# User talk:Qwfp

Archive 1: Jan 2008 – Feb 2009

## Unlabeled Loglogisticpdf

Hi Qwfp,

FYI, I created a derivative image of your Loglogisticpdf.svg which omits labels (commons:File:Loglogisticpdf no-labels.svg), so it looks better as a thumbnail in {{Theory of probability distributions}}.

Thanks for the template & image, and hope you like it!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nils! My original image was moved to Commons by a bot recently, which it seems somehow affected the thumbnail as the text failed to shrink in proportion and looked a mess. No idea why.. Qwfp (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

## Oxford and Cambridge Universities cricket team

Thanks for your edits to this article. The thing is, though, they didn't play the Australia national cricket team; they played the Australians. Apologies if you already knew this, but there's a rigid distinction in operation here: "Australia" as such only play international cricket; all matches against counties, universities and so on are listed as "Australians". Ditto with other countries, so that (for example) "Worcestershire v Pakistanis" doesn't mean any old Pakistanis, but always the national team playing a non-international match. For that reason I'm inclined to change those edits back, but I'll leave it a day or two in case you want to come back at me. Loganberry (Talk) 17:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To answer the obvious question, where there is no convenient adjectival form, one just adds "XI" to the team name, so that you have "Barbados v England XI" or whatever. For historical reasons, until the 1970s, England played as "MCC" in non-international tour games. Loganberry (Talk) 17:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation Loganberry. I didn't know about that distinction. I'll change it back. Qwfp (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. As with most things cricket, the logic isn't perfect (eg theEngland matches against the Australian Forces in 1945 are "England", not "England XI") but it's usually reliable otherwise. Loganberry (Talk) 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

## Computational statistics

With this tag, I meant there are a lot of redlinks. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I had no idea that's what you meant – that's not part of the definition of wikify in the glossary. I didn't add those redlinks myself, but I can't see anything in guidelines such as WP:Red link that would give a reason to remove them. Two of the redlinks in that list of journals have turned blue since the list was added. Qwfp (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

## Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys

Hi,

I got the standard message on deletion of content, because I have copied word-for-word. I work for the MICS team with UNICEF. I understand the concern of copyright, I just can't handle going through a process of getting consent to use something that is obvious information. Please give me and colleagues a couple of weeks to rewrite some of the content and then we should be ok.

Cheers,

Bo UNICEF Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa Nairobi

## German grammar

Concerning this edit: Polya's paper says "Über den zentralen Grenzwertsatz", and if you go to the article on German Wikipedia that is the counterpart of our central limit theorem article, it says "zentraler Grenzwertsatz", with a final "r" rather than a final "n", and both are correct, but to do them the other way around—"n" in the article title and "r" in Polya's paper—would be clearly incorrect. Likewise in the subject of a sentence, the phrase "Der zentrale Grenzwertsatz" with neither an "r" nor and "n" at the end would be correct. It depends on context, and just how to do it when writing in English may be unclear in some cases, but the nominative case is generally considered the lemmatic form. So I changed it to say:

(in German: "zentraler Grenzwertsatz")

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Michael. German grammar is certainly not my strong point. Qwfp (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

## Public-public partnership

Good work on Public-public partnership. You rolled up your sleeves and made Wikipedia better.Emargie (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

## Utopian novel and Utopia

Thanks for the italicization help!

I believe that the Utopia entry has more discussion of The New Atlantis, and so was a useful link. Howver, your editing stands unless you agree. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you've got a point. I admit I hadn't properly looked at the articles "utopia" and "utopian and dystopian fiction" (to which "utopian novel" redirects). I just thought that linking consecutive words to both seemed like overlinking as the reader would be unsure which link to follow (if they even realised there were two separate links). Having looked at both articles it seems more useful to me to link to "utopia" than to "utopian and dystopian fiction", and in fact the second adds little if anything of relevance here, but that would effectively imply undoing your edit. What do you think? Qwfp (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

REPLY: Dear gentle Qwfp: With your blessing, then, I will link both words simply to utopia. Thanks for your advice (especially about over-linking, which may be a fault of mine). Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

## Consistency

That TW removal of links was completely my error! I am going to work on restoring them right now. My apologies. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

## File:Charlton-on-Otmoor Church.jpg

Hi there. It is preferable that Geograph images are uploaded to Commons. They can be better organised and they are easily available to other projects. Regards. Adambro (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

## TUSC token 665b656e6f039f25de1aebd8aa938c3b

I am now the proud owner of a TUSC account !

## NPOV smile

OK, your NPOV edit gave me a grin today.[1] -- SEWilco (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Qwfp (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I like your proposal of a template for Experimental Design. Kudos to you!

I added some designs (and topics) and then tried to organize some of the designs by category.

I also commented-out the topics that are more important in observational studies and random-sampling than in non-observational experiments, and I apologize if this was unwarranted.

Keep up the good work! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! To be honest I'd quite forgotten about that. I only created it as a quick example for the discussion at Template talk:Statistics#Split?, which didn't result in any clear consensus so I lost enthusiasm and moved on. I'm entirely happy for you to take it over – sounds like you know a lot more about Design of Experiments than I do. I think i took the topics from the main Template:Statistics, with a few additions and deletions (I've no idea now why I included effect size though), so i've no particular attachment to them.
If you want to put this to use you'll need to move it to Template space of course, and transfer the discussion to an accompanying talk page. Qwfp (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Helpful Qwfp, thanks! If it's easy for you to do, would you please do this movement. My wikipedia learning-capacity is about saturated now. Otherwise, I can try to move the template-directory sometime myself. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically you just click the "Move" tab and fill in the boxes, but I'm happy to do it. But first we need to decide on its name: Template:Experimental design or Template:Design of experiments ? Personally I'd favour the latter for consistency with the article Design of experiments. I think I created the subpage as Template talk:Statistics/Experimental design as "Experimental design" was the name of the group in Template:Statistics at the time (but it has since been changed). Qwfp (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OOPS! I used "Experimental design", because I was afraid of a conflict with "Design of Experiments". I thought I read all your posting, with the explicit comments, which don't seem to have been added in a later edit. I'm sorry for somehow missing your valuable comments, and am especially sorry because I failed to choose a better name. (In fact, I think now that "Design and Analysis of Experiments" would better cover ANOVA, etc.) Thanks for your help. I can change the name of the template in 1-2 days (since I'm tired now), which I used on the relevant Wikipedia articles. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed the name of the template (at least as it appears in the box) to "Design of Experiments". I organized the major categories: There's some logic to the organization, and it should be useful to the public (although some of the topics are useless, e.g. "factor" and "treatment"). I tried to cover the main topics. At this point, your feedback would be especially valuable. Thank you again for your encouragement. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

## "Bird rescue" question on refdesk

There I was, typing in a link to the RSPB "Baby Birds" advice and I find I'm edit conflicted by ... your link to the RSPB "Baby Birds" advice ☺ Two minds with but a single thought! Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 22:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that was the first time i've ever contributed to the Science refdesk, and one of the few times i've ever even looked at it. I was following a cross-ref to a different question, which was beyond me entirely, then glanced at the question at the bottom of the screen and realised i was pretty certain where to find an authoritative answer.
Now i've just learnt fom you that there's an html code for a smiley face ☺ (works in edit summaries too) – although it's so small on my setup i have to look at it very closely to be sure it is smiling. Qwfp (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There are lots of useful Unicode characters! . Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

## DYK for Iterative proportional fitting

 On July 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iterative proportional fitting, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 14:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I only nominated it (and made a few small edits). User:Hanzzoid created it. Qwfp (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

## Dines Green

Hi Qwfp, I origninally PRODed the article and the AfD had the desired success in drumming up some interest for it. I actually remember Dines green being builtWhen I saw that jeni was on to it I also came to the rescue (i'm fundamentally against deltions if an article can be kept). I was also working on it at the same time although this resulted in edit conflicts - my Internet connection here in the juhngle is slow (5 - 10 minutes to load a page and up to 30 mins to upload changes), besides which, Jeni knows how to automate a lot of stuff ;) If you have an interest in, or local knowledge of the county, you may like to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire and help out more. --Kudpung (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

## Derbyshire

Thanks for the interest in the Ault Hucknall articles and associated stuff. Your edits are improving the quality considerably. I see the AfD for Common End failed ... but a merge is still a valid solution? Cheers and thx again Victuallers (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure merging / redirecting is still a valid solution, but perhaps wise to discuss it first at Talk:Common End, Derbyshire. Personally I'd favour redirecting to Ault Hucknall and expanding that by adding a section on the civil parish (which i've discovered is much larger than the village itself). The disambig page Common End could include a line something like ".. a hamlet in the civil parish of Ault Hucknall in Derbyshire, England."
Feel free to copy the above to Talk:Common End, Derbyshire. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

## Public Domain song

I notice that you have a DYK hook which includes file with someone singing the song. The song I Love You Truly was also published before 1923 in the U.S. Here's a link to the song. Would you do the short recording of the song? Royalbroil 22:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I found that .ogg file on archive.org. I don't have the software to convert sound files myself I'm afraid. Qwfp (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
HOWEVER, I just tried googling "I love you truly" .ogg and discovered that archive.org has an .ogg version of Elsie Baker's 1912 recording of this at http://www.archive.org/details/ElsieBaker, so it seems you're in luck! Qwfp (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! That worked! I didn't know that archive.org had archived some old public domain songs. Royalbroil 12:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

## DYK for Nellie Dean

 On August 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nellie Dean, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 14:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

## Articles for deletion/Axel Dreher

I saw that there was consensus in the way the h-index is used in these discussions, so I didn't think it useful to have a discussion there. But let me respond to your comment that Axel Dreher is easily notable according to WP:ACADEMIC. I disagree.

• He has a chair at the University of Göttingen, "one of the highest-ranked universities in Germany" (at least according to Wikipedia ;-) so passes WP:ACADEMIC criterion 5
• In the German university system, being a full professor is almost the same as having a chair. It is not the same as a named chair though.
• he's editor-in-chief of an established journal so passes criterion 8
• Review of International Organizations is not a major well-established journal, as required by criterion 5. It is a relatively new and unknown journal.
• and as XXanthippe says it looks like he passes criterion 1 too.
• This is the only thing I may agree on. Although you seem to have settled on a quantitative rather than qualitative criterion. The fact remains that none of his publications are in a top-5 or even top-10 journal in Economics. But if the h-index is the way to go, fine by me...
• By the way, what is a reasonable number to use as a threshold for the h-index to establish notability?

--CronopioFlotante (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• As you requested, a few comments. 1/ Chair: You are absolutely right, not a named chair (they don't exist in Germany, a far as I know). However, a "chair" there means a professorship at the highest level, which for someone 6 years after the PhD is almost unheard of. That's pretty notable already, even if it might not be enough in itself. 2/ RIO is indeed not yet well-established, it has been in existence for only 4 years. However, it is already listed in many databases, including Scopus. Listing in Web of Science and obtaining an impact factor cannot be far off (I know, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, but read on). Most importantly, Springer is a very serious major scientific publisher. Starting a new journal is a major investment and they would not put just anybody as EIC of a new journal. Again, pretty notable, even though in itself not enough. 3/ In my professional life as a scientist, I always rail against this tendency only to take publications seriously if they have been published in the "most important" journals. (And what determines if a journal is "top 5" or "top 10"? Read a bit of the criticisms on the impact factor and you'll see why many people don't think this is reasonable). Many important discoveries are not published in those journals (or course, many are...:-) Many articles published in those journals (as with every journal that exists) are never ever cited even once, not even by their original authors. Being published in a major journal just means that the editors and reviewers of those journals thought the stuff was good, nothing less, but also nothing more. And occasionally they are wrong. In the present case, Dreher has obtained hundreds (perhaps even thousands, I did not check) of citations to obtain an h-index of 25. In most disciplines with a "high citation density", having an h-index equaling about the number of years since the PhD is considered "good". I actually think that economics has a somewhat lower citation density than most "hard sciences", but even if that is not true, Dreher has an h that is 4 times the length of his career. 25 is something many scientists never achieve in their whole career, so Dreher truly is exceptional here. I don't think that there is any consensus of the type "an h above xx is notable", as it depends a lot on the field and the length of a subject's career. But 25 for someone just 6 years after the PhD is stellar. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
PS to Qwfp: thanks for the correction to my user page, I hadn't noted that mistake! So much for dumb cut and paste... :-) --Crusio (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Crusio, thank you for your comments. The identity of the top-5 journals is not subject to dispute in Economics: they are AER, Ecta, JPE, QJE, REStud, although economists may discuss about the ordering within that group. Finally, two points:
• So that you understand why I nominated Dreher. Please look at this ranking of Journals at the U of Kiel [2]. It is representative of the ranking inside an economist's mind. If anything it is biased in favor of Axel Dreher's line of research since it is focused on international economics. His best publication is in the Journal of Development Economics, a solid C level journal.
• The h-index counts self citations which seem to numerous for Axel's most cited article: [3].
• A final point: I understand that using the h-index provides a useful way to be consistent across disciplines. I just fear that by using it liberally Wikipedia might become no better than a directory of tenured professors.

--CronopioFlotante (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a journal editor myself (albeit in a different field) and I absolutely hate those idiotic rankings. An editor's function is to evaluate a manuscript, not to evaluate a certain researcher. Dreher's best publication is the one that had the most impact on the field, who cares where it was pubished (for all I care in the Monaco weekly jeu-de-boule report). Those rankings are made by and for bean counters who want a shortcut to "evaluate" scientists, without having to bother with actually reading their papers. The father of the impact factor, Eugene Garfield, has always warned about using such rankings for the evaluation of individuals. These rankings may compare journals and can be useful for librarians in helping them decide which journals they absolutely need and which ones they can do without. Nothing less, but certainly not anything more like judging individuals. --Crusio (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• And by using the h-index, you may be implicitly measuring impact in the field by the number of citations in journals like the Monaco weekly jeu-de-boule report in a similar bean-counting activity. Anyway, let's not discuss anymore. I am willing to accept the h-index doctrine for lack of anything better. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• Very true, it's a form of bean counting, too, but on a personal level. Evaluating a scientist by the impact factor, one assumes that all articles published in a journal have the same impact, which is patently false. And I am against using h for promotion and tenure decisions, and such. I have less of a problem using it for WP as it is a rough measure of how much interest someone's articles have garnered. --Crusio (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for taking a while to respond. On looking over this AfD again, I think I was too harsh in questioning whether it was necessary to bring it to AfD. I'm still pretty sure he's notable, but on reconsideration it's not as clear-cut as I first thought, so it was not unreasonable to bring to AfD (though I'd still suggest it might be an idea to have have tagged it with {{notability}} for a while first). It's too late to alter my comments there, but please accept my apologies. To reply to your specific points above:
• I realised he doesn't have a named chair, but WP:ACADEMIC#5 says "has held a named/personal chair". My understanding of a "personal chair" is a professorship other than a named chair, i.e. as Professor#Most other English-speaking countries says, "a professorship awarded specifically to that individual". However, on consideration, I'm not sure if that can really be what WP:ACADEMIC#5 was intended to mean, especially given Criterion 6 and Note 13 further down. This may be worth raising at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) (I may do so myself, but not tonight).
• You're probably right that it's not a major well-established journal; this is not my academic area. It is a major publisher though, and it's certainly not a journal "dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories" as mentioned in Note 13. Again, perhaps the guidance at WP:ACADEMIC could do with clarifying.
• Generally I'm not a big fan of using the h-index to judge notability, and it's interpretation is certainly subject-specific, so I wouldn't like to give a threshold, but 25 seems pretty exceptional for someone who only got his PhD 6 years ago. I was more than a little surprised by the assertion in your nomination that "citations are rather low" given the Google Scholar results of 188, 82, 70, 58, all first-author papers from the last 5 years. In retrospect, I over-reacted in response.
Regards, Qwfp (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Qwfp for your kind response. When I said that citations were low, I based this on the citations rank on the IDEAS webpage (which is what economists like me are more familiar with). I was not familiar with citation counting on Google Scholar and the h-index at that point. Best. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• On a somewhat unrelated point, regarding reputations of academic publishing companies, are you aware of the Elsevier-affair? --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It sounds vaguely familiar, yes; I think I probably read about it on Ben Goldacre's blog. Elsevier have never been my favourite publishing company (partly for the reasons listed at the start of Elsevier#Criticism and controversies, as well as others I won't go into and can't fully remember myself as its really ancient history now...). Time I signed off for tonight I'm afraid, Qwfp (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

## DYK for Hassard Short

 On August 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hassard Short, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

## User Page Article

--Sterwick (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Hello, I have recently started an Article named 'Earth Story' on my User Page (User:Sterwick). Could you make any general improvments on the article, or some specific info on the topic, if you know anything about the BBC documentry 'Earth Story'?

## DYK for Caroline Wyatt

 On August 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caroline Wyatt, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♠ 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sir Charles Edward Trevelyan, 1st Baronet, KCB (2 April 1807 – 19 June 1886) was a British civil servant and Governor of Madras.

## Popular Culture

• Trevelyan is referred to in the modern Irish folk song The Fields of Athenry about the Great Irish Famine, 1845-1849. For his actions (as referred to in this song), he is commonly considered one of the most detested figures in Irish history.
• A decendant, Laura Trevelyan, has been the BBC's United Nations Correspondent since May 2006. She wrote the book “A Very British Family: The Trevelyans and their World” which has the ironic preamble “It is a rule that no Trevalyan ever sucks up either to the press or the chiefs, or the “right people”. The world has given us money enough to enable us to do what we think is right. We thanks it for that and ask no more of it, but to be allowed to serve it.” – G. M. Trevelyan [1]

It's ironic that her book includes the preamble >“It is a rule that no Trevalyan ever sucks up either to the press or the chiefs, or the “right people”. The world has given us money enough to enable us to do what we think is right. We thanks it for that and ask no more of it, but to be allowed to serve it.” – G. M. Trevelyan [1]

When Charles Trevelyan was a civil servant tot he chiefs / fight people and Laura uscked up to the press.

The world didn't give them money........... their masters did for doing what wasn't right ie allowing the starvation of the Irish people.

If anything my posting about the book should have been moved to Publications rather than Popular Culture altho it does refer to a book (culture) recently produced/published (popular / contempory). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.105.248.28 (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

## Sapsuckers

Oh, sure, it's probably a joke or a mistranscription (or, at least, a diligently duplicated joke or mistranscription). You were right to fact-tag it, I was just removing the wikilink from the quotation, per policy. Me hearties. --McGeddon (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

## DYK for Stephen Dunnett

 On September 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stephen Dunnett, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

## Specificity and sensitivity

Hi. Please see my comment at Talk:Sensitivity and specificity#Order. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs)`

## Negative Multinomial Distribution Applets

Could you please provide your opinion on this Talk:Negative_multinomial_distribution page? It's regarding the the value of an external applet link and a results figure. Thanks. Iwaterpolo (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

## Environment for DeveLoping KDD-Applications Supported by Index-Structures

KDD is the common abbreviation for Knowledge Discovery in Databases. In EN wikipedia, that is linked to Data Mining, so how do you suggest to explain what KDD in the software name is the abbreviation for? Make KDD a Wikilink? The article was deliberately not called ELKI, which is the abbreviation of the framework name.

As for notability - well, there are at least three publications on important conferences involved, and if you check the authors you'll find their names all over Wikipedia, e.g. Hans-Peter Kriegel in DBSCAN and R*-tree. And they've been there for years.

So how do you suggest to improve the article? --87.174.65.52 (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining what KDD stands for. I'd suggest you could incorporate "knowledge discovery in databases (KDD)" somewhere in the first couple of sentences – i don't like to change it myself as I'm not clear on the distinction between this and "data mining" (which is currently used in both the first two sentences). I see that although KDD and Knowledge Discovery in Databases both redirect to Data mining, Knowledge discovery is a separate article, albeit one that could do with some attention from an expert in the subject. Maybe you could help with that? And consider whether the current redirects need changing? (see Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects for how.)
Notability requires reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Conference contributions by people involved in the project aren't independent. And notability is not inherited, so the notability of the authors or of other things they've worked on is beside the point.
Regards, Qwfp (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, "data mining" is formally a part of the KDD process, but basically the key part so they are often used as synonyms. I believe there is somewhere a specification of "the kdd process" which includes things like preprocessing and data mining as separate steps. But one may argue whether or not to pick on a particular definition or instead write on how the term is used in everyday communication. In german wikipedia they are two separate articles. Maybe I can get my hands on
Fayyad, Usama; Piatetsky-Shapiro, Gregory and Smyth Padhraic (1996), From Data Mining to Knowledge Discovery in Databases, AI Magazine, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, California, USA, Pages 37-54
which probably defined this "KDD process". As for ELKI itself: there are of course also other references, for example
Müller, E. and Assent, I. and Günnemann, S. and Jansen, T. and Seidl, T. (2009). "OpenSubspace: an open source framework for evaluation and exploration of subspace clustering algorithms in WEKA". Proc. Open Source in Data Mining workshop (OSDM'09) at Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining,.
but it doesn't make sense to put this reference in the article (it's more focused around WEKA anyway). Notability of research is often hard to establish within a few years after publication. But does that imply it shouldn't be on Wikipedia? There are many examples where Wikipedia does try to be up to the latest news such as Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion --138.246.7.176 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
I think 'Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion' has received rather more in the way of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject! The reference you give above is the only independent reference found by a Google Scholar search for the article title. Looking at that article], ELKI is certainly mentioned, but i'm not sure it's enough to consitute significant coverage. Qwfp (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

## Chi square test introduction

Hi,

Needed a stats expert and you were first on the list! Just a quick check: could you briefly have a look at the intro to the chi squared test article? I think it is describing the experimental hypothesis, not the null hypothesis, but I'm not enough of a statistician to correct it myself.

Thanks

81.158.127.109 (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The chi-square test article? I can't see immediately see anything wrong with its intro. Could you quote which bit exactly you think is wrong? Sorry i'm about to go out for the day so if urgent you might want to try someone else.. Qwfp (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

## Making Mathematics Count

Hi Qwfp! You've written about U.K. topics, and so perhaps you could add something to the stub Making Mathematics Count, about the report of Adrian Smith (academic). Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

## Template:Statistics Great work!

You did a great job on the statistics template. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

## DYK for The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers

RlevseTalk 18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

## Thanks

You made some terrific improvements in Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences. Thanks very much! Robsavoie (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

## McNemar & Cochran

According to the SAS procedures guide, "When there are only two binary response variables (m=2), Cochran’s Q simplifies to McNemar’s test". Therefore, Cochran's is a generalization of McNemar's. Perhaps there is more than one Cochran test? Regards, Btyner (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

## You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

## MagicPlot

Hi, Qwfp! You did marked the article with {{notability|products|date=June 2010}}. Why? What secondary sources can be found for the not so well known software?.. I think this article may be useful for someone who search for some plotting software and came from List_of_information_graphics_software for example. (I am quiet new in Wikipedia editing...)

See WP:Verifiability: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not whether the article may be useful to someone. As WP:Notability explains, if something doesn't have coverage in independent reliable sources we shouldn't have an article on it, as there's no way of verifying the info is correct and neutral in tone. That's why the article on LiveGraph was recently deleted: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiveGraph. Qwfp (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And in List_of_information_graphics_software: Why did you delete LiveGraph from table of plotting software? It seems to me that the project is alive: http://www.live-graph.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electriq (talkcontribs) 18:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I was assuming that list should only include software for which Wikipedia has a corresponding article, but i've just noticed that's not the case so i've undone that edit. My apologies. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So am I right that for 'not well-known' software in the 'list of plotting software' the article and link to that article will be replaced by direct link to software's website? I'm talking about this because this list is very useful for many people who search for some software (I am a programmer/physicist). Let's take a look at SciDAVis. All external links are to the official site or to open-souse repositories. Will it be deleted from Wikipedia? I only want to say that as user I read this article before going to SciDAVis site. (I am not going to argue with Wikipedia rools but I want to clear this question for myself). Electriq (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't say it that articles on non-WP:notable software will be deleted, only that they could be. See WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? I can't see there's anything in the Wikipedia article on SciDAVis that i couldn't find out by looking at its website, which is the first hit for "scidavis" on Google. Qwfp (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I suppose that the significance of such Wiki pages is that it contains the categories. And I think, that the list of categories can not be quick obtained from looking on product site. For example, what to do with Category:Free_plotting_software and Category:Plotting_software if there will be no articles? I think it will be not usable. I think Wikipedia has to help the readers to know a little about all software. It's my opinion. (Sorry, is it a correct place for this discussion?) Electriq (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not claiming that all free plotting software is non-WP:notable (e.g. i'm pretty sure gnuplot is). But Wikipedia is not a directory. If you want a directory, have a look at the Open Directory Project "dmoz". This is probably as good a place for this discussion as any. BTW, to refer to a category use e.g. [[:Category:Free plotting software]]. I've taken the liberty of editing your category references above. Qwfp (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
As for me, I consider some topics and categories of Wikipedia as a directory of well-known (notable) things. I consider List_of_information_graphics_software, List_of_vector_graphics_editors, List_of_raster_graphics_editors and similar to be very useful. But it is a directory in fact. So I agree that some articles about not-notable products can be deleted, but it will be great to keep them in List_of_information_graphics_software. IMHO. Electriq (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

## Sue Gardner

[4] Nothing to be excused, you are absolutely right - the story should have noted who she is, I wrote that in a bit of a rush. Thanks for reading and improving the Signpost! Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

## Svante Janson for DYK?

I could imagine the article on Svante Janson qualifying for a DYK. I'll try to add a comment by Knuth on Janson's contribution to their paper on the birth of the giant component in the next 3 days. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It had crossed my mind, but I couldn't spot an obvious 'hook'. I'll leave the content to you, but let me know if you want a hand with the process as I've done a few, as you can see above. However, nominated articles are supposed to have been created in the last 5 days; it's usually a bit more in practice, but Wikipedia:Did you know/Not exactly suggests we're running out of time as I created the article on 27 June and Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations currently starts on the 26th. Seems the backlog isn't as bad as it once was. 07:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that a DYK hook could be "that Swedish mathematician Svante Janson enrolled at Uppsala University when he was 13 years old and received his Ph.D. on his 22nd birthday. Janson's dissertation was supervised by Lennart Carleson, who had also received his Ph.D. at age 22." Regarding Janson, I would prefer not to nominate the article for DYK, because he's at my university. I added references to this fact yesterday. Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I nominated it myself, today. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated Svante Janson, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

## DYK for Svante Janson

RlevseTalk 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

## Rob Brettle

can I ask why you want to delete the article for this historian - it seems he is enagaged in some useful research, and thereby making a contribution to mankind's greater knowledge, but you want the article on him deleted. Can you explain why - without referring me to the "Wikipedia criteria for notability", which seems somewhat subjective. Historyboy2010 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

## Canvasing

Hi Qwip. I did not know there was such a crime. Sorry. One aspect of the rule of law is that statutes should be duly promulgated and published. Could you give me the text concerned, explain how was promulgated, and how such laws can be easily accessed? Thank you very much for your guidance in this matter. Knd regards. Perhaps you can also explain why ceertain votes go ont the Adf statistics and others don't?Rick570 (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

## Variance formula

I believe you're mistaken; the formula as it was originally posted is incorrect.

The incorrect simplification:

$s^2 = \frac{1}{n-1} \sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i - \overline{y} \right)^ 2 = \frac{1}{n-1}\sum_{i=1}^n y_i^2 - \frac{n}{n-1} \overline{y}^2.$

The correct simplification:

$s^2 = \frac{1}{n-1} \sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i - \overline{y} \right)^ 2 = \frac{1}{n-1}\left( \sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i^2 - 2y_i\overline{y}\right)+n\overline{y}^2\right)= \frac{1}{n-1}\left( \sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i^2\right)-2\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)}{n}+n\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)}{n}\right)^2\right)=$

$\frac{1}{n-1}\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i^2\right)-2\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)^2}{n}+\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)^2}{n}\right) = \frac{1}{n-1}\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i^2\right)-\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)^2}{n}\right)= \frac{1}{n-1}\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i^2\right)\right)-\frac{1}{n^2-n}\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)^2\right)$

$s^2 = \frac{1}{n-1} \sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i - \overline{y} \right)^ 2 = \frac{1}{n-1}\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i^2\right)\right)-\frac{1}{n^2-n}\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)^2\right)$

Please post the error in my simplification here if I persist in being incorrect. Please let me know, I'll watch your talk page for a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertCoop (talkcontribs) 14:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Going from the end of your 1st line to the beginning of your 2nd line under 'the correct simplification' assumes $\left(\sum y_i\right)^2 = \sum y_i^2$, which isn't right. The square of the sum isn't the same as the sum of the squares. Qwfp (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps my parenthesis are a bit misleading, but I'm not making that assumption. The simplification from line 1 to line 2 is equivalent to: $\frac{1}{n-1}\left( \sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i^2\right)-2\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)}{n}+n\left(\frac{\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)}{n}\right)^2\right)= \frac{1}{n-1}\left(\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i^2\right)-2\frac{\left[\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)\right]^2}{n}+\frac{\left[\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)\right]^2}{n}\right)$

which only requires that $\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)*\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)=\left[\sum_{i=1}^n\left(y_i\right)\right]^2$

If you require a textbook citation, refer to Montgomery, D.C. and Runger, G.C.:Applied statistics and probability for engineers, page 201. John Wiley & Sons New York, 1994. http://www.amazon.com/reader/0471745898?_encoding=UTF8&query=Computation%20of%20s2 , the formula on page 201 of that book reveals the correct simplification.

## Thanks For Help

Thanks For the Tips and Help With Editing Science 2.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrojed (talkcontribs) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:Cochrane Collaboration logo.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Cochrane Collaboration logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It was orphaned because it was replaced with an SVG version, which i've proposed for deletion as an SVG isn't low-resolution so its non-free logo use rationale is invalid. I've now reverted this replacement. Qwfp (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been in contact with Nick Roye, CEO of the Cochrane Collaboration- The Cochrane Logo GIF image was incorrect, because it displayed the (r) registration mark. Permission has been granted for use of the SVG copy of the logo, and not the GIF copy. I will update the page to reflect the correct permissions.TDN (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, and apologies for the misunderstanding. (It might lessen the chance of similar future misunderstandings if you fill in the WP:Edit summary). I've reinstated the {{orphaned fair use}} template on File:Cochrane Collaboration logo.gif as i'm now happy for it to be replaced by File:Cclogo.svg and deleted in due course. Qwfp (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

## Your removals of my work

Dear Qwfp,

Although I appreciate it very much that someone takes care that my work is edited, I merely want to contribute objective content. The links to instructional movies have no commercial intent (they were recorded at my university). The reference to (sometimes not yet written) pages are no different then the multitude of other references; thus I find it rather strange that they were removed (why not all the others). Furthermore, there are plenty (outside) links to commercial websites in Wikipedia (i.e. what is your problem with that?). Finally, why do you cloak your identity as Qwfp? To appreciate an editors' objectivity it should be known to Wikipedia contributors who you are.

Best regards, Eric Melse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmelse (talkcontribs) 10:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

## ALan Sugar

I can't believe he deserves the category "statistician" at that level of employment. "Data analyst" might be closer, but I still think it requires a source to raise him to such an academic level. I did 1/3 stats for my Masters, but I wouldn't call myself a statistician. Rodhullandemu 21:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In the cold light of morning I think you were correct not to take that categorisation seriously; I thought i heard Sugar himself describe his job as 'statistician' on last night's The Graham Norton Show (from 10:00) but listening to it again he in fact said "I was in the statistics department there, I thought I'd be a statistician". Which sounds like he changed careers before he reached the point a point at which he would in fact have called himself one. I may have failed to respect one point in my favourite Wikipedia essay. Qwfp (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

## n=1 fallacy

Hi, I am the author of the n=1 fallacy. i understand you are unhappy with the article. I am unhappy with the link to pseudoreplication which doesn't address the problem of the n=1 fallacy. The problem is indeed widespread but i agree that the term n=1 fallacy isn't used frequently. I am happy to rewrite n=1 fallacy and would be grateful for advice. Thanks Lorenz —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lseidlein (talkcontribs) 05:11, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Dear Lseidlein, I did not propose or nominate this article for deletion, nor did I participate in the deletion debate. If you wish to challenge the decision to delete it, the appropriate procedure is explained at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Personally I would call the issue a unit of analysis error. A Google Scholar search appears to indicate that this is a more commonly used term in medicine than 'pseudoreplication'. It appears the term 'unit of analysis error' was coined in this 1984 paper, the same year as 'pseudoreplication'. I would suggest it may be more useful to Wikipedia's readers to add material on this term, either to the article on pseudoreplication on in its own article, rather than under the term 'N=1 fallacy' which appears to be a much more recent coinage that is far less commonly used. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

## France Gélinas

Please verify that the links you make are correct and in context before you save them. France Gélinas might be married to someone named Keith Harris but he is certainly not an English ventriloquist. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 13:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. I will take your word for it and have therefore removed the name of her husband in line with WP:BLPNAME: "Consider whether the inclusion of names of private living individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value. The presumption in favor of privacy is strong in the case of family members of articles' subjects and other loosely involved, otherwise low-profile persons." --Qwfp (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

## Thanks, but

I can tell you have wiki's best interest in mind. Unfortunately, other's use wiki as their personal playground, which gives wikipedia its dubious name among those in academe. Regarding the ANOVA page, see my response (I apologize for the bold but I've had enough). I don't plan on editing anything on that page under the present condition - and it needs a LOT of work. In short: not everyone here has your common sense and good intentions.Edstat (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

## RE: Hotelling's T-square distribution

Dear Qwfp,

Please reconsider your reversion of this article. Even though my revision is not stylistically correct -- I didn't know about the guidelines beforehand -- it is clearer and easier to understand. The old version not only is NOT compliant with the style guidelines but also is a lot more confusing in content.

Here is why the old version is confusing.

1. This is an article on a distribution, but the old introduction begins by defining a statistic and defines it sloppily and erroneously, and when it comes to actually defining the distribution, the notation is carelessly inconsistent.

2. The old introduction is needlessly long and circuitous. For example, the T-squared statistic is defined twice, and only at the second time it is defined correctly. In my revision, I have separated out the T-squared statistic into a section of its own and supplied it with proper motivation, and left the bare bone definition of the distribution in the introduction. While this is a stylistic misdemeanor, it is friendly to the technical people who come here looking for this information for the first time, who I suspect are the major audience of this article anyway. Plus, this minimal introduction can be expanded later with more suitable enrichments, instead of having the main definition buried in an obfuscating narrative.

Furthermore,

3. The old introduction attempts to prove that the T-squared statistic follows the T-squared distribution, but doesn't actually show any proof, notwithstanding the fact that proofs don't belong in an introduction.

4. The old introduction states that the T-squared statistic "is closely related to the squared Mahalanobis distance" without any explanation. Correct or not, this is a property of the T-squared statistic, and doesn't belong to the introductory paragraph of an article on the T-squared distribution.

5. I am not the first person who was confused by the exposition, as evidenced by the discussion page where someone had asked for a better explanation more than two years ago, since when the article has changed very little.

I understand that the guidelines call for writings "suitable for a general audience," but shouldn't it be common sense that a mathematical article should at least be made intelligible to the specialists before the general audience? Otherwise, who else would it benefit?

I hope you reconsider your reversion. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.19.78 (talk) 07:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

## redirect

Hello, I know the page about redirection but I found a few cases for example with animals where I try to made it accurate for example when it goes to a music group instead of the beast. So you should do it too so to learn about. Regards. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 11:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

## Thanks

Thank you very much - yes, it was on BBC iPlayer and I just watched it this morning. Enjoyable enough film. Perhaps the cooling tower or pink pylon might have gone in, but perhaps people will discover them for themselves!

Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarmonyRocket (talkcontribs) 15:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

## Confidence intervals

Hi Qwfp - on this section about confidence intervals, is the Sn supposed to be the square root of the sample standard deviation all the time, or can it in fact be the unbiased estimator for the standard deviation under certain situations? --HappyCamper 16:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sn is always the square-root of the sample variance Sn², as defined at Student's t-distribution#Derivation. --Qwfp (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

## Thanks for your help with Carmer's V article

Hi Qwfp,

I just wanted to thank you for having a look at the Carmer's V article. I need this information for my M.A thesis, so I thought I might as well format it for Wikipedia :)

I made some more changes to it, any feedback you might have will be appreciated.

Cheers, Talgalili (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

## Vincenzo Balzani

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Vincenzo Balzani, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.ciam.unibo.it/photochem/balzani.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry CorenSearchBot, you're confused. Qwfp (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

## Linda Ruth Williams

Hi there. You recently added {{unreferencedBLP}} to this article in this edit:[5]. I'd just like to make the point this article actually isn't unreferenced: besides her complete list of books, it contains links to IMDB[6] and her biography at the University of Southampton[7]. Now, neither of those are particularly good references (neither probably passes the WP:RS guideline), but they are references nonetheless, so this article is not unsourced; {{unreferencedBLP}} should only be used for articles that have absolutely no sources whatsoever. {{Reliable sources}}, {{RefimproveBLP}} or {{Nofootnotes}} would have been more appropriate templates to use in this case. Robofish (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

## Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 12:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

## DYK for Peter Maitlis

rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC) 06:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free image File:ColumbiaHTCjersey.gif

Thanks for uploading File:ColumbiaHTCjersey.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

It's out of date now, so feel free to delete it. --Qwfp (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Qwfp,

A reference to a printed book (as a further reading) about SigmaXL has been added to the SigmaXL page. The inline citation has also been improved. Please have a look and let me know your suggestions.

Regards, Author of SigmaXL — Preceding unsigned comment added by Statsrus99 (talkcontribs) 22:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

That appears to qualify as significant coverage in an independent reliable source as required by WP:NOTABILITY, so I've removed the {{notability}} tag. Perhaps you should have a look at WP:Conflict of interest though. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Did you see the goings-on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Opera#Tom_Sutcliffe? This is just a note to say that you can now feel free to expand the above article without any more interference from us opera people. Also, you might want to change the "(broadcaster)" to something else, but it might need input from an admin: I had to make a snap judgement on what the best epithet might be in order to split the article, and he does more broadcasting and less opera criticism than the other chap. And maybe we ought to contact Faber jointly about their SNAFU! Best. --GuillaumeTell 16:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, yes I did notice it. Current solution seems ok to me (i.e. I can't think of a better one). I wonder what happens to the book royalties? Qwfp (talk) 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

## my edit to the central limit theorem

Hi Qwfp, I recently made an edit to a wikipedia article regarding the central limit theorem and it was removed. I read the note and it said i should include a refence, which i completely understand as it prevents people putting incorrect information up. I tried to include a reference however it was taken down again. Could you please let me know what I did wrong so that I know for next time, did I perhaps reference the article incorrectly? (I've never been great with figuring out how to work computers!)

Warmest regards,

Jonathan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjonathandoe (talkcontribs) 10:48, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Jonathan, Neither Melcombe nor I understand how a derivation relating the product of variables with uniform distributions to the gamma distribution can be produced from any of the various forms of the central limit theorem, all of which involve the normal distribution. Your reference didn't help, as it didn't mention the central limit theorem. By the way, Talk:Central limit theorem would be a better place to discuss this. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 11:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

## Pamela Evans - notability

Hi there,

I've made some efforts to improve the article's objectivity and notability - particularly referencing the papers mentioned in the text. Can you take a look and let me know what you think?

cheers

Matthew niddler (talk) 05:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It's an improvement, but she is the author or a co-author of all the current references so they don't help in establishing that she meets the criteria given at WP:Notability (people), which requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject ("3rd-party" sources). Qwfp (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah - I understand the confusion. Yes, she's the author/co-author of the referenced papers (the references indicating the papers described in the text). The referenced papers are linked to by many others - some of which are shown further down on the BMJ website. Is there a standard way of indicating these references? The wiki pages on the subject seemed to think that Google Scholar etc aren't great tools for such things (although in this particular case, they give dozens of referencing papers - so I'm not against it!).

Thanks for your help with this - further improvements on the content of the article itself are to follow. Matthew niddler (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

This Google Scholar search gives little evidence that her academic research has been cited sufficiently to meet the first of the Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. Even it it were, there's the third of the Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#General notes:—little of the info in the current article is WP:verifiable from reliable sources that are not self-published. Qwfp (talk) 20:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
What is a sufficient level of citation? I ask because cerebral palsy research isn't a big field, and the study of life expectancy within it is even smaller. I've made some efforts to expand the academic side of the article, and at the same time have added some reviews of her books - in an effort to demonstrate some level of notability of those as well. Let me know what you think. Matthew niddler (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

## Pfanzagl

Thanks for the correction: I don't have the book today.

I left out the "Mythology aside' phrase and Professor P.'s irritation at Fisher receiving credit for others' achievements and the remark that RAF was responsible for much of the "propaganda" (or was it "advertising", or maybe I am confusing his remark with Le Cam's"...?) ... A rare display of moderation! ;-)

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 13:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I've never seen a physical copy of the book, but luckily Google and Amazon have. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

## QWOP

Good catch mate, don't know how I missed that :) —BETTIA— talk 10:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

## Completeness_(statistics)

I really hate what you have done on Completeness_(statistics), your action does not add any value, and you are just waste other people's energy. Please either help to put on the needed citation, or please don't remove the tag, those are some significant places where I feel a citation is needed. Can you please explain the reason why you think your action is beneficial? Jackzhp (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Please try to calm down. I didn't remove the {{citation needed}} tags, I simply moved them from the footnotes into the text in line with the standard usage of that template as given in Template:citation needed/doc. Qwfp (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I know. I am trying to verify those suspicious statements, and the tags are anchors for me to locate them. After you removed them, I will have to spend energe to find them again. I think that the tag will not affect anyone. So I am wondering whether you can spend less energe on this kind of action. By the way, would you please give an example that a statistic is complete but not sufficient? Jackzhp (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The {{citation needed}} tags are still there! I have no argument with your addition of them! I moved them into the text to make them more prominent, as it's easy for the casual reader to take a [1] as indicating a valid citation without bothering to check the footnotes. I'm not sure what "energe" is, or how searching for "citation needed" using your browser expends much of it. Qwfp (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
The article should focus on completeness. There was a long section on sufficiency, that was too rough for the mainspace as well as being the tag wagging the dog. I moved it to the talk page, hoping that it will be improved.

BTW, another use of completeness is with Strawderman, etc., on median-unbiased estimators. Thanks,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

## Disambiguation - Sprog

In 2010, you deleted my entry of Sprog as a sailing dinghy. Perhaps it wasn't written correctly, but the context still exists. ref - http://www.sailrsa.org.za/Sprog/index.htm Can you advise how it should be presented?

• A South African designed sailing dinghy. It was designed after WWII by Herbert McWilliams to be built from marine plywood. It became a very successful class in South Africa and even appeared in England in small numbers for a while. It is 14' in length. A successful conversion allowed Sprogs to be built from foam sandwich GRP.

Siteskipper (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It shouldn't be presented at 'Sprog' at present, as 'Sprog' is a disambiguation page intended for disambiguating existing content, not listing every use ever made of a word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so does not include dictionary definitions. Wikipedia's sibling project Wiktionary is a dictionary. So if you want to include this information somewhere, you have two main choices:
1. Add it to the Wiktionary entry for 'sprog', preferably including references to reliable sources
2. Create a Wikipedia article Sprog (dinghy) if you consider that this subject is worthy of a whole separate article in Wikipedia, i.e. you can cite significant coverage in reliable sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. After doing so, you can then add a short entry to 'Sprog'.
I realise this isn't obvious—the guidelines and conventions around disambiguation pages are long and complex, but do make sense if you take the time to read them. I did so myself only after my addition to Isis (disambiguation) was reverted (which spurred me into writing a separate short article). Regards, Qwfp (talk) 08:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

## Mixte Citation Request

Your original citation request language specifically asked for a citation showing that both pronunciations of mixte were widely used. I thought Sheldon's entry on the subject answered that nicely. What else are you looking for in terms of a reference? Sorry if I'm being a bit thick here. Let me know what you want and I will do my best to provide it. Thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand your perspective, perhaps. Sheldon explained the pronunciation in French and English, but did not suggest that one pronunciation was widely used in both languages. I did a search, but could not find an RS that showed the French pronunciation to be widely used in an English-speaking country. Since this is the English Wikpedia, I thought my inability to find such an RS was reasonable grounds to remove the claim, which I did. Thoughts? Ebikeguy (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's fine with me. After you added the ref and I looked it up I was in two minds whether to remove the "widely used" sentence myself or request a citation for it—in retrospect I probably chose wrongly. Qwfp (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

## thanks for the chuckle

with this edit summary. :-) StarM 01:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

## why

why did you report it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.141.99.58 (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

## Epigenome discussion

I am sending this message to you because you commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epigenome. In closing the AfD, DGG (talk · contribs) said that: "The possibilities for merging are too diverse to be properly decided here by a simple merge close; --those interested should pick one or another of the relvant talk pages and decide how to do it." I have taken this on board, and have started a discussion at Talk:Epigenetics#Possible merge of Epigenetics-related topics about this. You are welcome to comment there. Quasihuman | Talk 21:19, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

## Monmouth

Thanks for pointing to Monmouth on the map. I didn't know how to add it. It's too bad that it was published before that was added. SL93 (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Better late than never! Qwfp (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

## Mondegreen

Thanks for the great ref to A Displaced Person. It's a fine addition to our little article. Bloody Viking (talk) 14:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

## Rebekah Brooks

Appleton Hall is a private school, according to this research http://www.suttontrust.com/news/news/over-half-the-countrys-top-journalists-went-to-private-schools/ See the attached document. Please check before removing such information - it is only polite. --Ray3zor (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, much as I agree with the aims of the Sutton Trust, they appear to have got their facts wrong in this particular instance. Several sources (see the article) agree that the full name of her school was Appleton Hall County Grammar. While having 'Grammar' in the title doesn't guarantee a school was a state school, having County Grammar in the title does. Qwfp (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

## Computational Statistics & Data Analysis

1983 issues a year, now that'd be something! :-) Thanks for catching that silly mistake! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

## Talk:Caroline Ryan

FYI... In biographies, only WikiProject Biography receives a listas value. All other banners uses Biography's listas value. Bgwhite (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I know that really. Thanks for fixing my slip. Qwfp (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

## Update the ancient opinion, please.

Qwfp, in January 2008 you commented on "Statistical hypothesis testing" (for the maths and stats tribes?). Please refresh your opinion (the only one ever offered on the article).159.83.196.1 (talk) 21:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

## Hello!

I saw your name all over the place in cycling articles' histories, I started editing a lot myself just a few days ago. I remarked you added details about the finish of the Tour of Turkey stage 7. What an amazing finish that was, I'm still stunned! Glad to "know" you, I'll certainly hang around and edit cycling articles regularly. :) Mattaidepikiw (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey! You have enough time to greet vandals like this but replying courteously to the guy who wrote the 2012 Tour of California and tried to say 'hi!' in an effort to improve cycling articles is a loss of time for you! I like your priorities. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 05:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Forget it, I was kinda tired :S If you're in the habit of not replying to messages that don't have a question in it, that's fine. Sorry about that. :) Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 21:44, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

## Kernel (mathematics)

Please note that if Kernel (mathematics) is a disambiguation page, then it runs afoul of WP:INCOMPDAB and must be merged into the appropriate section of Kernel (disambiguation); furthermore, in accordance with WP:MOSDAB, all information must be stripped from the page except for one blue link per line and the minimum amount of information needed to direct a searcher to the most appropriate article for a given meaning. Since the page has 60 incoming links, it is likely to draw the attention of a lot of disambiguation link fixers who will attempt to implement such a solution. However, it would be a shame to lose all the work that has been put into this page, so perhaps some formulation can be arrived at where it is not a disambiguation page. Cheers! bd2412 T 12:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, WP:DAB & WP:MOSDAB are only guidelines, perhaps this is a legitimate case for WP:Ignore all rules? I've only made one edit to that page, so I don't wish to be solely responsible for its fate! Maybe worth discussing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics ? Qwfp (talk) 12:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Guidelines or not, there are dozens of disambiguators who will be drawn to this page by the large number of incoming links, and will edit it to implement those guidelines, either by drastically culling its content, or by redirecting it to the existing section at Kernel (disambiguation). As you suggest, I will raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

## Nomination for deletion of Template:ISIHighlyCited

Template:ISIHighlyCited has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. TJRC (talk) 00:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, it looks like the template was a great idea, and a benefit to Wikipedia; thank you for taking the time to put it in place. It's unfortunate that highlycited.com no longer works. TJRC (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

## Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 17:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

## Velodrome: Centrifugal vs. Centripetal force

Hello Qwfp, I'd first like to introduce myself, I'm Elijah Rotholtz. I'm getting my Masters in physics at the University of Washington. Over the last day, we have been having a conversation about the difference between centrifugal and centripetal forces, in the context of a velodrome. I would very much like to come to a confident and joint decision on the matter. First off, centrifugal force is not an true force... meaning that it does not actually exist. It is quite simply, the experience that an object undergoes while undo the influence of centripetal force, and not a real force acting upon the aforementioned object. The article that you linked me to demonstrated that it was apparently a rotating reference frame, this is false. Imagine it this way: the velodrome is giant, stationary funnel and the rider is a penny. If you were to roll said penny around the outer or inner edge (the latter requires far more acceleration) of the funnel, it would take some time for the penny to reach either end... in other words, it would spiral. This is the real force, known as centripetal force acting upon the penny and pulling it towards the center. Similar examples would be a tether ball, planetary orbits, etc. I truly hope this clears things up slightly. If you'd like to look into it a little more, I'll leave some sources and links below.

Thank you very much, Elijah Rotholtz

I'm aware that centrifugal force isn't a true force. Neither is the Coriolis force. But both offer a valid way of explaining things from the viewpoint of a non-inertial frame of reference. It's possible to explain the forces on a cyclist in a velodrome using either viewpoint. It's also possible to get very confused by mixing up the two, as in your revision of the article: "the net force of the centripetal force (outward) and gravity (downward) is angled down through the bicycle". That makes no sense whatsoever. Centripetal force is directed inward, not outward, and the net force of a centripetal force and gravity wouldn't be angled down through the bicycle - indeed, as only source of centripetal force is at the point of contact between the bicycle tyre and the velodrome track, it doesn't make sense to think of any component of it acting downward through the bicycle. You're welcome to rewrite the whole sentence from an inertial frame of reference, but you can't leave it as a confused mixture of the two.
If it matters, I have a degree in physics myself, and User:Philbarker who wrote that sentence in its current form (see Talk:Velodrome#Overly technical?) has a PhD in physics [8]. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

## Aldie

Can you explain where you think this is? The map coords arrive somewhere near Fort William and I can see no sign of it anywhere near Tain? Ben MacDui 08:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If you didn't think it was anywhere near Tain why did you redirect it to Tain? I've fixed the coords to agree with the OS map ref. The 1:50 000 OS map marks Aldie about a mile south of Tain. As it's such a small place and so near Tain I can see an argument for merging it into the article on Tain, but not just redirecting it to an article on Tain that doesn't mention Aldie. Qwfp (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Because it mentioned Tain and because I know there is a Glenaldie near Tain. I'll provide a longer answer on the talk page. Ben MacDui 12:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

## Good edit

Good edit, thanks. Much more balanced, and your edit summary is a gem of common sense. Nice one. 138.37.199.206 (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Wishing you a relaxing wikibreak, Qwfp (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Hah, thanks - trying hard to stay away till I have calmed down a bit. :) Cheers 138.37.199.206 (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Qwfp, I see you're doing a bit of cleaning up after me. Apologies for that, I was doing my best to find an appropriate home for the images. I still think that the galleries suited the flow of the images better, but I'll defer to the guidelines on this. I don't want you to think I'm shoehorning my images in without any regard for what's already there. But I do also think they're useful images and most if not all should appear in the articles somewhere. Ðiliff «» (Talk) 18:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

## Please review False discovery rate

Hello dear Qwfp.

I have corrected and expended upon the False discovery rate article as much as I could. I have added numerous references to support various statements in the article. I would appreciate if you can review the article again, and see if you have any suggestions for things that can be expended upon.

With regards, Tal Galili (talk) 09:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Talgalili, I'll try to have a look at it at some point over week, although just at present i'm rather distracted by watching the track cycling at the 2012 Summer Olympics! Best wishes, Qwfp (talk) 09:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Good news: you were approved for a free WP:HighBeam account. Bad news: Your access code could not be delivered because of your email settings. Please:

• Email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com with your Wikipedia username so I can respond with your account code.

Thanks! --User:Ocaasi 15:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

## Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is approved!

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code you were emailed. If you did not receive a code, email wikiocaasi@yahoo.com your Wikipedia username.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• If you need assistance, email or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

## Unipublic ownership

I would trust Unipublic more than ebu in knowing the ownership of shares in Unipublic, but I don't know how such pages can be linked. On [unipublic.es], click the link "UNIPUBLIC", and the information is there, albeit in Spanish. However, it opens as a javascript, therefre cannot be opened as a new tab or new window to identify a url on which the information is displayed. Kevin McE (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

## Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

## Hello!

What do you think about the Armstrong saga? I personally hope they don't award his placings to the next in line, that would be a Wikipedia nightmare. Imagine all the races to correct, not to mention all the guys who testified against him and whose results have been voided. Sorry to have been an ass some months prior by the way. Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 23:34, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mattaidepikiw, I'm not sure i really care what happens to Armstrong's placings; seems a bit academic to me. Most of my editing of cycle sport articles on Wikipedia has concerned women's cycle racing, but at present I'm not editing anything as much as I used to. Apologies for never replying to your previous message, which was rude of me. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 19:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
That's alright, what's sad is that it's gonna discourage casual fans from cycling, as if it is the only sport to have dopers. The evidence against Armstrong is the same old stuff that's been there for years. Of course it is damning. I only know Marianne Vos and Genevieve Jeanson in women cycling, I should pay more attention. Later! Mattaidepikiw (Talk) 22:42, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

## Carolyn Quinn edit

Thanks for your edit to Carolyn Quinn. I'm not sure what happened there - I meant to paste in presenter. I appreciate you cleaning up after my mistake. SchreiberBike (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

## Stigler's law of eponymy, Hopper article is revelant

Hopper's article is very much related to Stigler's law. The article describes how many doctors prefer to eliminate the eponym practice specifically BECAUSE of Stigler's law (although does not, of course, mention it by its eponymous name). That makes it quite relevant.

Please consider reverting your edit, thus restoring my edit. Please comment, Keith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Cascio (talkcontribs) 23:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Terry Leahy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Merchant seaman (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) 11:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

As the term 'merchant seaman' only has one meaning, that disambiguation page shouldn't exist, but I can't be bothered to sort it out. Qwfp (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

## Orphaned non-free media (File:SAS logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:SAS logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

## File:SPSSlogo.gif listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SPSSlogo.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. 13:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

## Bristol Wiki Meetup

You are invited to the Bristol Wiki Meetup which will take place at The Commercial Rooms, 43-45 Corn Street, Bristol BS1 1HT on Sunday 28 July 2013 from 1.00 pm. If you have never been to one, this is an opportunity to meet other Wikipedians in an informal atmosphere for Wiki and non-Wiki related chat and for beer or food if you like. Experienced and new contributors are all welcome. This event is definitely not restricted just to discussion of Bristol topics. Bring your laptop if you like and use the free Wifi or just bring yourself. Even better, bring a friend! Click the link for full details. Looking forward to seeing you. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello Qwfp, it was written that "academcian" is nonsense. It is the appropriate term. Thanks and take care.Snowfalcon cu (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

## Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by , Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

## November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Flowers (surname) 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:
• *[[Tommy Flowers]] ( (1905–1998), British engineer and computer designer

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Well spotted. Now fixed. Qwfp (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

## Important Notice: Your 2013 Arbitration Committee Election vote

Greetings. Because you have already cast a vote for the 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections, I regret to inform you that due to a misconfiguration of the SecurePoll we've been forced to strike all votes and reset voting. This notice is to inform you that you will need to vote again if you want to be counted in the poll. The new poll is located at this link. You do not have to perform any additional actions other than voting again. If you have any questions, please direct them at the election commissioners. --For the Election Commissioners, v/r, TParis

Sorry but once was more than enough. Qwfp (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

## The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:11, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).