original or an advertisement
I don't understand how Wikipedia thinks this is original or an advertisement. I am assembling references now.
Busily adding references - Don't delete please this is important science —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennose (talk • contribs) 13:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC) Is that better... rob? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennose (talk • contribs) 15:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Some Guy called TipToe keeps trying to delete articles without actually reading (or understanding presumably) the subject m,atter. - Now I know why, he's running for some kind of king of the nerds editor position - I'm going to vote against him. Wikipedia does not need any more clever fools like him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamanthaFox27 (talk • contribs) 10:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Tiptoety_3#Oppose —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamanthaFox27 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
problem with several statements
Okay, this all sounds great, but I have a problem with several statements. First, "Unlike a poll or a survey, predictions are able to be made over large numbers of scenarios within a context, to the order of 10^20 (100,000,000,000,000,000,000)" is a very bold claim, and the reference supposedly supporting this claim is not a reference at all. Instead, it seems to be a web-based survey company that does not make available any information relevant to Choice Modelling. Second, "Choice Modelling is believed to be the most accurate and general purpose tool currently available for making probabilistic predictions about human decision making behaviour" is another very bold claim without any reference at all. I examined the reference provided by the next sentence on the off-chance it was meant to be a reference for both sentences, but the reference never states anything so encouraging as to suggest that Choice Modelling is the most accurate tool available. In fact, it lists a number of criticisms, including harsh criticism of sample sizes (suggesting it is NOT the "most accurate" tool) and implementation (suggesting it is NOT most "general purpose" tool either). With such grandiose claims about the subject matter, lack of relevant references, and presence of references to the contrary, it is no wonder Wikipedia thinks this article is an advertisement. I hope I am wrong, because this all sounds very cool, but I won't buy into anything this impressive sounding without some evidence to back up its claims.
Why this idolatrous worship of CAPITAL LETTERS?
If someone in the management field tells me a capital initial letter is needed in any particular instance, I will treat that person like the boy who cried "wolf". Look at this edit. I've done hundreds of things like this over several years. It's not just wholesale violation of the convention of WP:MOS on capitals in section headings; look at the cases of capital initial letters for common nouns in the body of the article that I corrected. I suspect there are a lot more; I haven't gone through the article. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)