User talk:Krexer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!


Feb-2013: SAS (software)[edit]

Hi Krexer. I have a disclosed conflict of interest with SAS (software) in that I frequently consult them on how to participate on Wikipedia on a public relations basis. I was looking at the page and noted your comment on the Criticisms section. I wanted to introduce myself, hope that we might collaborate on the article in the future and offer some general thoughts.

  • It would be an improvement to delete the unsourced Criticism section, which violates WP:Criticism as well with a non-neutral header, but I will say at least some of these are verifiable, even if not currently sourced. What would be even better is a sourced and balanced "Reception" section. At the moment the verdict at SAS is that we are ill-equipped to write this section on account of our COI.
  • A "Competitors" section with a list is almost always link-bait. Like the Criticisms section, I would consider it an improvement to delete the entire section, but even better to replace with a better analysis. There's a good example of this here. Again, I am probably not the best person to do this.
  • I would like to work with SAS to offer a "Version History" and a "Technical Description" section to replace the Description, History and Components sections. In these cases the corresponding experts at SAS are probably the best people to author them. I think the components list violates "not a directory" and the Code Example violates "not a how-to"

Being that you are a subject-matter expert, I would love to work together on improving the article a bit if you're interested.

CorporateM (Talk) 16:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... I could be wrong about example code. Seeing that there is a Category:Articles_with_example_code. CorporateM (Talk) 17:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Good ideas. Thanks for contacting me. I was hoping that my suggestion on the SAS Talk page would start a little conversation. Then if there seemed to be some consensus, I would then delete or modify the Criticism section. Even though you have a COI, I encourage you to add your ideas to the SAS Talk page. I think that your input on there would be fine, and I think that is what Talk pages should be for. Without hearing from other people, I'm reluctant to delete the section.
I'll take a look at the example "competition" section that you referred to. Yes, I agree that a thoughtful analysis would be better than a list. But I think that a list (even with its challenges) is better than just deleting the section.
I don't have enough knowledge about SAS version history and technical description, so I don't think I can make serious contributions to those sections.
I don't have a lot of time for Wikipedia editing right now. My available time comes in spurts, but I have lots of client projects going now. So I will have to wait for a gap in client work before I can give wikipedia much editing my time again.Karl (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Oct-2013: Disambiguation link notification for October 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited KXEN Inc., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SAP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Great, glad the bot pointed this out. I have now revised the SAP link to properly point to SAP AG.Karl (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Dec-2013: Fixing brackets in Decision tree learning[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Decision tree learning may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • of one or more decision tree algorithms. Several examples include Salford Systems CART (which licensed the proprietary code of the original CART authors<ref name="bfos"/>, [[SPSS Modeler|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the un-matching parentheses.Karl (talk)