User talk:Pyruvate

Here's wishing you a belated

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Again, welcome!

Chaptagai (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chap, thanks for your feedback and idea. However, I believe that it is not content-worthy to simply state the number of troops stationed in Afghanistan at a particular point in the past, especially since many countries have pulled out wholly (such as Canada and France) or partially over the years. Rather, I am open to stating the number of troops at the height of a country's deployment to the country to help reader grasp a sense of the maximum participation/involvement. What do you think?

Pyruvate (talk) 09:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Thanks for responding.

Isn't the last number of troops before the withdrawal decision a relevant number that should be mentioned? Right now, there is no way for the reader to know if those countries that have withdrawn went from say 10 to zero or 10,000 to zero. I think it would make sense to state what the last number of troops in the country was before the withdrawal was ultimately decided by the Biden admin in mid April. We can add the highest number at the height of the deployment as well if you wish.

Cheers,

Chaptagai (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing: Assume we continue with the table as it is right now. Then, after all troops are withdrawn, the table would have a "-" for all nations, which would mean the table would have to be deleted altogether and we'd have no troop numbers at all in the article. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Kind regards,

Chaptagai (talk) 18:22, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I have revised table to include figures for number of troops from each contributing nation prior to withdrawal. Let me know if you have any comments. Thanks!

Pyruvate (talk) 09:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thank you.

Chaptagai (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why has my updates been removed when they are the new updates in 2022 Nlivataye (talk) 07:36, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was stated in the heading column that the data should refer to PEAK level as of 2022, so the PEAK level (usually 2022 but may not be always the case) is the figure that should be used. Pyruvate (talk) 12:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I know you have an interest in the ongoing

Thanks Elijah! but just wondering are there any commitments or obligations if I join? Many thanks! Pyruvate (talk) 07:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No obligations or commitments. All it does is give the potential benefit to know who else is interested into the topic and give other people to which questions can be asked. Think of it like a WikiProject. It basically is like one, just housed under the WikiProject of Current events. In short, it is just a way to get connections with other people with an interest in the outbreak. Like the benefits of joining, you might also be pinged by another member for talk page discussions on the outbreak’s talk page. You can choose to respond or ignore any pings you would get, but this would be rare occasion, and normally, it would be some large discussion about the article (like a format change or a split discussion, etc.) and people on the task force have the general interest in the topic, so it would be more or less curtesy pings for that discussion. I am a member of the WikiProject of Weather, and over the last year, I have only been pinged three times for large discussions, and I only responded in two of the three pings. Hope that clears up some questions you had. If you have any more, feel free to ask!

talk) 08:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh, and by the way, your update for Spain is wrong. Note that BNO News is not keeping up with updates and corrections, and it contains errors. Its data is currently not up to date. MarioGom (talk) 13:46, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You changed the name "Turkey" to "Türkiye" in a recent edit. Although "Türkiye" is now the officially-sanctioned English-language name for Turkey, it is not yet the

Hi there. I have already instantly reverted that change within 4 minutes from that change, thanks anyways Pyruvate (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Sorry to bother you. — The Anome (talk) 11:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

You updated Australi's GDP figures based on the latest IMF projections. However, these are just their forecasts which they usually get wrong. No official data for 2023 has been reported for any country because 2023 has just started. What you need to use is actual data for the last year. If you want to use calendar years this woud be 2021 because data for 2022 is not yet available for all countries. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that you have updated a number of other country pages from the same data source. I assume you are using a spreadsheet and tool and do this regularly. Could we discuss this? I don't think using the IMF projections for a coming year is appropriate as these are not official estimates of GDP, are likely to be heavily revised and the IMF always gets them wrong. Did they predict COVID? The 2007 global financial crisis? Sanctions against Russia? It would be far better to use their estimates for the previous year because then at least that would be working with actual data for most quarters. Happy to discuss. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:18, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your messages. It's all there (i.e. the ranking of the economies in a table compiled by the IMF). I think it's ok to use the data for the year of 2023 as we are currently in the year of 2023 and there is sufficient data to make an accurate projection of this year (just like they are publishing the % change). You can look at the graph in those links below showing that data up to and including 2023 are in solid lines while those after 2023 (i.e. 2024 and onwards are dotted lines). Of course, data for 2023 are subject to changes and revisions in later databases but they do that all the time for recent years (like 2020 to 2022) anyway. So I am very confident that the numbers for 2023 are legitimate and sufficiently accurate for our purposes, thanks! Let me know if you have further comments.

GDP (Nominal): https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPD@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/AFQ

GDP (PPP): https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPGDP@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/AFQ

GDP (Nominal) per capita: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/NGDPDPC@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/AFQ

GDP (PPP) per capita: https://www.imf.org/external/datamapper/PPPPC@WEO/OEMDC/ADVEC/WEOWORLD/AFQ

Pyruvate (talk) 04:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links. As you can see, the figures for 2023 are projections and there are forecasts up to 2028. I assure you there is no official GDP data yet for calendar year 2023. The first quarter of 2023 ends 31 March and data for this quarter won't be out till June in most countries. The IMF is merely forecasting what they think GDP and inflation will be for the year ahead and the IMF has a very poor record in such forecasts. Most of the advanced countries haven't yet got their GDP figures in for calendar year 2022. It would be much safer to use the data for 2022 because at least we have most data in for 2022 for the advanced countries. You should also look at the OECD databases which report actual data based on official return from participating economies. You will see that they indicate that no data for 2023 is available as they are right. In summary, the OECD data is more reliable and should be used in preference to the IMF data. If you must use the IMF data then 2022 data should be used. Let me know what you think. [1] Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 05:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and I have reverted Russia - see talk page of that article Chidgk1 (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree with your stance. We ARE in the year 2023 and therefore the estimates/projections provided for the year of 2023 by the IMF for any country should be legitimate to be stated for the country's. IMF is a renowned international organization and the information published are therefore legitimate to be included in the country's data. For countries that IMF was not confident in making projections, they did not do so, as in the case of Afghanistan / Lebanon / Pakistan / Sri Lanka / Syria / Ukraine / Venezuela. Like I said before, data from previous recent years like 2021 and 2022 are prone to subsequent revisions anyways, so it's not "set in stone". If you are keen to achieve 100% certainty in all figures, then perhaps all population data should only be from official census? That will render the data outdated, so we must strike a balance and I contend that GDP figures as projected by the IMF for the CURRENT YEAR should be used. Pyruvate (talk) 16:03, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. IMF is a reputable organization and will not be making projections if they do not have sufficient information to make such projections (like Afghanistan / Lebanon / Pakistan / Sri Lanka / Syria / Ukraine / Venezuela). I do not see anything wrong with listing the most recent projections for this year's data just like it's always the headline for economists or institutions (such as IMF) to mention GDP growth in percentage this year. I just think that data for past years aren't really the most important anymore. It's like sticking with census data released years ago and refusing to state or consider more recent government estimates. Most importantly, any data (even for figures in 2020... 2021, etc.) are subject to subsequent revisions anyways (even for those by the World Bank publishing previous year's data). OECD's GDP data does not even cover most countries.

Pyruvate (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with listing projections is that they are projections, not real data. It is simply wrong for wikipedia to provide 2023 GDP figures for countries when 2023 has only just started an no official data has been released. At the very least the footnotes should be changed to make it clear that they are IMF forecastes only, and do not represent current reality. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 22:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have added saying that they are Estimates by the IMF for the year of 2023. Pyruvate (talk) 05:53, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am wonder where did you find the data for the long term (2037) nominal GDP in dollar amounts and not ranking. The reference provided provides only the ranking in a chart with all the countries not the actual nominal GDP in one convenient chart, did you retrieve the GDP data from each countries individual profile. I am just wonder because I am trying get all the countries projected figures in one chart for a school project. Thank You Reference: https://cebr.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/WELT-2023.pdf Ebram16 (talk) 20:59, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did retrieve the data from each countries' individual profile. Since I was only doing the top 20 for each projected year, it was not too time consuming. If you wanted to compile data for all countries, maybe copy and paste into a spreadsheet? Although you have to do it like 200 times for each country. Pyruvate (talk) 03:15, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forbes Global 2000, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Shell, Santander and TMSC.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Super Mario Bros. Movie, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]