Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:27, 21 August 2007

Welch article

Sorry for the mix-up, when I saw the article, all that was there was a stub tag. On another note, leave messages for people on their talk pages, not their main user pages (I moved what you put on my userpage to my talk page). On yet another note, it's generally not a good idea to blank your talk page, since it gives other users insight to your contributions. ] 03:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean when you clicked on the article title (from another page) it took you straight to "edit this page"? If that's the case, no, the article didn't already exist. If that's not what you meant, could you explain what happened better? ] 21:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I'm here to help. ] 00:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nuclear magnetic resonance

This edit is a bit garbled, but I can't figure out what it means so I can't fix it myself. --Yath 03:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I hope that does it Pdbailey 04:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Standard deviation

Finally I see what you meant when you said my mention of normality came too late in the article. It looks as if you meant an assumption of normality is used in showing that a certain statistic is unbiased for σ. But it's not. As long as

${\displaystyle \operatorname {var} \left=\sigma ^{2}I_{n},\,}$

where I_n is the n×n identity matrix (in other words, all of the variances are σ and the n random variables are uncorrelated (not necessarily independent!) then

${\displaystyle E\left({1 \over n-1}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(X_{i}-{\overline {X}})^{2}\right)=\sigma ^{2},}$

where

${\displaystyle {\overline {X}}=(X_{1}+\cdots +X_{n})/n.\,}$

Neither normality nor independence is needed (although uncorrelatedness is). Michael Hardy 01:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Richard Durbin

Please remember to sign your comments on article talk pages. DS1953 01:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lee-Jon

regards for the clarification on the NMR page. Lee-Jon 13:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

degrees Celsius

See this section of NIST SP811, clearly showing that you have jumped to the wrong conclusion. Gene Nygaard 14:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani

Over at Talk:Rudy Giuliani on 4 October 2005 I asked for verification of the crime statistics you recently added to the article. If they can't be verified, they will be removed from the article. patsw 03:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:MaxwellBoltzmann.png up for deletion

Image:MaxwellBoltzmann.png has been listed for deletion, since it has been obsoleted by Image:MaxwellBoltzmann.gif. --℘yrop (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Generalized linear model

Hi, I reverted the page because I thought your edits made the topic less, not more understandable (to me, at least). You removed a good deal of material, including clarifying examples. Something funny is going on right now, though, because the page isn't parsing correctly (but if you link to it through the history, it parses OK...don't know what is happening.) Bill Jefferys 16:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I think that your re-edited article is much better and satisfies (more than satisfies) my objections to your original edit. Separating the main idea from the examples does the trick. I think that we can proceed from here. Bill Jefferys 02:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the GLM article a bit. Some of it is still unclear, but we will work on that. There's one sentence I still don't understand though, please see my comments on the GLM talk page.  :) -shaile 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

contact

I thought I'd mention that User:Drummond has been inactive since July. If he doesn't respond to your message or his account doesn't have an email address, he may also be able to be reached via his website, www.adaptivity.org .--Nectar 17:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply from JQ (also on my talk page)

My idea would be to have a hierarchy of articles, starting with a top-level article on the General Linear Model, which would include results valid for the GLM and a brief taxonomy, including discussion of discrete v continuous dependent variables. Each element of the taxonomy would be linked to a more detailed article. In the case of discrete regression, there would be a general discussion, and a taxonomy linking to logit, probit and so on. JQ 10:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Grinnell College

My justification for reverting your edits:

First of all, the quotation from Newsweek is just plain false (nowhere in the article does it state that) and grossly misrepresents what was really meant. Read the article here. The main criterion for the "best all-around" (not "best overall") college was "buzz." Second, Newsweek does not put out rankings as US News does and with the same authority. Third, putting a quotation from an article in a paragraph that has to do with rankings and accolades is misleading, suggesting that the Chronicle of Higher Education is ranking the wealth of schools when in fact it took that information from NACUBO's study (which is out-of-date for the year 2006).

The overall effect of your edits is to replace precise information with euphemistic information, making the article less informative, less authoritative and bulkier. (unsigned comment by User:Exeunt)

Linear regression

Please leave a summary of the work you have done. Thanks! Chris53516 13:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot

Smackbot recently edited Radiation hormesis and changed "fact" to "Fact." in all but one instance (where it added a date). Is it really necessary to change "fact" to "Fact?" would it have made an edit if this was the only change? Pdbailey 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but it's neater, no it would be unlikely to edit an article without an undated template, although if the template was dated by a third party between being identified and edited, this could happen in theory. Rich Farmbrough, 10:12 5 March 2007 (GMT).

spam @ organic farming

Hi pdbaily - Apologies for not starting a section re: my reversions at organic farming. I made the reversions to remove the addition of further spam, by a user who'd already been spamming in another article. I did explain my motivations in these reversions in the edit history. Apologies again for not making it more clear. MidgleyDJ 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistician help needed

The WikiProject Vandalism Studies (Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Vandalism studies) just finished its first study and I was hoping that you being a statistician could help us formalize our findings. You can find our draft conclusions here . Here's an excerpt of what we found so far:

The current study analyzed a sample pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.

Thanks. Remember 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

CAFE graph

The SVG format has many advantages over raster format for images, such as graphs, that comprise lines and solid colors. Since the graph you uploaded is of above-average quality, conversion seems hardly warranted. (Some people like to upload little 100 x 200 graphs that scream for conversion.) Yet, there are still some advantages to conversion; most of them are outlined on Misplaced Pages:Collaboration to convert graphs to SVG. Please don't be offended by my tagging of your graph. If you really feel it is a problem, go ahead and remove the tag; after all, there are more desperate graphs to be converted. Thanks. MithrandirMageT 11:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly nothing wrong with your image; however, you are right about SVG being the "preferred" format for line drawings. As for quality: though there is no official policy, the Collaboration to convert graphs to SVG recommends hand-drawing SVG graphs in a text-editor, since most vector image-making programs seem to produce somewhat inefficient or inaccurate graphs. It is certainly possible to make nice-looking graphs by hand -- just check out Image:Netscape-navigator-usage-data.svg for an example. Click the image name to view the full image in your browser, then view the page's source; this shows you the underlying SVG code used to make the image. As you can see, they've come up with some clever ways to include the actual data in the SVG file and transform it geometrically into data points on the graph. Thus, the data are not lost as it can be in other image-making processes. I hope this helps! MithrandirMageT 01:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Providing the source data and the R code to transform it seems to me like a fine solution. Unfortunately, it means that fewer people can modify the image (i.e. only people with knowledge of R), but if it means more high-quality SVGs, then I'm all for it. Perhaps once the transition to SVG becomes more widespread, Misplaced Pages will adopt a formal set of graph guidelines; until then, what you've done seems great. Cheers! MithrandirMageT 13:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Grinnell College Alumni List

Thanks for your help resolving this situation. Hopefully, between the two of us, we can keep (at least part of) Grinnell College looking nice and clean. Jacobko 00:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:SPMA3.png

Hm. I marked Image:SPMA3.png with {{PD-USGov-USDA-NRCS}} because the source leads to an NRCS website ( http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SPMA3 ), but I didn't notice the "© Image generated using gd 1.8" right underneath the image when I went to look at it before. I suppose that means that the image is copyrighted under their policy here: http://plants.usda.gov/java/intellectualPlants . Sorry about the confusion. I didn't look at it as closely as I should have. --Strangerer (Talk) 03:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, we could bring it up at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree images, or we can list them at WP:IfD with the rationale of CV. I suppose we could also sneakily delete the tags I put on there and list it as {{nld}}. Whatever will involve the least amount of effort is what will make me the happiest. ;) --Strangerer (Talk) 03:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent message; I had nearly forgotten about those images. I will be happy to help you manage them. Do you have a good way to keep track of which ones they are? Are you just using the user contributions page? --Strangerer (Talk) 12:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Awesome, thanks. I started looking at them, and a lot of these wildflower images, like Image:Trillium flexipes.jpg, are pretty confusing. The copyright notice on the source website says that some are public domain (though they want a credit to the USDA Forest Service and the listed photographer), and says that others could be copyrighted, but doesn't tell us how to distinguish between which are public domain and which are used by permission on that website. I think I will send an email to the address listed unless you have already done that. --Strangerer (Talk) 13:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm glad the organization helped you a bit - I figured it was better if I grouped images so I didn't have to re-check certain websites that were used a lot by the uploader. I am really not sure what to do about the images that don't have copyright notices - it is tough. I don't think there is a form letter for asking about whether an image is PD, but I did use some of the examples at Misplaced Pages:Requesting copyright permission. Once we get a reply, we can forward it on to OTRS. --Strangerer (Talk) 06:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dais

You wrote dias on my talk page, but you meant dais. Anyway, you edited Talk:dais, which I didn't even look at before adding the Wiktionary template to dais. The Misplaced Pages article as it is now is clearly more than just a dictionary entry, and maybe has the potential to become much more. Contrast it with what is already at Wiktionary, wikt:dais, as well as other Wiktionary entries. I am also an active Wiktionary editor, and I would say Wiktionary entries are generally a lot different from Misplaced Pages artciles. So no, I do not think dais is just a long-winded dictionary, and nothing needs to be moved. The best improvement would be the expansion of both the Misplaced Pages article and the Wiktionary entry. —Kenyon (t·c) 00:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, to answer your other question, dais is encyclopedic because of pretty much everything after that first paragraph (the history, etc.). —Kenyon (t·c) 00:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AMT

At the AMT page I screwed up and was going to make the same point for the other side but couldn't find the reference (I think it was Washington Post editorial that said state taxes shouldn't be deductible anyway, but I couldn't find it).Pdbailey 01:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for responding on my talk page to get my attention. The point you were trying to make does belong, although I think it might be better placed as a sub-bullet (or perhaps behind a semicolon; I'll preview it both ways and see what looks better) as a response to the Criticism, rather than an argument against repeal (since it's a related but separate issue from the AMT itself). I'll go ahead and put it there with the, just with a citation needed tag; when/if you find the reference, you can just add it and remove the tag. Sketch051 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Silvershiner.gif

Hi. It looks like you are investigating into the copyright status of this image. Given the image's apparent public domain status, I decided to reupload the original full picture as Image:Silvershiner.jpg, without realising that you were looking into it. So, I just thought I should make you aware of that. I'm sorry if I've stepped on your toes a bit. I've left the article's page as it is (pointing to the gif, with the unverifiedimage tag) just to be on the safe side, but I've removed the gif's BadGIF tag and marked it as obsolete, to prevent other people trying to convert it. I hope this is OK. With best regards, CountingPine 10:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

World's largest airlines

Some lists are encyclopedic, some are not encyclopedic. We'll see what the community thinks on this one, that's what AfD is for. DGG (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD

You're AfD on World's largest airlines is deformed, because, well, there's no reason. Cool Blue 23:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they've already closed the AfD, you can give it another round if you'd like, but other editors have already given other reasons. Cool Blue 16:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Per Misplaced Pages:Guide to deletion cites "In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. A second AFD discussion is unnecessary." In this case, there was a strong keep consensus, which resulted in a non-admin closure. However, on your part, there is a special situation at hand, which is the failure to give a reason at the AfD, which the keep would be upheld at WP:DRV, but you are constituted a second chance to run this through AfD, since you gave no reason the first time. Normally, AfDs so close to eachother are frowned upon, but this is a special situation. Regards, Cool Blue 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd go the WP:DRV route. Speedy keeps can only be performed by admins, as non-admins cannot close before 5 days. You'll have a good chance of having the AFD reopened, rather than having 2 close AFDs. That said, given your problems with the other main contributor fo the article, your AFD appears to be sour grapes, and I'd strongly suggest you just let it drop (no threats there, just a suggestion). This is information that really can't be presented any other way than in list format, and I do beleive it has a place on Misplaced Pages. The real issue is a content dispute, and those should be handled in a different way. - BillCJ 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can try the WP:DRV route in the way Bill suggests, but anyways, the AfD was closed because there was consensus on the AfD for a keep. I'm not saying that there would have been consensus that way if you would have had a reason, but nothing new popped into our heads. Honestly, I would just try to open a new AfD, rather than try the WP:DRV process which can take up to five days, too, and there's no guarantee that it will be re-opened. Don't take it personally, there have been many an AfD that I didn't like the outcome of, and there have been many AfDs before that have been closed by a non-admin, (e.g. Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Pants). My advice, just run it through the process, again. Cool Blue 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

you asked me also. I agree with Cool Blue, that the better way is to do it again, but see the considerations on my talk page first, where I've given you a longer answer. Several other editors with various views in general all think the article has merit. DGG (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I confused you with another editor, Huaiwei, in my mind. However, I still feel that an AFD is not the way to go on this, but that's just my opinion. THere appears to be some confudsion as to whether or not one can renominate after a speedy close. If you chose to rnominate it again, I won't revert it, as I was apparently mistaken on that being a hard and fast rule. - BillCJ 17:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to the message on my talk page: the reason I closed the debate was because there was clear consensus on the page to do so. I considered that you might later add a reason for deletion, but my opinion was that by the time I reached the debate, it wouldn't have received a fair hearing if you had placed your reasons on the page, due to the number of keep arguments that would have appeared beforehand. If you feel I was incorrect to do so, I will not contest a DRV about the decision. I thing DGG's correct, however, that starting an AFD again is probably the better approach. I see no reason why that shouldn't be an appropriate action. JulesH 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The process for relisting is fairly simple: follow the instructions at WP:AFD, being careful to use {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}} in the first step. I'd recommend using the "preloaded debate" link on the message added, as that should help you avoid the mistake you made first time. Preview everything to make sure it does what you expect: a small mistake can have nasty results when working with templates. JulesH 20:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

deletion

I processed the speedy request for your subpage. It had an associated talk page which you had also blanked and I deleted that as well. If that was a booboo, let me know and I'll restore it. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal warning

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to User:BillCJ, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. - BillCJ 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I consider ANY unwanted changes to the userspace with my name (since I can't say "my userspace") to be vandalism. Vandlism is against[REDACTED] POLICY - it's not a guideline, so how did I bereka my own rules?? Idiot. I know we didn't start off on the right foot today, but I did aplogize for it. Yet you insisted on redacting my userspace, like I was a common vandal, wtihout even the courtesy to appraoch me first liek a real adult would. If the wiki-break notice is a personal attack on my paer, then I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. I've had it today with people protecting the real vandals and abusers, then going after me like I'm worse than the vandals. Well, I've had it with idoits like you. And you really are stupid for nominating the largest airlines list. THere, now THAT was a REAL personal attack. GO get me blocked if you wish, but I'm gone from[REDACTED] anyway. THought I may come back as an IP, since they get more respect than regular users from the likes of morons like you! - BillCJ 03:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)