User talk:UKoch

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


Hello, UKoch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Dmcq (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Levenshtein distance[edit]

Hi, UKoch! This is in regards to Levenstein distance.

I think what I was referring to were some long sentences with lots of commas, like:

In approximate string matching, the objective is to find matches for short strings, for instance, strings from a dictionary, in many longer texts, in situations where a small number of differences is to be expected.

I'm clear up to the "for instance" here but after that I'm not sure what the meaning is. Wainstead (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. It means:
In approximate string matching, the objective is to find matches for short strings in many longer texts, in situations where a small number of differences is to be expected. The short strings could come from a dictionary, for instance.
Do you like this version better? -- UKoch (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Much better! The following sentence gives examples, so that would pretty much sew it up. Nice work! Wainstead (talk) 14:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Glad you like it! I changed it now. Can we then delete the copyedit marking, or are there more unclear sentences? -- UKoch (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the copyedit tag for you! :o) Wainstead (talk) 18:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm GeorgeLouis. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Hollywood Hills, Los Angeles, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Also, Pop Culture references are really not Notable unless they have been noticed by some Reliable Source. GeorgeLouis (talk) 14:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Maitland Ward 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:
  • ex=1174795200&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1174655261-BIl8q6WMlZY3a/g+R21+fw ''The New York Times'']</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

BracketBot was right. I've fixed it now. -- UKoch (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

"Can easily get you blocked" (was: Re: Joe Nickell)[edit]

You people surely irritate a person.

I added FACTUAL information based upon my PERSONAL acquaintance with the two gentlemen AND my International Society of Cryptozoology membership for a number of years. There are no documentary sources. Funny, but I thought I had added, "Bruce David Wilner, various personal conversations, year X." Have you, O great guru, never encountered such a reference in a scholarly context? Perhaps you should read peer-reviewed scholarly material now and again.

Who are YOU to determine what information is correct and what information is incorrect? Are you inside Nickell's or Radford's head(s)?

You should keep YOUR PERSONAL OPINIONS about unexplained phenomena out of Wikipedia, IMHO, since you clearly know zero about them. Your articles (remarkably, unwritable to those more knowledgeable) pooh-pooh everything that isn't fully understood. By your Luddite approach, there is clearly nothing left for mankind to learn. BUT, WAIT . . . by the time we get to 12/31/14 and have learned X, Y, and Z (thereby contradicting previously learned U, V, and W), will you insist on sticking to your guns?

No wonder the quality of Wikipedia declines steadily . . . and I apologize if my writing is too learned and incorporates too many brilliant metaphors.

(Of course, when some "useful contributor" edits, say, a mathematics article by adding information that is completely non-explanatory, muddled (at best), and largely irrelevant—but shows the world what a self-styled guru the contributor is by means of how much Greek and Latin "alphabet soup" (as Prof. Bailyn used to say) he can interject—about THAT y'all cheer.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

BTW, I'm BruceDavidWilner but rarely bother so to sign in.

You have new messages from another user???[edit]

Since I deposited the edit immediately supra last night, I got a "new messages" notification—but there aren't any.

I see: another mechanism, fully debugged, is used only by the most senior folk ;-)

How about responding to my criticism in adult fashion?

And, by the way, in the article on MPEG-H, WHAT KIND OF CRITICISM IS "THIS ARTICLE ONLY RELIES ON PRIMARY SOURCES; PLEASE ADD SECONDARY OR TERTIARY" -- ? If one gives sources, some sysop (I only semi-humorously adopt this term for the characteristic sixteen-year-old moderator of an AOL community or, like, mIRC chat room) bitches; if one withholds sources, some other sysop bitches.

You folks REALLY need to get your act together. Unbeflippin'lievable. (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page. -- UKoch (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Boy or Girl Paradox[edit]

I have four problems with your contribution to the Boy or Girl Paradox. First, and most importantly from Wikipedia’s standpoint, it is what is called “original research.” You do not cite a reliable source who published this analysis, you composed it yourself. That’s a pretty big no-no, even if it is correct. Wikipedia doesn’t establish what is accepted as truth, it reports it. Second, most of the conclusions you make are unsupported opinion, not fact. This is why Wikipedia likes citations, making other forums responsible for accepting what is truth. Third, the purpose of the article is to describe the importance of the BoGP, not to solve it, which is all you tried to do. Lastly, and most important to me, it is wrong in several ways.

Perhaps the easiest error to see is that “being a priori less likely” does not make the news better. What if we had learned that at least one child of two is a girl? That is also “a priori less likely” than learning that at least one child out of one is a boy, and so by your logic should be better news. Yet it is the worst possible news for your bet.

But it is not necessarily true that either is “a priori less likely.” If we learn the gender of at least one child out of two, that gender can be “girl” even when there also is a boy. The set of cases you described, where you know at least one is a boy, is smaller than the set of families you used, that have at least one boy. The “a priori” probability depends on how we learned the fact. If we had asked “is at least one of the two a boy?”, then you are correct (and we can’t learn the equivalent fact about a girl). But that is not evident from what you said about the information.

And in fact, you can’t assume it as you did. To see that, change the wager to “do both children have the same gender?”, and change the original fair-odds payoff to $2. Merely learning “at least one gender out of two children” has to be equivalent news no matter what the gender is, so it can’t change the value of the investment. (If only two possible facts A and B exist, and it goes up on A, it has to go down on B.) Yet your “less likely” argument makes it good news regardless of what that gender is, and your “now for the numbers” argument makes it bad news no matter what the gender is. JeffJor (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

JeffJor, I am not sure why you wrote the above message to me. My contributions to the article corrected an obvious error but did not otherwise augment the content of the article. Also, you discussed the same issue with at least two other editors almost exactly five years ago, so I'm not sure what's going on, and I'll refrain from any further discussion about this subject with you. -- UKoch (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

"No, personal conversations are not enough"[edit]

I see. Where did you earn your Ph.D. in library science?

Pearls before swine, my friend, pearls before swine.

(Late thought: if I self-published "the moon is made of green cheese" through Vantage Press or some other fly-by-night, could I THEN put THAT in Wikipedia??)

Something tells me that, if my assertions referring to "personal conversations" agreed with your opinions, then you'd post them up in lights. (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Polynomial function theorems for zeros, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Remainder theorem (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) 09:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it. -- UKoch (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Reported my behaviors[edit]

"Reported my behaviors," eh? What is this, grade school?

To what behavior do you refer: putting back the useful material, sans the joke?

Grow up. (talk) 23:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

"Putting back the useful material" without sources is known as original research on Wikipedia. I'll answer to the rest of your message when your block has expired. -- UKoch (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)