User talk:Eliko

Archive 1 Archive 2

Barnstar

 * If you're Korean - please tell me how you say "thanks" in Korean. Please write it in both english letters and korean letters.
 * Thanks.
 * Eliko 08:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

고마워 Go Mar Wo --Seong0980 14:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm grateful !!!   고마워
 * Eliko 16:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Maltese lira
If you think that the Trade weighted index is not the same thing as the effective exchange rate, then you should re-edit the very article Trade weighted index. Meanwhile, this article indicates that Trade weighted index is the same thing as the effective exchange rate. Eliko (talk) 08:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think the Maltese central bank targeted some trade weighted basket of currencies, then you clearly do not understand how the ERM II works or what "central parity rate" or "15% band" mean. "Effective" there meant there was a notional floating rate, but the effect was that the LM/euro rate  was virtually constant apart from bank commissions.  The Maltese Lira's trade weighted index moved around in that period because Malta trades with non-Euro countries too, and so in the context the article clearly did not mean what you twice edited it to appear to say.--81.129.142.136 (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Contrary to what you thought about me, I've never thought that "Maltese central bank targeted some trade weighted basket of currencies"; I just thought that "Maltese central bank targeted some trade weighted basket of currencies, provided that the section refers to the effective exchange rate". Got it? "Provided that...".
 * Note that the phrase "effective exchange rate" means: "exchange rate based on a basket of currencies" (It does not mean "in effect...").
 * Note that I'm not the editor who has added the word "effective" to the article. I've added the link only.
 * Of course, I quite agree with your new edit, which cancels the misleading phrase "effective exchnage rate".
 * By the way, Do you speak Maltese? If you do, I may need your help.
 * Have a nice day.
 * Eliko (talk) 08:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

hi
Ok, Thanks. Sorry, I thought the archive was part of the talk page! anyway, I thought the HDI list is every year, I wonder what's gone wrong this year.

Bye

☆ Muzammil, مزمل ☆ (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing has gone wrong! It has been planned in advance - last year -  to publish the next HDI report two years later! Note that the last HDI report - published in 2007 - was called "2007-2008" report, i.e. it's also for 2008! That's why no new report has had to be published in 2008. Bye. Eliko (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeh, I realized that too, normally it's every year. But I guess the next one may be more accurate and advanced.


 * ☆ Muzammil, مزمل ☆ (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's wait and see. Eliko (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoopoe in Yaghnobi
Hello, Hoopoe in Yaghnobi is nišōnasárak (a loan from Tajik) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lubossekk (talk • contribs) 00:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Note on your sourcing work
I've commented on your use of one particular source here. Please respond.  Night w   15:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you like to quote from the source for proving your claim? Anyways, notice that the UNAIDS list (p.28-29), does not list the Programme Coordinating Board, because the PCB comprises 22 representatives only (that are elected from among the Member States of the Consponsoring Organisations). See ibid. p. 18. Eliko (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal
Please note that I have removed your reference to Goliath from the article on polyspermy. The Talmud antedates cell theory. It antedates Leeuwenhoek. By no means was "He had a hundred fathers" a reference to spermatozoa. DS (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that you were completely wrong. Can you you read what the Talmud states? I've provided the link of the full text of the original source. It really doesn't mention the term "cell" - but rather the term: "sperm/semen" only, however, the Talmud does discuss poly-spermy (poly + spermy, i.e. "multy-sperm"), and it even states clearly that a woman can get pregnant by sperm/semen of two men - at once - on some rare biological conditions (indicated ibid.), and it also states that those conditions enabled Goliath to have one hundred fathers! Anyway, note that the section about the Talmud was under the title "mythology", so I really don't know what's wrong with that. Next time, consult before you remove. Eliko (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked through the page in Yevamot (24b) but couldn't find any reference to Goliath or 100 fathers. That particular page of Yevamot has to do with sex and marriage with the wrong person. Can you perhaps provide the specific phrase or an updated reference? Basket of Puppies  02:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Before you revert the stable version - please discuss this first on the talk page. As for your question:
 * Look at the beginning of the third line. The Talmud quotes the verse from 1 Samuel 17, 4, which goes as follows: "And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines", right? Now, look at your Bible - ibid., and see the full verse: "And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath...". Right?
 * So, the Talmud quotes the verse about Goliath, and then: interprates this verse - using a pun - in the following way (see the Talmud ibid. in that third line): "One hundred foreskins of Philistines - got her [i.e. his mother] pregnant". In other words: the Talmud explains, that the biblical words "And there went out a champion" - mean: "And there was created/born a champion", and it also explains that the biblical words: "out of the camp of the Philistines", mean: "out of a hundred foreskins of Philistines". Note that this fantastic interpretaion made by the Talmud - is based on a pun: the word for "camp" is similar to (i.e. sounds like) "a hundred foreskins" (not in English of course). Note also that fantastic interpretaions for the Bible - are very common in the Talmud.
 * Now, look ibid. at the next line (i.e. the fourth line); The Talmud now explains how - having so many fathers - is really possible from a biological point of view, so the Talmud continues: "Rav Matania said: no controversy over that; as long as the sperm [of the first man] hasn't gotten rotten [in the woman's body] yet, a woman can get pregnant by two men - all at once".
 * Notice that all of the Talmud's commentators explain all of this - as I did.
 * Hope this helps. Anyway, next time, please consult pefore you revert the stable version.
 * Eliko (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The version that you are attempting to revert to is unstable. Your Talmudic source might be correct but it does not have any relevance to the article. You are attempting to edit against consensus. If you continue to revert then I will report you for WP:3RR and edit-warring. Thank you. Basket of Puppies  15:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You've made three mistakes:


 * Is the version I'd reverted to - unstable? On the contrary: the version that you were attempting to revert to - is unstable, because the chapter you'd removed, was added three years ago (on 5 May 2008), and lasted until 14 March 2011, i.e. until the day before yestreday, whereas the version you were attempting to revert to - lasted for less than 40 hours only - that were uncontinuous and broken, so which version is more stable?
 * Returning the chapter you'd removed - is not against the consensus at all. The chapter is supported by User:(MOB)DeadMeat, and is also supported by User:Chrishatch1973, and is also supported by User:Eliko; whereas the removal of the chapter is supported by User:Basket of Puppies only. Really, it was also supported (in the past) by User:DragonflySixtyseven, however their reason for the removal - was refuted on their talk page (and on the article talk page as well), and they didn't respond to the refutation. According to the law: Silence gives consent, the very fact that User:DragonflySixtyseven didn't respond to the refutation - shows that User:DragonflySixtyseven does not reject the explanation given on their talk page (and on the article talk page as well) for returning the chapter. To sum up, three editors (User:(MOB)DeadMeat, User:Chrishatch1973 and User:Eliko) support the chapter, and one single user (User:Basket of Puppies) rejects it, so which option is more consensual? Returning the chapter, or removing it?
 * The chapter you removed is relevant, as I'd explained on the article talk page - before you removed the chapter. If you think the chapter is irrelevant - despite my explanation (on the article talk page) why it's relevant, then please discuss that on the article talk page.


 * Note that when you responded to me on my talk page - each one of us had made one revert only - during 2011, so: considering that the single revert I've made during 2011 - was sufficient for you to warn me of your reporting me for WP:3RR and edit-warring - if I "continue to revert", also your single revert you've made during 2011 - should be sufficient for me to warn you of my reporting you for WP:3RR and edit-warring - if you "continue to revert".
 * If you continue to both - remove a consensual chapter - and replace it by an unstable version which is against the consensus, then I will report you for violating Wikipedia policy, that requires - to discuss everything on the article talk page - before removing a consensual chapter and before replacing it by an unstable version which is against the consensus.
 * Anyways: due to your claim about irrelevance, I will add to the (stable consensual) chapter - some clarification, to make sure that every reader (including User:Basket of Puppies) understands its relevance.
 * Eliko (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:TLDR. Basket of Puppies  23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you don't read what you're told then don't wonder about the results. Eliko (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (Incidentally, I don't agree with you. I've been busy, that's all. DS (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say you agreed with me. I just said you hadn't rejected the explanation I gave on your talk page, because you hadn't responded to it. Anyways, I didn't add you to the list of the three users supporting the chapter. Additionally, I'm just improving previous versions - according to comments of others, and I never revert to a previous version. Eliko (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

To the degree that there's substantive disagreement about the content of the article, I think it would be best to keep the discussion on Talk:Polyspermy. There are still a lot of accusations about behavior flying around, though -- and in my opinion, it would be to everyone's advantage to tone that down and keep the focus on improving the article. In the long run, it's not terribly important what version of the article was stable for how long -- the important thing is to make the article better, in line with content guidelines, etc. -Pete (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, this is exactly what I was doing: I'm the only user who has really been discussing that on the article talk page! Further, I'm the only user who has been trying to "make the article better" (as you've just suggested), not by reverting anything to a previous version, but rather by improving (again and again) the chapter that was wrongfully removed by others. Eliko (talk) 17:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have been explicit -- my message was really intended for everyone involved in this discussion. I agree that your message on Talk:Polyspermy was a good thing, and think others would do well to engage with you there. I'm sorry to see how much personal antagonism there is here on your talk page, and hope that will subside. -Pete (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your important comment. Could you please copy it to the article talk page? Eliko (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So? Eliko (talk) 10:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted the comment here, specifically because it was the sort of discussion occurring here that concerned me. I am much more hopeful about the way you all are approaching it at Talk:Polyspermy, and don't think there's any need for me to weigh in there. If you all keep the focus on making the best decision about the content, and refrain from overly criticizing one another's behavior, I think you'll all be in good shape. I believe all of you are proceeding in good faith and trying to improve the encyclopedia. -Pete (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You suggest: "refrain[ing] from overly criticizing one another's behavior". So, without criticizing any specific user's behavior, I'd say (as a principle) that: reverting to a precious version by removing a whole chapter from the article - withoug trying to improve the chapter - does not comply with your suggestion of "trying to improve the encyclopedia". That's why I wanted you to copy your response to the article talk page. Note that I have never removed anything, nor have I revertd to any previous version, but rather I have tried to improve a chapter that was wrongfully removed. Eliko (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)