User talk:Iwaterpolo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


(post talk notes here in reversed chronological order)

Older talk pages[edit]

write about content, not editors[edit]

Hey, I noticed that in your recent edit you wrote, specifically about me. This is not, generally in form with Wikipedia Etiquette. Generally, you are supposed to focus on the content rather than the editor. In case you really do have a problem with me, you can take it up with me on my talk page. However, I think it is better to focus on the content. 018 (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, since Melcombe has commented on your talk page entry, it is now inappropriate to remove any of the text he was responding to per WP:TALK. Instead, I'll point out that you can strikeout material that you wish to redact. 018 (talk) 15:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
User:O18 I do not have a "problem with you", at all, in fact, I like many of your edits and complemented you, and other editors, a couple of times in the NMD discussion page. At the same time, I identified erroneous entries you made on 10 Nov 2009 and 12 Nov 2009 including your comment "I am not totally able to understand this, I hope this makes it clearer and is right.". You are absolutely right that the focus is on the content, and in addition to clarifying, the content validity and correctness are paramount. I'm sure you will agree that the 12 Nov 2009 edit (modifying "If the experiment proceeds to generate independent outcomes until \{X_0, X_1, \cdots, X_m\} occur exactly \{k_0, k_1, \cdots, k_m\} times, then the distribution of the m-tuple \{X_1, \cdots, X_m\} is Negative Multinomial with parameter vector") was incorrect and we should revert back to the 11 Nov 2009 edit by User:Atama. Thanks, again for your contributions and keep up the good work. Iwaterpolo (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Iwaterpolo, I'll talk about content on the page's talk page. Generally, reverting is a bad idea unless there is a huge problem, see WP:RV. Even if I agreed with you that this edit were not helpful (which I don't, see the talk about why we should use references) there have been several contributions since that time and it is insulting to the many editors to just blast it all. 018 (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Responding to your comment on my conduct, no I see no problem with that edit, its summary, or the implications of the summary. The page looked (and was) wrong, I didn't know what was right, but updated it to what the reference says (though I didn't know it at the time) and noted that I wasn't sure. This left room for another editor to change it (which did happen, though now the notation does not agree with the reference). Since there was some disagreement on that topic, there is a talk page section on it. If the page had more traffic, I might have brought it up on the talk, but with very low traffic I thought it was better to move it from very wrong looking to not that wrong looking and let others continue to revise if they saw fit. Others might have started on the talk page, it is a matter of preference. This is how Wikipedia works. 018 (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Negative multinomial distribution[edit]

Thank you for your entry on my talk page about the above article. Personnally I do not use the negative multinomial distribution. I use the (finite) hypergeometric distribution for deduction and its dual distribution for induction. The mean value and standard deviations are computed by these J formulas

  deduc =. (* (% +/)) ([ ,: %:@*) *`%`:3@(-.@((,: , 1"_) % +/@]))
  T =. -@(+ #)
  induc =. (T&}: , }.)@(T~ deduc T)

Limiting cases of these distributions are the binominal and multinomial distributions and the poisson distribution, the negative binomial and negative multinomial distributions, the beta distribution and the gamma distribution. So these formulas are fairly general and very useful, especially the induction formula. However the induction formula is original research on my part and so it is banned from wikipedia articles.

If you know a population you may deduce information on a sample, while if you know a sample you may induce information on the population. In practice the population is unknown and the sample is uninteresting, so deduction is rather useless albeit very common. Usually the sample is known and the population is interesting, so induction is what we like to do.

Bo Jacoby (talk) 08:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC).

File copyright problem with File:HalfCircleDistribution PDF.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:HalfCircleDistribution PDF.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This is already addressed. Thanks. Iwaterpolo (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation[edit]

Your upload of File:ComputationalBrainAtlas Image CCB.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)