Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 59.154.24.147 (talk) at 16:48, 7 January 2008 (→PISA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Delisting Lithuania and Argentina as GA

Hi, i just wanted to let you know that you should have asked for a GA reassessment before delisting Argentina and Lithuania. This process allows other people to give their opinions and it gives the article's editors some time to fix the article before being delisted. In both Lithuania's talk page and Argentina's talk page people have asked for your reasons and you haven't responded. I have raised this issue at the Good Article's talk page.--Yamanbaiia 17:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Macau

• Thanks for the comment. I've been trying to add references to and check the factual accuracies of the article, section by section. I'm glad that I might be of help. But I'm kinda new to wikipedia and what is MoS? As soon as I know what that is, I'll make sure all the citations conform to it. Trimming the article is not easy though, but I'll try. Thanks for your contributions too. Josuechan (talk) 03:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Ok, I read the MoS for citation. I guess I'll just use the templates provided and everything would be fine. It also seems that size is not a big issue; Hong Kong is more than 90K long but is also a featured article. Josuechan (talk) 08:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article is now 51K and I've edited all sections except Healthcare and Culture. I'll work on them tomorrow (actually later today) and I expect some further reduction in length. Since we've omitted some portions of the article, the layout needs to be redone. Josuechan (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I've edited the whole article. It should be free of grammatical errors and spelling inconsistencies. Referencing looks satisfactory to me too. Maybe we can sit on it for a day or two and it'll be ready for nomination. Thank you for your great contributions to the article, and also the little shiny thing. I wish there will be more good and featured Macau-related articles in the near future. Josuechan (talk) 07:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

PISA

what you have done by listing the US on he PISA page is show your own arrogance. i want you to realise that the US is no more special than the UK or indonesia, except to nationalistic americans and even though these may make up the majority of veiwers, though i doubt it, it does not mean that the US should be listed. as far as i understand wikipedia is completely neutral and so any arguement that americans should see how badly they have done has no merit because people of other nationalities may want to too. i have offered you alternatives but you seem either too lazy or too far up yourself to change anything so i will continue to make sure that your arrogance is not published in the neutral medium of wikipedia. 59.154.24.147 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to do with arrogance. I am neither pro nor anti-American. Personally I do think that it is quite fair to add the information of American performance on the table so that more readers from the US can get the benefit. To put the US on the table doesn't mean it is not netural anymore. I don't understand your logic. For me, I think that it provides more information to the readers. Period! Coloane (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying that. but then what is your reason for deleting the information on the UK or Inodnesia. and you must see that by including this information it makes the article npov because it implies hat americans have a greater need to see their information than other countries on the list59.154.24.147 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

you can simply add all countries on that table if you want. I don't have time to build this because of Macau project. You go ahead. Coloane (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

you seem to have the time to continually undo my changes. and no i dont think it is nesecary to have all the countries listed, it is you who wants more information on the page so either do it properly or leave it, otherwise it npov. 59.154.24.147 (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

seems you are contradicted yourself. If you already removed the US on that table, and this time why do you think it is NPOV again? Coloane (talk) 17:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

the tag points out there is a dispute over if it npov or not so i am going to leave it until other people have a say. even if you think it is contradiction you should keep it when you make your changes. and please tell me why you deleted the information about the UK and Indonesia, i did it so that more readers from the UK and Indonesia can get the benefit, or do you find that reasoning flawed? 59.154.24.147 (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It is reported from PISA itself. It is not an original research. You can simply add your opinion below, and it is not NPOV. Coloane (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

i know it is true, so was the information about the UK and indonesia but you still didnt think they should be there, please explain why. to make special mention of a country when they have done nothing to deserve it is to show a partisan point of veiw, to delete other countries who are in the same place is especially biased. please accept that although what you have done may not be because of your point of veiw it can be seen as others as being point of view and therfore it has no place on wikipedia. and leave the tag so that other people can see that there is a debate on the section, if you can find a better tag then put it there, just make sure there is some kind of pointer to the debate 59.154.24.147 (talk) 05:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

it seems whatever I say is wasting my time. It is not my opinion, it is not your opinion, it is not from other opinion, it is the opinion from PISA itself. TThat page is only talking about the PISA report, nothing related to personal opinion or view (POV). You get it? just as simple as ABC!!! Coloane (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

i know that it is correct information that in itself is not POV the sublty you fail to see is that by including this information in that place it suggests that infromation about the us is more important than other countries, this is what is POV. your rejection of the information about the UK and Indonesia, which is also correct, goes even further to show that you feel the us is more important than other countries. if yyou dont understand this by now i dont feel you should be allowed to edit wikipedia. i also want to point out that the consensus on the discussion page is that the infromation is misplaced 59.154.24.147 (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

OK! let's add the info of the UK and Indonesia and I am not going to revert what you did. Coloane (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

you know that is not the point, i put them there only to show you just how flawed your reasoning is, the list shhould contain only the countries who are listed it should not contain any random add ons because any of these suggest that these countries are more important than others. just have the top 10 or 20 or the whole list but dont make special mention of any countries, this way no one can be offended. 59.154.24.147 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Again! I don't care what you showed me. The main point from that article is showing what PISA is. The table over there is just showing example only. Over there it already stated that top 10 countries were being listed. If you feel interested in looking at the whole list, you can simply click on the external links for more detail. Same case as "foreign reserve", few countries were listed over there to make sure the article is not over-informed. Coloane (talk) 16:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

im glad you finally understand. only problem is that by adding the us to the list you are contradicting yourself and making the article messy, overinformed and opening the posibility of being npov. im happy that you have decided that i am right and that the us should not be part of the list 59.154.24.147 (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)