User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida/Archive 1

Forensics: my old activities as an IP ?

Now that I'm trying to organise my account here, I try to recall what I did as an IP (dynamic IP always, near-daily change, so hard to find traces), because I'm still involved in some articles I edited as an IP.

I've been making small IP edits for a long while; not sure how long, but long.
In 2007, I registered this account.
Until August 2013, I made a total of 1 edit with it, but...
... for some reason I kept making occasional small edits as an IP during this period, until...
... in July 2013, I got drawn into a discussion with a side-dish of cat fight (as the 90... IPs). Because of my changing, dynamic, IP, the other IP called me a sock. I replied (wrongly) that I had no account. And I must have recalled shortly after that I did, in fact, have one, technically.
From August 2013 on, all of my edits have been made from this account. (I think.)

Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 16:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Gamall Wednesday Ida, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Not that you really need all the introduction, just thanks anyway for your contributions! . . . dave souza, talk 17:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome package, the links might come in handy someday. For now I'm mostly just fixing typos once every blue moon, and very occasionally reacting to arrant nonsense. Bye! Gamall Wednesday Ida (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Gamall Wednesday Ida. 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)[reply]

Bayes' theorem

hello, I'm really new as a contributor, so I can make some mistakes in using this wiki-platform.

Basically let me explain the scope of my modification. The fact is that the sentence: "Then, suppose that the probability of being 65 years old is 0.2%, and that the probability that a person diagnosed with cancer at 65 years old is 0.5%."

is not correct, and should be revised, because 65 years old cancer diagnosed (0.5%) cannot be greater than that the complete 65 years old population (0.2%)

The correct sentence should be formulated in a different way, as I suggested or in an equivalent way: "Then, suppose that the probability of being 65 years old is 0.2%, and that the probability that a person diagnosed with cancer at 65 years old is the 0.5% out of the 1% of the total cancer diagnosed."

What about your opinion? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giovannibra (talk • contribs) 09:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Giovannibra. Actually it is correct, but badly put. I have rephrased the sentence -- which ended up in a somewhat broken state after many edits by many different people with different ideas in their heads -- into "Then, suppose that the probability of being 65 years old is 0.2%, and that the probability for a 65-years old person to be at some point diagnosed with cancer is 0.5%.". This should make it clear that it's a conditional probability. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I have completely reworked this example; my previous post is now obsolete. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake

Hey there, im sorry i didn't read the text when i added the source of Lei Wulong in Tekken 7 page, i just read the tittle it says that:"Lei Wulong to be DLC" so they clearly made a mistake of the tittle as in the text says that Lei is not playable. ZenIceHero (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ZenIceHero: I moved your message here, from my user page.) Yes, titles are often misleading, sometimes deliberately, so as to get more clicks. No harm done. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DCO

Thanks for the note re: DCO early career scientists section. The logic makes sense to me. Scootplums (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GMTA

Not only did I get an edit conflict where you were saying the same thing as me, but when I went to the history to thank you for your edit, I saw then that you thanked me for mine. LOL Good times, good times... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:31, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants: LOL indeed, perhaps even ROTFL. Seriously though, the thread is devolving into an argument about ID, and it's not going anywhere worth going. I've been itching to close it, but I'm involved now. The GMTA effect, though funny, is a sign that we are repeating the same obvious objections to the same tired non-arguments. Not productive. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 18:40, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I like to give newcomers to these pages the standard responses before pointing out that their arguments have been made and answered a hundred times before and shutting them down. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 18:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Arithmetices principia, nova methodo exposita, Gamall Wednesday Ida!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Are you able to look this over, and show how it meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, with reliable sources? Thanks.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Barnett

So that's it? You're not going to respond?Subuey (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much? Is that it? Subuey (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to keep this pointless section on your talk page, you might as well respond and make it relevant. Or better yet, respond where I asked you to. Unless of course you have no response? Subuey (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not Twitter; try to fully form a coherent thought first, then write it. I received goodness knows how many talk notification emails from your editing frenzy... The same goes for the article talk page; I did attempt an answer at some point, only to find that you removed what I was answering to in the mean time, and lost patience. I might still chime in at some point -- and you probably won't like it. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 15:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Up yours :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 02:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is your edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacob_Barnett&diff=769942758&oldid=769942309 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 08:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware. Is there some sort of point to this? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I did attempt an answer at some point" I think you should delete this entire section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume you mean that as some kind of demonstration that I have contradicted myself... Yes, I did say just that, the keyword in that quote being attempt. The remainder of the paragraph provided context, if you are unfamiliar with the concept that attempts may fail. A modicum of cogitation should reveal to you that I would not have said I had attempted an answer if I had actually posted one. For the second part, I think you should rid yourself of the presumption that you have any say in how other people handle their talk pages. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 20:28, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the post in which I mentioned your usrname is there and has not been removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 21:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

My edit was based on Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, which cited: Categories regarding religious beliefs or lack of such beliefs of a living person should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief in questionand WP:NONDEF: which cited Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. It is sometimes difficult to know whether or not a particular characteristic is "defining" for any given topic, and there is no one definition that can apply to all situations. However, the following suggestions or rules-of-thumb may be helpful:. Hope my edit wasn't a controversial. It can be verified that the subject was an atheist, but it should also be that key defining trait that the subject was prominently noted for or defining characteristic. If i removed some of these categories by mistake for defining characteristics, you can revert my edit. the Have a nice day.--Jobas (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jobas: I'm not terribly interested in figuring the fine points of such categorisation, especially as this is not my area of editing, so I do not intend to take this much further. This is why I notified the relevant project, where people are probably more familiar with the relevant practices. Cheers, — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Symsyn AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symsyn

Symsyn AfD page you commented : "Complete lack of notability". Were you referring only to the article as currently posted or did you consider the links at [1] and the google results? A57795779 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A57795779: None of the links establish notability, as they are all wikis or mirrors of the author's personal page for the language (including the Amazon "book"), or similar blog pages. In order to survive on Wikipedia (and more importantly to have your content survive), you need to familiarise yourself with guidelines such as WP:RS and WP:GNG. That should answer your question on the AfD page; "what exactly is on trial?", I think you phrased it... Note that the guideline on reliable sources has already been pointed out on the AfD page. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:39, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

i wanted ask questions other people add them but my`re reverted ? 83.24.13.173 (talk)

They are silly and irrelevant questions. Yes, the candidates can add. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 10:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(untitled by poster) "I still don't understand how talk pages work", June edition

Do not lecture me about posting in a talk section in which you have been blatantly biased. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subuey (talk • contribs) 17:34, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDACT. One month is not a "short while". And sign your comments. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only sign comments on pages that are worth my while.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orb (paranormal)

I note that you voted to delete this article, and you have since gone ahead and deleted it. However the outcome of that AfD was to merge it, not delete it. Please respect that decision. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merge does not mean that all the ill-sourced content gets to stay. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:GCHQ-Mi-6

I have revoked GCHQ-Mi-6's ability to edit their own talk page and have removed their personal attacks. Please see Wikipedia:Deny recognition and please don't post any further at User talk:GCHQ-Mi-6, as it will only inflame things. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee: Sure. I'd also suggest revdeleting the corresponding edits. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 09:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

aaaand I see you did that in the meanwhile. Thanks and nevermind, then. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 09:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was doing it as you were typing ;-) I've also emailed Oversight to have those edits fully suppressed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. That's about it then. Thanks for the quick reactions, and have a nice day. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 09:38, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You too :-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:WhyJesus and User:Jesussavesnotmohammed

You asked if I am the same person as Jesussavesnotmohammed. Yes. I urge you to fight to overcome the delusion and earnestly seek Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhyJesus (talk • contribs) 03:24, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:WhyJesus: Thanks for the confirmation. I urge you to read the policy on sockpuppets: WP:SOCK. And possibly on usernames, given that your other account was blocked for that reason: WP:USERNAMES. If you have any other accounts, you should disclose them before that becomes an issue. As for the Christ thing, I'm going to take a rain check. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 03:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. Swarm ♠ 04:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Bravo, Well said. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glad someone liked it. Though apparently Viewfinder somehow managed to interpret it as a very serious threat of future flame war... — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 19:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archived discussion on IP Talk page about Apollo just before SPI

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2602:304:788B:DF50:8CDD:5461:389A:631B&oldid=788828569#I_will_report_you

Takbir

Hi - I'm OK you reverting my edit. However, I did check first and there are urban dictionary references to sudden jihad syndrome and news articles referring to it. Do please check, rather than just guessing. I didn't add it as I'm busy monitoring vandalism. (See these results) Regards from the UK.Nick Moyes (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Nick Moyes. Conservapedia, the urban dictionary, and various blogs do not amount to much. This being a very controversial topic + the word "syndrome" implying some (non-existent) degree of medical / psychiatric precision to the expression put this addition quite clearly in the "nope" category, in my opinion. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Amusingly, conservapedia attributes the expression to Daniel Pipes, but their ref does not contain either 'sudden' or 'syndrome'. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Being a humourless curmudgeon, I am also going to mercilessly excise the paragraph on Internet memes from that page. I simply do not see the need to document every meme and bon mot from opinion pieces on WP. Feel free to revert if you disagree. Cheers — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 22:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maryam Mirzakhani (Untitled; poster put that in bot config)

Also, what does much less editorialising mean? Could you do it yourself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.116.2 (talk • contribs)

editorialize (ˌɛdɪˈtɔːrɪəlʌɪz/), verb: express opinions rather than just report the news. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 09:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to use less editorializing. As for the references, I am referring to the most read and credible Persian media. Do you understand Persian or at least familiar with Persian credible news websites and organizations? If not, on what base do you claim they are not credible? If some source is not English, that doesn't mean it is not credible. You need to provide sources to refute the references that I am using. I have merely translated from Persian and used credible sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.136.116.2 (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for fixing this. I can't quite believe I hadn't noticed it all this time... —72 _talk 11:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you!

Hey Ida,

Que deviens-tu ? Pu la moindre nouvelle de toi, ton forum étant down, c'est triste :( J'ai bataillé pour retrouver un endroit où tu étais susceptible de répondre, pas facile !

Donne de tes nouvelles :)

{<§>} Genki. Genki54 (talk) 13:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Genki, oui, le forum est en rade jusqu'à ce que j'aie le temps et l'énergie de migrer le serveur. Ce n'est pas encore pour tout de suite, j'ai de quoi m'occuper en ce moment... Pour garder le contact en attendant, et afin d'éviter de diffuser nos adresses mail, tu peux utiliser Tools/Email this user, sur la gauche. Je te répondrai directement par email. (Le Talk de Wikipedia n'est pas vraiment fait pour ça :P J'archiverai cette conversation dès que ça sera fait.) A+ — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genki: en fait je t'ai simplement envoyé mon adresse mail par le biais du formulaire Wikipedia. Tu la recevras donc à l'adresse liée à ton compte ici. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Gamall Wednesday Ida. 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)[reply]