnstar.. as an award to someone for giving out lots of barnstars. Yes, these may be subtle things, and it's true that they're not directly harmful. But to me these things indicate a extremely misguided mindset for an editor to have. I realize it's always tricky trying to guess what's in someone's head, but I've seen enough here to make what I consider an educated guess. He doesn't even realize his own inexperience- he claims to be an experienced editor, looking to "adopt" others. This overestimating of his own knowhow combined with his apparent great emphasis on getting recognized for his achievements worry me. He's proud, and confident.. and clueless. Not a good combination. Anyway, when I sum it all up.. do I see a kid with exceptional wisdom and maturity? No, I see a kid who acts just like a kid. Friday (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
RE:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/CWY2190
Yes. I had actually opposed for the other reason. Then when i reviewed CWY's user page, i found the userbox stating their age. As i said, if this RfA fails and the user trys again when their a little older. I will then support. Cheers! :-) TheProf | Talk 17:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've now placed a more thorough response to you and others below my vote in CWY's RfA. Thanks TheProf | Talk 17:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Speedy deletion of Alaska in Winter
I have noted your speedy deletion request on Alaska in Winter and have posted the hangon template, as well as begun a discussion on the articles talk page. I hope you will explain the reasoning behind the decision. --Anthony5429 (talk) 17:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
| This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |