User talk:Yabti

Ethnicity in lead of bio articles
Generally the ethnicity should not be placed in the lead, unless the subject is especially noted because of his/her ethnicity. Details about ethnicity should go in the Biography section of the article. See WP:MOSBIO for details. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 15:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hi Ward – Thank you for your comments. Please reconsider adding ethnicity in the lead paragraph for Einstein and Freud. Both of them were forced out of their native countries due to their ethnicity. To be more blunt, they would both have died in the gas chambers had they not fled (Actually, Freud died in 1939, but the principle remains). To describe either of them in solely national terms is to misrepresent the historical truth. Rather like calling Josephus "a Roman historian" because he wrote in Rome. In addition, Germany and Austria get the exclusive credit for their achievements - which is hardly fair in the circumstances. The WP:MOSBIO describes itself as including "recommended" guidelines. I suggest the foregoing constitutes grounds to deviate from them. By the way, I fully agree with your "nonfeasance" quote. Administrators here must need a lot of patience. Note: I posted a similar message for Sunray. Yabti (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)"
 * Thanks for your reply. First, please understand that this is not my policy, it is Wikipedia's policy. I fully understand what you are saying about Einstein's and Freud's experiences because of their ethnicity. And that can be discussed in detail later in the article, but it does not justify adding ethnicity to the lead of the article in contradiction to Wikipedia standards. Generally ethnicity in the lead is used only when it is THE defining aspect of a person's personal or professional identity. So, for example, it might be acceptable to include the ethnicity in the lead of an article about a black person who is noted mostly for being a great civil rights pioneer. But in the cases of Einstien and Freud, however, they are more prominent for their intellectual contributions that are not directly related to their ethnicity. I'm not accusing you of any type of bias, but you do need to be cautious about giving the appearance of pushing a certain point of view or agenda. The interested reader will get the detail you are emphasizing by reading beyond the lead. Someone who only reads the lead probably doesn't care anyway. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent Monty Hall problem edit
You recently added a tag to a sentence in the Monty Hall problem article. I agree that a reference for the statement would be good but the statement is perfectly logical. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Indeed, if a player believes that sticking and switching are equally successful and therefore equally often decides to switch as to stay, they will win 50% of the time, reinforcing their original belief". How is this possible, given the article establishes the actual odds are 1:2 in favor of switching? Yabti (talk) 11:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have misunderstood what is being said, I as I did when I first saw that sentence. We know that the player wins 2/3 of the time if they switch and 1/3 of the time of they stick.  If the player switches 1/2 the time and sticks half the time they will win (2/3 + 1/3)/2 =1/2 the time.  That is what is being said. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The paradox: Yes, two still closed doors, one hiding the car for sure, the other one hiding a goat for sure, but their chances are not 1/2 : 1/2, but their chances are 1/3 : 2/3 (chance of door first selected by the player : door offered by the host to switch on). By randomly choosing one of those two doors: (1/2 * 1/3) + (1/2 * 2/3)  the chance to win the car = exactly 1/2. We should say this in the article. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 12:36, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Unspell (June 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jeraphine was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Unspell and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Unspell Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jeraphine&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Unspell reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Jeraphine (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Unspell concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Unspell, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Unspell


Hello, Yabti. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Unspell".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing.  The StormCatcher   (talk)   (contribs)  10:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Tarl N. (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Unspell


Hello, Yabti. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Unspell".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Unspell


Hello, Yabti. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Unspell".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the  or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

London attacks
The BBC are currently saying FOUR, not five deaths: "Two members of the public, Metropolitan Police officer Keith Palmer, and the attacker". - The Bounder (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's definitely five (including the perpetrator): three on the bridge and PC Palmer

"The attack unfolded at about 14.40 GMT on Wednesday when a single attacker drove a grey Hyundai i40 along a pavement over Westminster Bridge, near the Houses of Parliament in central London, killing three people and injuring many more. The car then crashed into railings outside the Houses of Parliament. The attacker, armed with a knife, ran to Parliament where he was confronted by the police. PC Palmer - who was not armed - was then stabbed and killed."

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-39359158 Yabti (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

And yet: "Two of the three victims have been named as PC Keith Palmer and Aysha Frade" plus the driver: four. - The Bounder (talk) 10:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)