User talk:Spitfire8520

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Y.Ichiro (会話) 03:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thanks
Sorry man my last edit was by accident im serious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.233.206 (talk) 04:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for reverting vandalism on my user page :) Kla'quot 05:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your revert
Check out what you did :) I know it was an accident, but just keep an eye out next time.  Giggy  Talk 01:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: indefblocked on userpages
You'll find that those users have been indeed indefblocked, per this CheckUser case. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Carefull
It is not against any policy to remove vandalism warns form your user talk page. Please do not revert edits as such, you can revert in good faith though and inform the user it is not good practice to remove warnings from their talk page and inform them to please archive it instead. Thank you! Tiptoety 23:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Spitfire8520! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. βcommand 04:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I know a cult when I see a cult.
How else can you explain why this site tries to cover up Lord Little-Beach's arse and please forgive me for this unintented pun, dark side. Ok I had my laugh for today. --114.76.212.56 (talk) 06:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Dreanought revert
Why did you remove my addition about Operation Albion in the baltic. In this operation dreadnoughts like SMS Bayern, SMS König were used. On the other side Gallipoli was an operation "designed" for out dated battelships pre-dreadnoughts so this should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.11.55 (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

?/
khalsa page is propaganda. and i'm angry...lol....too much importance for something insignificant..:)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.100.38 (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the info!
Sorry I missed the second bit below. Should have further checked recent history. I'll check more carefully before attempting to repair vandalism 75.65.169.158 (talk) 07:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Italian death statistics in Coronavirus disease 2019
In Special:Diff/946757659, you made the same fix for the URL that I also made (but I was slower, so I abandoned my edit!). I also noticed that wrong figure for the 80-89 age group in Italy, the same figure that you corrected. But your correction was from 23.7 to 23.6, whereas the number I see in the table on page 5, last column, 4th number from the bottom, in the reference is 23.2!

So where did you get the number 23.6? Perhaps the Italian authorities are updating the PDF at different times without telling us?

Or perhaps you (or the previous poster) were doing some original research by trying to mathematically combine the reference's 80-89 figures with the 90+ figures? Because the table in the article only has an "80+" column?

Let's see if we can find agreement on a basic number. (Or just update it to a later day's number that we can agree upon.)

Also, this same source is used to support the assertion a few paragraphs up, that 99.8% of those dying from the virus also had a pre-existing co-morbidity. My Italian is really rudimentary but I don't see the number 99,8 anywhere in the document. There is a paragraph that seems to be about this, on page 4 at the bottom, but it says "68,9% dei casi". Please help set me straight here.

Thanks for caring! Gnuish (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding the 23.6% calculation, this was what I would consider a routine calculation to add the 80-89 statistics with the ≥90 statistics in order to get the 80+ column to maintain consistency. It appears that most countries uses 80+/≥80 as their upper limit for reporting. The % Letalità (Case Fatality Rate) is a calculation of N. Deceduti (Number of Deceased) divided by the N. Casi (Number of Cases) e.g. 1243 N. Deceduti ÷ 5352 N. Casi = 23.2 % Letalità for age group of 80-89. Therefore the calculation needed to determine 80+ is to take the sum of 80-89 and ≥90 N. Deceduti (1243 + 285 = 1528) divided by the sum of 80-89 and ≥90 N. Casi (5352 + 1115 = 6467) to get the resulting 80+/≥80 percentage (1528 ÷ 6467 = 23.6%). Per No_original_research, this would not be considered original research.


 * Regarding the section question of the 99.8% number, the user who added that information appears to be Gtoffoletto in Special:Diff/946242277 using the older version of the report from 16 marzo 2020. I was focused on updating the Case fatality rates (%) by age and country table to the latest available data and did not realize that the citation was used elsewhere. I actually do not have any knowledge of Italian, but translating the report would indicate that the preexisting condition percentage should be 68.9% and not 99.8%. They later added a different citation in Special:Diff/946308061 with references the other report dated 17 Marzo 2020. The data appears to come from page 3, which would be an incorrect interpretation of that page as it appears to says that it is a sample of 355 out of 2003 (17.7%) deaths specifically for preexisting conditions. I think it would be appropriate to correct that percentage as it appears to be a misunderstanding of the cited report. Spitfire8520 (talk) 05:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for checking. I've re read the two sources and they are actually not very clear.
 * I confirm 68,3% comorbidity is clearly reported in the the older version of the report from 16 marzo 2020 with N=25.058 of which 1.697 are deaths. While the other report other report dated 17 Marzo 2020 which supposedly has more recent data makes a similar statement but using only a subset of deaths N=355 out of 2003 deaths or 17.7% of the total as you reported. I can confirm those are not ONLY deaths with comorbidity as it clearly states that at least a small percentage had 0. But I'm not sure how that subset is chosen. It is not specified. Maybe the table was based on older data? Definitely should use 68,3% and the more complete source. Unfortunately the number of average comorbidities is in the other report and based on the incomplete data. Confusing... but one report is based on deeper analysis of the deaths and uses only older data that has been more thoroughly analysed. BTW the same inconsistency is present in the newer reports you can always find here: https://www.epicentro.iss.it/coronavirus/aggiornamenti the reports are called "bollettini" in Italian. national data update 19 march reports 68,9% and deaths analysis 20 march reports 1.2% with 0 comorbidities N=481/3200-- Gtoffoletto (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Please help with usability testing
Hello! The Anti-Harassment Tools team is running a usability test to find out how and where IP addresses are used when patrolling wikis, particularly when patrolling RecentChanges. This could include New Pages or RecentChanges patrol. We want to see your patrolling process and get your views on some prototypes. Getting your perspective would be really helpful to us at this stage of the process. If you’d like to help, and have 30 minutes to spare, please fill out this Google form with your details: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfjYyRNGMkO4_TdNOgG4qmK9cp9YOKzM4GFO5pTd_bEcu23YQ/viewform

For the purpose of the tests we’ll be using Google Forms for recruitment, and UserTesting.com to conduct the actual tests. Please review the privacy statement and release form in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ijmwrIoNO0W1p_zfFU1LBf3_6mFF53kUUFy1L_DCUKc (Google docs link)

Thank you,

NKohli (WMF) (talk) and PSaxena (WMF) (talk)  03:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2019 disestablishments in Colorado


A tag has been placed on Category:2019 disestablishments in Colorado indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)