User talk:Richardson mcphillips

Snakehead (fish)
Thanks for the suggestion. In order to add a note for other uses, place the words "other uses|article name" between double "{" and double "}" brackets. I have done so at snakehead (fish) and you can see the code if you edit the top of the page. μηδείς (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * efkharisto:--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Gmina v. municipality
You wrote at Talk:Gmina and maybe are interested in Talk:Gmina. JelgavaLV (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Monty Hall
Hi there, I've moved your comment to Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments as a more appropriate venue for discussing the problem rather than the article. Please comment there. I've also tried to reply, not sure if it answers your question. SPACKlick (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, please can you tell us there whether this comment was helpful? Would be great. Thank you and kind regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I replied to that effect directly to SPACKlick (if I didn't, I thought I did!)--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Re two different scenarios, one with two possibilities and one with three - you are perfectly correct that these are mixed up (and those who believe in the three possibility approach actually arrive at the correct answer, but by following logic that is at least suspect if not actually incorrect and very difficult for most people to follow [according to a variety of sources]). There were a flurry of comments on the talk page (my guess is this was TL;DR), but can you comment on the following?


 * Many explanations address the scenario with 3 possibilities (if I pick door 1 and switch to whichever door the host doesn't open which might be either door 2 or door 3, then I lose only if the car was behind door 1 to start with - which happens with a 1/3 chance). To get from here to the 2 possibility case (I've picked door 1 and the host has opened door 3, so the car is now absolutely certain to be behind either door 1 or door 2) you need to remember that which door the host opens is not completely random.  If you pick door 1 and the car is behind door 2, the host MUST open door 3 - so the probability the car is behind door 2 remains the same as it started (1/3).  However, if you pick door 1 and the car is behind door 1, the host can open EITHER door 2 or door 3, so the probability the car is behind door 1 gets cut in half which is 1/3 * 1/2 = 1/6.  This means you're twice as likely to win by switching to door 2 than by staying with door 1.


 * At this point it might help to think about what might happen in 300 shows (where you've picked door 1).


 * How many times (out of 300) will the car be behind door 1? _______
 * a) Of these, how many times will the host open door 2? ______
 * b) Also of these, how many times will the host open door 3? ______


 * Similarly, how many times (out of 300) will the car be behind door 2? ______
 * c) Of these, how many times will the host open door 2? ______
 * d) Also of these, how many times will the host open door 3? ______


 * And, just to be complete, how many times (out of 300) will the car be behind door 3? ______
 * e) Of these, how many times will the host open door 2? ______
 * f) Also of these, how many times will the host open door 3? ______


 * These are the only possibilities, so now we can answer some other questions.


 * g) How many times (out of 300) does the host open door 3? ______ (the answer is b+d+f)
 * Of these, how many times is the car behind door 1? ______ (the answer is b)
 * Of these, how many times is the car behind door 2? ______ (the answer is d)
 * (and just to be complete) Of these, how many times is the car behind door 3? ______ (the answer is f)
 * If you've seen the host open door 3, what is the probability the car is behind door 1? ______ (the answer is b/g)
 * If you've seen the host open door 3, what is the probability the car is behind door 2? ______ (the answer is d/g)
 * (and just to be complete) If you've seen the host open door 3, what is the probability the car is behind door 3? ______ (the answer is f/g)


 * Intuitively it makes absolutely no sense that there are only two possibilities for where the car is but the probability for these possibilities are not equal. The bottom line is that by picking a door and seeing which door the host opens you're getting some information about where the car is.  The section of the article that talks about this in more detail is Monty Hall problem.  -- Rick Block (talk) 15:36, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Confusing image in Bonkei article

 * You were right - what was that bonseki image doing in the bonkei article? I have posted a brief answer at Talk:Bonseki and removed the confusing image. Sahara110 (talk) 18:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

blocked
I thought if I logged in I wouldn't have this problem. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No, the autoblock is off, but I wonder about the value of having an account if this happens. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Most tactics to reduce disruptive editing from a specific location target "anonymous" editors, that is, those who edit without creating an account. In some cases, much more rare, blocks and protections can be "hardened" to impact even those who are logged in.  Unfortunately, the system places an "autoblock" for 24ish hours on the underlying IP of an account which is blocked (like Mr. Ebola), and this is effectively a hard block.  If you're using a school or other IP that is heavily shared, this can happen from time to time. Usually these unblocks are resolved very, very quickly; I apologize that you had to wait so long for resolution.  Kuru   (talk)  14:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. No problem, not unduly long, I just didn't realize there was such a ting as a hard block. Again, thanks. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
-- haminoon  ( talk ) 02:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

First, the page you removed my comment from was a talk page, not an article page. Second, the article page is not about transgender issues. To quote the policy you posted, "The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding transgender issues and paraphilia classification (e.g. hebephilia), a topic which you have edited." This is not applicable.Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RE January 6 edits
This does not conform to MOS and is confusing. Please reword or at least explain to me here on this page what you mean by "outside of Canada" in this context. Thanks. Quis separabit? 01:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In Canada Andre Bessette is celebrated not on Jan. 6 but on Jan. 7. I don't mean this to sound the way it does, but why would I have to explain it to you?  or rather, why would you delete it without first asking me this question on the talk page?  If I worded it poorly, surely asking what I meant first would be more efficient. Also, the MOS is quite large.  Which part is this not MOS?  thanks. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Poles in Siberia
You asked in 2014. The number of Poles (some of them were free) was probably lower than 1.5 million. Some of them Russified, some emigrated, some returned, some died. pl:Polacy w Rosji shows numbers of Poles. pl:Wierszyna was Polish. Xx236 (talk) 12:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to December 3, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 12:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks for the clarification. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Taktser Rinpoche
Hi! Related to Talk:Taktser Rinpoche, see this merger proposal. --Tiger Chair (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Porziuncola
I note that there has been conversations going back to 2012 regarding the article title. It appears to have been originally created in May 2006 by User:Fastifex as "Portiuncula"; and changed later that month by User:JoJan to "Porziuncula" as the more common name. But I wonder if, in fact, that is the case --at least in English-speaking countries. (Note the Friars in Manhattan, and the Irish Franciscans -I have posted links at Talk:Porziuncola) (I don't trust Google hits, as I think many take their information from Wikipedia.) Of particular interest is the fact that the General Curia of the Capuchins (Rome) and that of the Friars Minor (Rome) both use Portiuncula. Thoughts? Mannanan51 (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen both spellings in books in the English language. One of these books even mentions two different spellings: Porziuncola and Portiuncola on the same page. Some other languages seem to prefer Portiuncula, while in the Italian wikipedia the spelling is Porziuncola. Looking for primary sources, a search in JSTOR gives 442 hits for Porziuncola with text in English, Italian, German.... A  search for Portiuncula only shows 3 results with texts in Italian and English.  A search for Portiuncola only gives two results only relating to the journal "Franciscan Studies". A search for Porzioncula gives only 1 result.. As you can see, this search hasn't been done in Google, but in JSTOR, a respectable database of journals, primary sources, and books. From all this, I may conclude that the spelling Porziuncola (as the original Italian name) is the more common name, also in English. JoJan (talk) 12:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Days of the year
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Days of the year. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Limuria
I just left a new section in the Talk page at "Lemuria", and then noticed it was essentially the same as what you had left ten days ago. What serendipitous synchronicity. --Haruo (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages
You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. Please try to find sources for additions to these pages as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks. Is there something in particular? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Cited DOY
There's a discussion on referenced DOY in here. I would appreciate if you could leave your point of view on this. Thanks! :) --Rochelimit (talk) 10:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

April 2019
Hello, I'm PCN02WPS. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, April 3, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. New items in the list must be properly sourced at the target page; Burgundofara had no sourcing for the particular date in question.  PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 14:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on April 30. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you talking about? Martyrs' Day?  That's what it's called in the Wiki article.  Changing it to Martyr's Day is what should require verifiability. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 17:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am exactly talking about this unsourced edit that's also a WP:BLP and privacy issue. Toddst1 (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Atlantic canary. Toddst1 (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reverting your reversion of my edit on Martyrs'
 * Is there a problem with putting people in the "Births" list? I saw the negative comment on the talk page and agreed with it (the use of the word 'cult' was bad) but what is wrong with adding the man?  It is not unsourced, it is a Wikipedia link.
 * And what was wrong with adding a wiktionary link to the Wikipedia article on the Atlantic Canary? How is it unsourced? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think I see. I need to add a reference on the Births entry, a Wiki link is no longer sufficient. Sorry about the confusion about that particular point.
 * I am still learning. Is a wiktionary link not allowed? Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC) if not a direct link, could I put https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/canary_in_a_coal_mine as a reference? thanks in advance. Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:51, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * No, Wkitionary is not acceptable as it is WP:USERG. Think about it.  How on earth would something anyone can publish be a WP:RS?
 * Additionally, saying the Uw-4 template that I left above was abrupt is absurd as you had at least 3 warnings above about adding unsourced garbage that you've been blatantly ignoring.  Toddst1 (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Phony sources & continued disruptive editing
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove by adding a source that doesn't support your addition but it is not at all constructive. You need to stop editing until you figure out the basics of WP:V and that stop can come voluntarily or involuntarily. Toddst1 (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)


 * I encourage you to brush up on the concept of "good faith". But you've achieved your goal.  I'm done with editing. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)