PROFILPELAJAR.COM

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Desyman44! I am Stormtracker94 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 14:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello. I only removed what I could not find mentioned in the sources. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source. That is like a paper citing itself as evidence for a claim. Just please find sources for the statements. Posada is not listed in SOA Watch database so I doubt very much that he attended the School. Relations were not bad in 1946 so it was not a Cold War then. Please just find sources for statements so they are WP:V. Thanks for cleaning up and fixing the refs on the article.Ultramarine (talk) 09:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could say at the beginning of the Cold War. "Sadly famous" is not encyclopedic language which is neutral. Posada is not listed by the best source, SOA Watch which has a database of every single person taking a course at the School. Yes, there is an allegation that he attended, but it cames from a rather dubious Communist organization. Since it is dubious it should not be mentioned prominently unless you can find a better source. Crimes against humanity would mean that they have been convicted by an international court which is not the case. Also, the connection to the school is often quite weak. They have taken course in tank warfare, mechanics, radio operations etc. Not in torturing people. That may apply to those people who took intelligence or counter-insurgency courses, but that is only a small minority.Ultramarine (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responsible is OK. We could say Posada if we qualify by "according to National Lawyers Guild but not SOA Watch".Ultramarine (talk) 10:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no need to mention source.Ultramarine (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Economy of Hungary

Hi there,

This is just a quick message to let you know that I have challenged your recent comments in the article Economy of Hungary asking for sources (I have challenged pretty much the whole section). Note that without sources this section is very open to speculation and vandalisms. If you need help adding sources please let me know.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 07:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Desyman44. You have new messages at Miguel.mateo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Discussion of edits to Fort Benning

I've opened a discussion about the removal/reinstatement of Luis Posada Carriles's image in the Fort Benning article's talk page. Please describe your rationale for retaining that image on the Ft. Benning page. TheFeds 05:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: economy of Italy

I reverted your edits for these reasons.

1. In English, you use ", rather than << for speech marks (<< is used in Italian, French and some other languages)

2. I know the CIA is American (not Italian) and older, but for official economy-related data, you mainly use the CIA factbook, or at most the IMF and the World Bank. The ISTAT is, I'm sure, professional, but should be used as an additional reference, not as the main one. As a matter of fact, you can see that on Talk:Italy, the ISTAT makes some mistakes, and is reliable, but not as much as the CIA factbook.

Anyway, happy editing and reply--Theologiae (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm by no means saying that ISTAT is incorrect and CIA is perfect, but in the economy bar for nearly every country (just go to economy of Greece, economy of France and so many more for proof) the CIA is used as the main source. You can put in that the ISTAT now thinks the unemployment has risen in the text, but the infobox relies on the CIA. What I write is:

"Despite the CIA Factbook's results of unemployment in Italy being at 6.8%, other sources such as the EUROSTAT and the ISTAT say that it standed in 2009 at 8.5% [source]."

Reply--Theologiae (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree with what your saying, but let's take an example. A few months ago, there were thousands of reliable sources (such as the Daily Telegraph) which said that in 2009 Italy overtook Britain by GDP. This was true, proven and up-to-date, but when I included it in the text, it was immediately reverted because it was firstly too recent, and it was not official yet according to CIA, IMF and World Bank. More or less the same applies with your addition. By no means add it to the article, but I think (I'm not forcing you, but advising you) that until the CIA states it, it should not be put in the infobox. I know this is a custom, but you have to understand that wikipedia has a certain style of presenting data, which is customary and not a rule, but is better to use. Tell me your thoughts--Theologiae (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I accept your proposition. Even though I would have preferred to add it to the text, and then update the infobox when CIA states it, if you're so determined then add it. But it might be challanged by some editors. Or, if you so want to add it to the infobox, then what I'd is format it like this:

Unemployment - 6.8% [according to CIA] (but ISTAT claims 8.5%)

or

Unemployment - 6.8%*

Then at the bottom of infobox or page

but ISTAT claims 8.5%

I think that would please both of us, and would not go against wiki's customs. Reply--Theologiae (talk) 18:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see your point, but I'd rather you also include somewhere in the article the CIA source. Anyway, I don't want you to view me as an old-fashioned beaurocrat who wants to keep articles old and stuffy and not update info. As a matter of fact, I was like you when I first joined wikipedia. The info in the page was old (some of it from 2007) when there was tonnes of modern and reliable sources. So do keep updating, the only thing I'm saying is to be slightly more conservative towards wiki's customs. Anyway, I hope you enjoy editing and continue to do so fruitfully--Theologiae (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CIA results dodgy

Hi Desyman44. I've recently looked at the new results for the CIA of Italy and other nation's GDPs, and they don't look highly reliable. I find it incredible that in one year, Italy's lost nearly 300 billion dollars in GDP, and Germany has also lost 600 billion. All the GDP results for nearly every country are far lower than in 2009, so it strikes me as odd. I don't know whether to update to these statistics, 'cause many seem quite dubious, including GDP per capita going down from 31,000 to 30,200 and a loss of 200 billion in exports. I'm just a bit confused to whether I should look at different statistics, or update the ones to the CIA version? Please reply and tell me your thoughts--Theologiae (talk) 10:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, it's odd that if the CIA says that Italy's GDP decrease was of 1% when it had a gdp of 2.313 trillion that it should go down by 300 billion (1% of 2.313 trillion is 23.13 billion), so the current statistics should be more or less at 2.285 trillion, not 2.09! Just reply as soon as possible and tell me what you think!--Theologiae (talk) 10:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go on this: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/it.html. I'm no master economist, but most of these results strike me really odd, and i've seen those of Russia, France and Germany, and all of them are very odd too. Tell me.--Theologiae (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, would you say it's best to keep the CIA 2008 data for now and insert the 2009 data later or next year? Reply--Theologiae (talk) 12:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I'll do is possibly wait a while - most other nations seem to be slow in updating, and since one needs to have most countries updated, I'll wait 'till most of them are, and then update the information--Theologiae (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

I would like to rename my account by usurping the inactive User:Desyman account.--Desyman44 (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]