With reference to your recent edits of the Deep Blue article, I think it is misleading to say that Go programs are still at beginner levels. A "beginner level" suggests someone who has recently learned the game. The main Go article gives 30-25 kyu as typical beginner rankings, while the GnuGo program, for example, is thought to be around 9 kyu. - Hayne 04:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read and replied in your user page. :-) --Wai Wai 22:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my response on that page. Summary: I think you are using the word "beginner" in a different (perhaps Go-specific) sense than it is usually used. In usual usage, "beginner" = "newbie". -Hayne 03:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Enjoy! :-) --Wai Wai 13:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the infobox template. I have filled it in. --Ptkfgs 04:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome. :) As to age range, it might be better if you can specify the age range (instead of saying any). Like Go (game), it is about 5+. --Wai Wai 04:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. 5+ sounds reasonable. I've also wikified a couple of other links. --Ptkfgs 05:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You are very fast and, after all, well done! :D --Wai Wai 05:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into that! It seemed like a good idea, but I only pursued it for a couple of minutes. Should be easier to find now :-) —ptk✰fgs 06:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately User:2005 said he is going to change it back and clear up the mess in a few weeks. I'm pretty sure his understanding of the policy is flawed/wrong. Anyway, I hope he would discuss the discrepancy first and make mututal agreement before undoing changes arbitrarily. Also I hope he would respect others' opinions after a decision is made (even if he still does not agree). By the way, I have added you towards the vote of my approach.--Wai Wai (talk) 08:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me a reason why character is better?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Q5 den (talk • contribs)

There's no compulsory reasons for that section heading, but the reasons why it is better are as follows:

1. Concise: it is shorter while keeping the same meaning
2. Consistency: I see other articles using this word "characters" when they introduce the subjects involved in the scene, so I picked this word.

For details, please see WP:MOS and Category:Internet memes.

It would be great if you could sign your comment next time. To sign your comment, simply type --~~~~, the system will auto-generate the signature. Thanks for your co-operation.

By the way, you should use "Involved persons" instead of "Involved Persons" (capital P). It is because wiki policy has stated we should capitalise the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase. See WP:MOS#Headings for details.

As to your concerned whether "Characters" make it sound like it was a staged act, I'm not in a better position to answer this question since I am not a English native speaker. It may carry such connotation. Anyway, someone else may give you a better answer.--Wai Wai (talk) 10:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made significant changes to Backgammon, and I would appreciate your comments if you care to review the article. —ptk✰fgs 10:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. It's my pleasure to do so. I will review immediately after I have finished a few of my current tasks.--Wai Wai (talk) 10:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is in a great mood.

But should I wait before you finish your edit?
If so, tell me if you've completely finished the article. --Wai Wai (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'm done for now. :-) —ptk✰fgs 11:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. A preliminary review (for several hours X-D) is done. Well done, especially the efforts on dividing sections, cleanup langauge and style, and reducing complex language structures. Many articles have very long paragraphs with even a sub-section or even a section, which is bad. This makes it harder to read, browse and get the frame and meaning of the article.

Several comments are made on how to expand some parts of the backgammon. As to the section of Chouette, some users (including me) are interested to know this word, so I think the information about the meaning of the word "Chouette" is not vanity. I may suggest a move of contents to the main article because:

1. the main article is large.
2. Provided that there's a sub-article (ie Chouette) to the main (ie Backgammon), it provides a good opportunity to move most contents to that sub-article.
3. the sub-article needs expanding too. Moving these contents help to enrich the sub-article.

Any further discussions and comments are welcome.
--Wai Wai (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've cleaned a few things up, mostly to improve grammar. I think the section on go was a bit long, as backgammon and go software aren't particularly comparable. I've added it along with nine men's morris as examples of games where either computers or humans have a clear advantage. I will work on merging the chouette section into the chouette article; I also think there should be a separate article for the variants, as that section reads as enormously long right now. —ptk✰fgs 15:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think, if the section is left, there are good stuff to be written to compare the differences between backgammon and go in computing sense, eg why does it make such a big difference between computer backgammon and go? Why do the skills and tactics used in backgammon cannot be applied to Go? Someone which is good in this area can expand the section in a meaningful way. Thus you may think of leaving this sub-section, perhaps with a stub on it.

Yes, you can go ahead if you think the "variants" part grow large to qualify itself as a separate page.

I changed the section heading of "Internet backgammon" since I think there are other uses of computer (not just Internet). The section alone may restrict what aspect can be expanded. See Go (game)#Software assistance for some ideas.--Wai Wai (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think some mentioning about champion backgammon players is helpful. I see no section mentioning this (except the "see also" section which make this topic receive too little attention)--Wai Wai (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any software that is not primarily used for play/evaluation, or for interactive play on the internet. If we get more info about this I think we can change that section back to other. But for the moment the "internet" heading is more precise.

After a discussion with User:JocK, I think we need to use another notation format. I am going to put up a ((inuse)) and take care of it. Should't take long. —ptk✰fgs 17:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. 1) Yes, this heading is the most suitable at this moment. 2) Tell me what you feel about the inclusion of famous backgammon players. 3) It would be great if you group your small changes and save as one next time. (When I read the edit history of backgammon, I barely get misled it is the history of your user homepage X-D) 4) If you prefer another review after your major edit, please tell me and I will be more happy to do so. --Wai Wai (talk) 17:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think it would be worthwhile to link to the list of backgammon world champions, but that article is pretty bad right now. It's not clear what championship it's talking about, and there is a note on the talk page that makes me question whether it is compiled from an established world championship.

I do apologize for the many separate edits; I wanted to avoid edit conflicts, and I hadn't intended to make so many changes when I'd first started. —ptk✰fgs 17:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about opening a new section (about backgammon players) in the main first?

Never mind :). You may use ((inuse)) next time. It will tell people you are editing. If you are going to edit for a long time, you may leave message either in edit summary or talk page about how long approximately you will finish your major edit. (Note: but you have used it for this time, so you should know it ;) ). As to edit conflicts, the wiki has implemented a check, so if your edit conflicts with another, a notice will be issued when you try to save the edit. --Wai Wai (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I will definitely use ((inuse)) next time. I really don't like the edit conflict resolution system. I've opened a thread on the talk page regarding – for ranges; its use in the infobox is in line with WP:MoS so unless there's a significant objection, I'd prefer to stick with it. —ptk✰fgs 17:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the edit conflict resolution system either. Some other systems will auotmatically warn new coming editors when someone is in the process of editing.

I'm fine with the – changes. The reasons why I wish to change is newbie editors may have difficulty understanding this unreadable code [major reason], and I don't see any real benefits of distinguishing short dash (-) and long dash (–) [minor reason]. Anyone can read whether it's meant to be a range or not from the context anyway. To me, this is a hypercorrection. After all, I don't mind and will leave the change.--Wai Wai (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On section heading: mine "Very Risky"

Yours "Can be very profitable but is very risky"

The expected return from daytrading (versus investing overnight) is zero. Can you come up with any sort of reference that says in any meaningful way that daytrading can be very profitable?

"In any meaningful way" means showing that the expected return is high, not just the risk (otherwise why make a meaningless distinction?) Smallbones

Why do you think the expected return from daytrading is zero? Please respond each of my point before concluding day trading is a necessarily losing game:

1. Remember trading is a zero-sum game excluding transaction costs. If day traders lose money, guess where these money goes? it goes to the winners.
2. The statement says most (not 80-90%) daytraders are losing. What does it imply? Where is the rest (10%)? They are winning, some winning big.
3. Although day trading is (very) risky, as said by SEC. It does not mean it is never profitable, or no one will be a day trader. Tell me why there are over billions of money traded every day.
4. day traders, who trade full time and on behalf of their own accounts, are responsible for between 17-18% of daily volume of NASDAQ and NYSE (study performed by Bear Stearns). If day traders are definite losers, why are there so many day traders?
5. And where are all these money go (17-18% amount spent on daily trading volume)? They will not vanish in the air.

Daytrading is very risky since the cycle is very quick: Money in, money out within the same day. This is the disadvantage to most people since they just wish to "get rich quick" without the idea of how to "get rich quick". If they have poor money management, money can flow away like waterfall.

If one manages to play well, day trading can make you a fortune. Some day traders can manage to earn millions per year solely by day trading. You may subscribe any trading magazines. Some of the successes are revealed in these magazines. For example, Paul Rotter's success is profiled in Trader Monthly. He is a very successful day trader and scalper. The reference has already been put in the day trading article. You seem to miss reading the Notes and references section.

By the way, day trading is said to be very risky, but it is only true for general public who don't know how to play this game. If you know what it is really about, it can be a safe game. Great day traders can manage to control their drawdown to very low level. They may even get extremely high no of daily winning streak of several months to a year or more. It is not someone who involves in long-term investment can do, not to say they are deadly slow in returns. Anyway this is another story. Forget it if you don't get it.--Wai Wai (talk) 16:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not "move" pages by cutting-n-pasting the content. Wikipedia has built in functionality to move pages. This needs to be used instead so that the history is maintained with the content. See Help:Moving a page for instructions. I have fixed you move of Moving average (finance) to Moving average (technical analysis). Let me know if you have questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 12:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget to leave a message here. Thank you so much for your help. :) --Wai Wai (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, Wai Wai. I completely understand your want to conform Democracy (disambiguation) to the standards of the MoS:DP. I work with disambiguation pages very often, and there are few things more satisfying than a cleanly organized disambiguation page. However, as you can see by the very lengthy discussion on the talk page and the MedCab case, there has been lots of discussion on how the disambiguation page should be. The disambiguation page used to contain a large list of links, and it has been shortened down to what it is now; even with that, it is still somewhat in dispute. With complex topics, there will always be disambiuation pages that require some ignoring of the rules (even that is mentioned in the MoS!), so until any more disputes are resolved, please leave the page as it is. Thanks, and feel free to let me know if you have any question. -- Natalya 23:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK! --Wai Wai (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wai Wai! I found you through Wikipedia: WikiProject Fact and Reference Check. I was wondering if you'd mind lending me a helping hand with International Institute of Management article . On August 10 an unknown person (no signature) marked it for deletion. Then —Ben FrantzDale conducted a good faith google search for “international institute of management” and it did not return a top result. – Which led him to support the deletion marking. Two other users followed saying that the website was not notable and the institute claims non-verifiable international connections. However, I have conducted a detailed research on IIM website, including IIM research section, press-releases, events and photos, as well as other independent websites and provided evidence of notability and verifiable references. However, my concern is that I’m only one vote against 4 vote and I do not know if any of them will change their mind (human nature!). Therefore, I kindly ask you to verify the links provided in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Institute_of_Management and help verify the notability. I’m not asking for anything less than an ethical vote. I’m willing to return the favor and review a similar article.Miro.gal

OK! I'm willing to help. However my opinion may be against your favour.

First, don't be too worried about that. Wikipedia is not a democracy. The deletion process is not polling/voting process. Read it first:

• ((afdanons))

Please read Wikipedia:Notability and ((notability)). If you feel your article is notable enough (qualify for a page in Wikipedia), please try to explain why your article is in accordance to Wikipedia:Notability, but NOT your opinion about notability.

Make as many valid points as possible. If your points are valid, the article will be kept even if there are more votes for deletion than for keep.

I will try to give my opinions as soon as possible after I have done the research.

After all, I'm very happy that you ask me to help. I like to help people. You have found the right person. :) --Wai Wai (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is in a great mood.

After a few hour of research, it seems the institution does not come up as a clearly notable institution (according to the standards here). You may need more proofs to show this institution is notable (eg having news in major newspaper or other media). Since the people over there has discussed the points in depth as to why it should be deleted. The article is going to be deleted soon. If you wish to keep that article, you may try to improve the main article by including more stuff, reference them, and give more links to prove its notability.--Wai Wai (talk) 19:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. —ptk✰fgs 06:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the mentioning. However I don't know if I am going to focus my work on "board and table games". I am a person who do a wide range of things, not particularly to some articles or projects. By the way, very nice work on Backgammon.--Wai Wai (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you get a chance, could you discuss a question about the changes made to WP:STUB a couple weeks ago? (see Wikipedia talk:Stub#Stub tag removal) Thanks... --Interiot 03:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied! —Wai Wai (☎) 09:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've had trouble with this User:2005 in the past. Lately he has been disrupting me as well. His main behavioral problem is that he is an unscrupulous editor, who does not think about others before editing, reverting, or deleting their work. He is quite inconsiderate, and usually it's "his way or the highway". Plus, he never abides by the "3 revert rule". Should we do something about this? Cloudreaver 05:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is sometimes hard to get messages over to User:2005. The 3 revert rule is a strict rule. It must be obeyed. If someone revert 4 times or more a day, I suggest reporting the incident in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, so the admin will take actions, including warning, temporarily ban and permanent ban at the worst case.—Wai Wai (☎) 09:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 23:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Technical analysis software, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technical analysis software and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Direct_access_trading you mentioned that you were aware of discounted brokerages that charged commission on a per share basis and which had no minimum activity fees. I would greatly appreciate if you would post a list of these onto my talk page. Thanks in advance. Agalmic (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 14:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

On 24 July 2007, a one-time editor removed your 18 June 2006 contributions of documented, factual information (as well as all other negative information) from the article on the publisher and promoter of trading "secrets," newsletters, books, and videos & lectures on futures trading, Larry Williams.

Are you the commentator who reported that everything Larry Williams has ever published or said about using the Commitments of Traders Report in trading is wrong?

If that is true, please show us what documentation or other evidence you have to support that statement, please.

Wortschätzer (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Wai Wai-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]