Richardson mcphillips

Hello, Richardson mcphillips! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

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#Gmina_v._municipality. JelgavaLV (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Richardson mcphillips. You have new messages at Talk:Ukraine.
Message added 04:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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#Solutions using conditional probability. -- 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

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Richardson mcphillips (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "XXxX EBOLA XxXx". The reason given for XXxX EBOLA XxXx's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

• Blocking administrator: Master of Puppets (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: This is an autoblock, and should be expired. Please re-post if you're still having problems. Kuru (talk) 14:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Hello, Richardson mcphillips. You have new messages at Talk:Armenian Catholic Church.
Message added 01:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

Discretionary sanctions

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

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. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

-- 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!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, 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)

St Jose Maria Rubio

Hello, Richardson mcphillips. You have new messages at Rochelimit's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Richardson mcphillips. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Richardson mcphillips. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Days of the year#Births and deaths sections being too-Anglophone and/or Euro-centric?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Days of the year#Births and deaths sections being too-Anglophone and/or Euro-centric?. 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)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Richardson mcphillips. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 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 | 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)