User talk:70.81.117.175

Hello, I'm [[User:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}]]. An edit that you recently made seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on [[User talk:{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}|my talk page]]. Thanks! --Vizcarra 19:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

• The use of a username of your choice
• The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link
• Your own user page
• Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address
• The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you
• The ability to rename pages
• The ability to upload images
• The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website
• The eligibility to become an administrator
• The right to be heard in votes and elections
• Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia as a Wikipedian! --Ryan Delaney ^talk 17:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Extremes on Earth

Where did you find the -70 C for Resolute? Environment Canada at Resolute shows the minimum is -52.2 on 07 January 1966. Just a thought but did you use the wind chill temperature?

Also at the above address the daily average temperature is shown as -16.4 C and not -23.0 C. Can you provide your sources for these changes? CambridgeBayWeather 15:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The lowest temperature in Resolute I saw on a TV show where these British guys walk to the North Pole and they start in Resolute. When they woke up the next day it said, Resolute, -70.0C. And they did not include windchill because they said that.

The daily average I go from the Scholastic Book of World Records. They had a category for the coldest inhabited place on earth and No.1 was Resolute and it says -22.8 C.

I would not use the "British guys walk to the North Pole" as a source for minimum as it's hearsay. If you look at the Envionment Canada records for that day for Resolute it shows temperatures in the -32 C range too far off the -70 to be usable. These are the offical records and would be the one that counts and used.

The -22.8/-16.4 may come about due to the way the mean is calculated. Environment Canada shows records that go back to January 1953 for Resolute. However, they calculate the mean based on the maximum temperature plus the minimum temperature devided by two. Also they may only use data from 1971-2000. The Scolastic book may use a different method to obtain the average. So I won't change that back as both could well be valid.

However, I notice that you also changed the Snag entry from -63 to -70 while the US National Climatic Data Center shows -63. Do you have a source for that? CambridgeBayWeather 22:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well about the thing on TV maybe the people didn't even realize that it was the coldest. And plus that website says only from 1971-2000 and -70 happened in 2004. Any excuse for that? And also I read the -70 thing in the World Records Book.

The maximums and minimums are for a not just for 1971-2004. The extreme minimum for Resuolute is in January. it was -52.2 on 07th January 1966. The 1971-2000 is what they use for the means. If you go here Resolute daily temperatures and use the drop down box to get Resolute and then set it for 03rd January 2004 you can see the all 24 hourly temperatures. The coldest is -32.9 C which is nowhere close to -70 c so it's not even possible that an error could have been made. If you check several days before and after the temperatures are consistant and remain well above -70. Also if you go here Top Weather stories 2004] you can see that Resolute is not even mentioned. Check item #6. It's extremly unlikly that Environment Canada is going to something like that. CambridgeBayWeather 01:29, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Look, Resolute is just some small little town in the middle of nowhere and it is in the freaking arctic and you still don't believe it. It is one of the most northernmost places on earth. I know what I saw. It said -70°C. My dad even remembers. Or maybe I should be more specific. It was just north of Resolute. It was close to Resolute but not in Resolute.

You can't use an unconfirmed source such as TV. They may well have reported a -70 for just outside of Resolute but TV is way too unreliable as a source. These sort of show wills distort and exaggerate the truth for dramatics. Also I know where Resolute is as I live in Cambridge Bay (also in the Arctic) which is just south of it. I've lived the last 30 years in the Canadian Artic and work in the weather rporting and reccording business. Cheers CambridgeBayWeather

Toronto

When you add statistics could you make sure that you provide a valid source. We generally rely on numbers from the census, and one needs good reason to alter these figures. Statistics like GDP are highly variable depending on how they are measured, and more information is needed for such claims. Unsourced figures will be quite quickly removed. - SimonP 00:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Source for statistics

Please cite sources and give reasons for the changes on the talk page when adding changes to articles. I perfectly understand your good intentions, but your edits could be marked as sneaky vandalism if you don't cite sources. — Stevey7788 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Block

Look, I told you my dad works for GaWC and he told me Toronto is an Alpha city. Look at the size of it's economy! $360 billion!

I will attempt to find an admin to block you. You're edits to Toronto, Global city and related are vandalism. Marskell 12:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

You're repeated moving of Toronto up the list without a source constitutes vandalism. I don't care if your dad is Paul Martin. I have requested a block against you. Marskell 12:51, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia. Your insertion of incorrect figures into Winnipeg, Manitoba, Manitoba, Canada, List of sovereign states and other territories by population, List of countries by highest point, and other articles may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. —Michael Z. 2005-10-19 21:52 Z

Again, please stop adding nonsense to the Toronto article - 7 million inhabitants and exactly equal (to the person)white and visible minority shares of the population? You really need to be blocked permanently! --216.90.243.3 15:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I read the fact about Winni-freaking-peg on Stats Canada. Even search up Icelandic-Canadian and it says that Canada has the most Icelanders outside of Iceland. Its a fact! As for Canada's population I took its current population, searched up the growth rate and thats what I got. Back to the Icelandic-Canadian thing, The Prairies of Canada has so much Scnadinavian blood! The Maritimes has Irish and Scottish blood, Quebec has French blood, Ontario has most of the German blood, The Prairies has all the Scnadinavian blood and the West has all the Ukrainian blood!

Citing your sources

You've added some very interesting statistics to the articles on hair colors. However, especially for that type of information, we need to have sources cited. If you could just say where you got your information, and include a link or something in the article, that would clear up all this trouble with reverts and so on. Thanks. -Branddobbe 18:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Manitoba

It's hard to believe that you're subtle changes to the demographic numbers in the Manitoba article are in good faith. Please do not make changes to demographic numbers unless you can also provide a reliable source for them. Tnikkel 20:35, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not vandilizing anything! It's all true! It said Manitoba has 35% of all Icelandic-Canadians. Canada has 265,000 Icelandic-Canadians. And then I added up all of the other Scandinavian blood. I got it all from Statistics Canada. If you type into Google, Icelanders in Canada there will be an article that will say that Canada has more Icelanders(total number) than Iceland. - 70.81.117.175

You have provided no source that shows that there are 265,000 Icelandic Canadians, and by StatsCan numbers there are closer to 75,000. Please try to provide real sources, not things like "I read on a webpage" or "If you check with google", no one can check that. Tnikkel 00:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I put a link to the page from the page "Icelandic-Canadians". Oh, wait, you've probably deleted it already! - 70.81.117.175

I assume you mean this page. And I'm guessing you are refering to this sentence from the page: "Walter Sopher, membership secretary for Edmonton, jokes that more people of Icelandic descent likely live in Canada than on the tiny North Atlantic island, which has a population of about 265,000." You are misinterpreting that sentence. The sentence says that it is a joke that more Icelanders live in Canada then in Iceland, ie that it's not true. And the 265,000 figure refers to the population of Iceland, not of Icelanders living in Canada. Tnikkel 22:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

i KNOW THE 265,000 STATEMENT IS THE POPULATION OF ICELAND. BUT WHY MAKE A STATEMENT THAT ISN'T TRUE?

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. —Michael Z. 2005-11-6 21:29 Z

Blocked

Your IP address 70.81.117.175 has been blocked for three hours because of alteration of statistics to unverifiable values, contradicting cited sources—after repeated warnings. Specific incidents include "Montreal", "Ukrainians", and "Ukrainian Canadian, where numbers were altered to arbitrary values ignoring the references present in the articles". —Michael Z. 2005-12-10 16:33 Z

I also found misleading statistics entered in this user's edit of "Thunder Bay" on November 26. —Michael Z. 2005-12-10 16:58 Z

Response to your email

On Dec 10, 2005, at 18:49, you wrote:

"My info about Ukrainians is not Canadians with full Ukrainian blood, it's Canadians with just a touch of Ukrainian blood and full Ukrainain blood."

Your info does not meet Wikipedia standards for citing source. If you don't cite a source, then for all anyone knows, you just made the numbers up. Furthermore, when you changed the figures but left in the citation of Statistics Canada's authority, you turned the article into a falsehood.

You've been warned about this repeatedly, and if you continue changing statistics without citations you may be blocked from editing indefinitely.

Response: I do have a source! When I get the chance, i'll do everything again and i'll put a source

"Montreal - Montreal being 86.8% Caucasian is rediculous!"

Statistics Canada currently says 85.4% white. I'll update the page when I have a chance. —Michael Z. 2005-12-10 22:09 Z

Still Montreal being 85.4% White is rediculous! I live hear and it is definetly lower than 85.4% White. I would say at least 65% White. I got that from the same website to!

Sources

Today, you posted figures to Red hair and, once again, did not bother to cite your sources. You have obviously been warned over and over and over again that you have to cite your sources. You've already been blocked at least once for doing this. You can't just cite them once someone complains to you. Are you having a problem understanding this? Is there something we can do to clear up your misunderstandings? Or are you simply deliberately attempting to vandalise articles?

If there's something we can do to help you understand, please let us know. Otherwise, please stop doing this right now. --Yamla 17:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Bogus calculations

You cannot add Statistics Canada's demographics figures, because they allow multiple responses. In fact you shouldn't do any calculations for such stats, or rename the categories, but merely present the original; this is original research, which is not allowed.

E.g., English, Irish, Scottish, and Welsh figures cannot be added up to give a figure for "British Isles". Someone who responded Irish may also have responded English on the census, so if you would be counting that person's response twice if you added the two categories together. —Michael Z. 2005-12-11 17:44 Z

Blocked 24 hours

Your IP address 70.81.117.175 has been blocked for twenty-four hours for entering statistics with unverifiable values, contradicting cited sources—after repeated warnings. The specific incident was in "Saskatchewan". —Michael Z. 2005-12-11 17:50 Z

Here is a relevant quotation from Wikipedia:Vandalism. —Michael Z. 2005-12-11 17:56 Z

Sneaky vandalism

Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos.

It isn't bullshit!

Blocked 48 hours

Blocked 48 hours for continuing sneaky vandalism. Examples:

• Black Canadian
• Black (people)
• Toronto

—Michael Z. 2005-12-22 16:39 Z

It is true there are 38.4 million black americans!!! see Demographics of the United States!!

Rugby

The reason for removing your changes from the Canadian rugby team page is that you did not provide any source to back it up. The USA team rugby page has the exact opposite of what you put (despite your edits otherwise). If your edits are correct then you need to provide a source for them. Tnikkel 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours again

For entering false statistics and uncited information in Manitoba, after many warnings and several previous blocks

1. Manitoba: entering statistics differing from those at the cited source (diff)
2. Manitoba: unsourced information, likely false (diff)
3. Canada: entering statistics differing from those at the cited source (diff)
4. Canada: false statistic (diff)
5. Saskatchewan: unsourced statistics, likely false (diff)
6. Forrest Gainer: false statistic without source (diff)
7. Norwegian-Canadian: false data ([1])

—Michael Z. 2006-01-4 17:41 Z

What did i do wrong??? i provided a source!!! what did i do wrong?! So why on the Icelandic page does it say (in some parts of Canada (Manitoba)??? For the Racial Profile, i provided a source from Statistics Canada! For the "Scandinavian" thingy, there is a lot of people in Canada of Scandianvian descent!!! take Norwegian, Swedish, Icelandic, Finnish, and Danish and add it all up! The result shouldn't be approximately 1,040,000 people! that's more than the Dutch!

Also rolled back, because these edits are suspect. Most of these are modifications of existing "racial profiles" which are obviously distorted data, and may not constitute new entries of false data: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14], graffito: [15]. —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 18:29 Z

As you've been told before, you can't add the Statistics Canada figures together, because they represent multiple responses. Doing so counts people multiple times, completely distorting the statistics. Your made-up figures for "White" people are false, and you know it. This constitutes repeated sneaky vandalism, after previous warnings and blocks. You've wasted too much of other people's time cleaning up after you. —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 18:07 Z

You don't even know if it is false yourself!!! And it is not made-up! i didn't just type any numbers! that is made-up! what i did is i added everything up and i provided a source!!! Maybe i made a couple of mis-calculations, but it doesn't mean i am vandilising this crummy site!

These were all certainly false. There is no published statistic which includes the proportion of "White" people for Canada, and no published statistic from which this figure can be derived. —Michael Z. 2006-01-4 18:38 Z

Your the one who's doing the vandalism here! When i say Asian, i mean, Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean, etc. When i saw Indian i mean East Indian, West Indian, West Asian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Bangladeshi, Afghan.

---