User talk:Qplb191

Hello, I'm JPxG. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to List of tallest buildings in Israel—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. jp×g 22:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

. Qplb191 (talk) 23:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the information was correct but I could not put the links correctly can you please put them?

Qplb191 (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please fix it? Qplb191 (talk) 23:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information was correct but I couldn’t put the links for the sources there can you please put it ? Qplb191 (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What were you trying to do? It isn't clear from the edit history. jp×g 00:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding two towers that got built . Can you please just put the links for the scores for the two towers? https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/building/hi-tower/39972 And https://www.emporis.com/buildings/1291392/7-stars-tower-bnei-brak-israel Qplb191 (talk) 00:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

? Qplb191 (talk) 10:09, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing

So can you please just add the link for the source? Qplb191 (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. Qplb191 (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to List of tallest buildings in Israel, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Uricdivine (talk) 10:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But there is wrong information, for example two time buildings ranked 19,20 . And in all the Wikipedia pages the height is after the name of the city and not in the end. What wrong with what I have done? Qplb191 (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please return my edit? I literally gave scores for everything! Qplb191 (talk) 11:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming the page (or talk pages of individual editors) with requests that material be updated. If someone thinks that's a good idea, then it will be done, if no-one is answering you, it probably means editors don't think it is necessary. I suggest concentrating on getting yourself qualified to edit the page yourself by making useful edits elsewhere. Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is you second revert of the same or similar material on a page within 24 hours, which breaches the

No problem, but it's been 24 hours since the last edit. Regarding the content, I explained and gave a source for my claim. Qplb191 (talk) 10:36, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my bad I thought the last edit I made was more than 24 hours ago (I made the first edit on 30th December and the last on 31st December) Qplb191 (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But I also gave a reliable source that prove that the edit is correct. Qplb191 (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I am sorry , I made self revert. Qplb191 (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am trying to make improvements to the Belarus article but you keep reverting without coherent arguments, often without any reason at all. For example, you keep repeating that no international body classes Belarus as developed when your own reference to the UN Human Development index literally describes Belarus as "very highly developed". It's also clear that developed status is arguable, as laid out in the relevant Wikipedia article, "Developing Country", but you keep insisting that this is not the case. In addition, your edits are quite clumsy, if I may say. Your most recent edits have cut and pasted text without tidying up the new version in place. For example, one line reads: "Belarus is a developing country , although its ranking of 60th in the Human Development Index ." (ibid). This sentence does not make sense and has erroneous gaps between end of text and punctuation. I also provided a rationale for altering the order of the lead paragraphs; to place contemporaneous information before historical in order to improve the flow. You have reverted this with no reason given. Finally, I feel that you are not assuming good faith on my part.

Could I ask you to reflect on all of this before automatically reverting my good faith edits in future?

All the best, and fraternally, Emmentalist (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@

Iskandar323 (talk) 10:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks, @

Iskandar323. I read this as supporting my position that a general descriptor of "developing" in the introduction of this article should be preceded with "arguably". All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 10:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Iskandar323 (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The UN HDI, referred to in the article lead, doesn't. It's a contested term. Perhaps it would be best to say that the term is a contested one? Emmentalist (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I couldn't follow this - what doesn't what? And what's a contested term?

Iskandar323 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It refers to the fact that the meaning of "developing country" is not a matter of general agreement. The United Nations Human Development Index (UN HDI) is referred to in the lead of this article but that organisation classes Belarus as "very highly developed". That is why I edited the article in the first place. The article referred to Belarus as a developing country and cited its ranking 60 in the UN HDI. In fact the top 66 countries in that index are classed in the highest category of development. Moreover, the Wikipedia article I cite above here specifically cites a low classification in that index as an indicator of a developing country whereas Belarus, as I say, has a high one. I suggest that the most workable solution is to follow the lines you suggest with something like " some orgs say Belarus is a developign country, others say it is highly developed". It would be better if this discussion was at the artile talk page, though, so I'll refer to this discussion there. All the best, Emmentalist (talk) 09:21, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at Talk:Philippines § Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2023 that nvolves one of your edits. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you used any other account on Wikipedia, specifically Fun71528, formerly Tamar274? nableezy - 15:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please answer this question? nableezy - 23:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont answer the question and keep making the same edits and editing style as those users I'll be forced to raise the issue at

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at

@

Iskandar323 (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

All the sources are at

Triggerhippie4 (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

As talked about at Talk:Israel#‎rankings in the lead....best not to have random stats in the lead of country articles...but blanking info is not all that helpfull to most...as per this suggestion we should move info to the body and summarize in the lead as done here Moxy- 23:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only GDP ,GDP per capita and HDI should be indicated in the lead. Most of the other ratings are from unauthorized places and are sometimes inaccurate.Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries#Lead section

Can we agree that only GDP data and HDI need to be mentioned in any country’s lead and not some random ranking …? Qplb191 (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok you got to be careful not to enter the realm of

WP:SYNC inmind when doing so. Moxy- 00:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I find many of your edits disruptive, Qplb, you make claims of policy and consensus and then your links to such claims lead to nothing of the sort. You are removing basic facts such as Sweden being a highly developed country, and mixing up prosperity with human development on

WP:BRD approach. TylerBurden (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

see the talk page on :Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries

it was clearly said that using the term “highly” is violation of

MOS:EDITORIAL also it was also agreed not to use all kinds of different sources of meaningless ratings such as "prosperity" in the lead. Qplb191 (talk) 01:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I see you calling it ”problematic” and several editors disagreeing with you, which I do too. It's ridiculous to claim that is consensus. There is no reason at all to censor that Sweden, or other countries, are highly developed. It's not editorial when reliable references support it. TylerBurden (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

“I said "highly developed" is editorialization, which is a pejorative in Wikipedia terms, see

MOS:EDITORIAL” literally it has been said by other editor . You can clearly see that the term “highly” in countries’s lead is violation and also very problematic as well…. Qplb191 (talk) 01:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

No, I don't think you make any sense at all, and I think you are delusional about consensus on this topic. Discuss on the article talk page if you feel so strongly about it, that would be much better than making nonsense claims about consensus. TylerBurden (talk) 02:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand you are disagreeing with that.

MOS:EDITORIAL

said to not use that kind of term but i do think it useless to argue about that..

anyways sorry if you misunderstood me. Qplb191 (talk) 02:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how I interpret it, that seems to more be about words such as "interestingly", "clearly", "notably" etc. Saying that a country that ranks highly in international ratings is a highly developed country is more just stating fact than being impartial. There is obviously a point where it becomes fluff, but I don't think the content you removed fit that bill given how established it is within reliable references. At the end of the day the MOS is a guideline, not a rule, so one does not need to always follow it down to the letter based on how one interprets it. I think with these situations, consensus on individual articles is the best approach. Cheers. TylerBurden (talk) 02:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. So we are at the point that your unwillingness to accept the previous talks and unwillingness to start a new discussion as has been recommended is now getting disruptive. You seem to still have an understanding problem about what consensus is and ability to have a discussion despite being reverted on the same page multiple times by multiple editors. If you're unwilling to hear others and subsequently engage with the community perhaps you shouldn't be part of the community! Moxy- 02:44, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

My bad I will start discussion on talk page , I only thought that it was made clear sources from websites like visual capitalst or neumbo are not accurate and strong enough to be used as a source and indeed their ratings are often inaccurate and do not match with rating of professional official bodies , I will open a discussion on this topic please accept my apologies. Qplb191 (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wil ltry to be more clear about

Quality of life index or ranked 8th on the Human Development Index

" that is based on one matrix. it is find to say " highly ranked in international measurements of quality of life" as this statment is based on multiple factors {that should be covred in the body of the article) like indices such as ...

• Best Countries List - U.S. News
• The World’s Best Countries For Quality of Life- CEO World
• Human Development Index - United Nations
• OCED Better Life Index - OCED
• World Happiness Report - United Nations.

and based on more specific academic sources as seen here. Moxy- 13:01, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

us news and CEO worldwide are not reliable to be honest ,and as much as I can remember I also think that it was said before to not use them. (How is it possible that China ranked above Singapore or Belgium in quality of life in their ranking?) also additionally, their ratings have no basis... Therefore, I really think the only ratings to consider are the OECD, UN, and IMF (for info on GDP per capita) Qplb191 (talk) 23:31, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful....but do you get the point being made? Moxy- 23:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did.. Qplb191 (talk) 02:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Here I'm attaching you a link to the discussion :). Talk:Israel#Israel only Jewish State in the World + population mentioned in first paragraph

Thanks for your time and effort :).

Homerethegreat (talk) 08:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey reminding you on this :) Homerethegreat (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the partial self rv! Homerethegreat (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I've decided to ask for a third opinion concerning the disagreement over update of List of countries by GDP (PPP) to 2024 IMF data. Wikipedia:Third opinion — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fiszu2001 (talk • contribs) 11:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!@Fiszu2001

Wikipedia does not update the economic data until the April report. The reasons for this are quite clear, the IMF has growth forecasts and economic data by 2029 but the most based data is for the current year.

The April report is compiled after all countries report their growth rates for the past year. In general the figures change very dramatically.

Beyond that, I had the opportunity to look at the growth data of the various countries and I can tell you with certainty that 90% of the countries in the three quarters have very different growth than the forecasts.

(For example, the IMF expected Ireland to grow by more than 2 percent in 2023 while Ireland’s GDP fell by 6 precent) So, in my opinion, we should wait for the April report.

Have a lovely day!Qplb191 (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changes you made to the article were made without discussion and based solely on personal opinion. For example, as you can see by looking at past versions of the edit history, this has been the case for a long time, so important and controversial changes should not be made without discussion. Minchuchui (talk) 01:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is not based on my opinion , you make the same edits again within 24 hours. That's why I asked for the page to be protected. Qplb191 (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, over the past months and years, Taiwan has been ranked sovereign in this article. The changes you made are outlandish changes made in just the last few weeks, and any changes of this magnitude will "must" go through the discussion page. Minchuchui (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of making the same edit again and again and causing an edit war, please open a discussion on the talk page and then after we reach an agreement make the change, you are the only editor who does this. Qplb191 (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drawing your attention to

I’ve made self revert. Qplb191 (talk) 20:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

got little confused , sorry for that. Qplb191 (talk) 20:56, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to the

contentious

. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have

Ctopics/aware

}} template.

Doug Weller talk 14:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]