Jump to content

User talk:Chris53516

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chris53516 (talk | contribs) at 21:52, 25 January 2007 (archiving page). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is Chris53516's talk page.

My general guidelines:
  • If you would like to respond to a comment I left on your talk page, please respond to the comment on your talk page, not here.
  • Before adding a new comment, please look for similar entries. Otherwise, leave a new comment, and I will respond here.
  • Place new comments after existing ones within relevant topic sections.
  • Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header==.

Archives

Archive: April to October, 2006

Fluent Reader

You're quite right. The RLI website lists FR under Reading software. I executed the move. I recently had to deal with a school who bought FR thinking they could run it like AR and STAR and didn't realize it required RP. Oops. Their server could NOT support RP, so they're stuck. --JohnDBuell 18:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think AV is well and truly dead. I don't see it anywhere on the RLI website and I haven't in some time. It's still supported for those schools that bought it - there are six pages of support documents on support.renlearn.com. --JohnDBuell 22:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My typo!

Thanks for correcting my slip on English language learning and teaching. I am a terrible typist! Embarrassing. We need vigilant eyes on this article, as it is prone to commercial links under the resources section. TEFL is worse. Thanks again. BrainyBabe 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL You're welcome! You should get Firefox 2.0. It has a spell-checker built in! For example, it caught that you misspelled commercial and under above. Anyway, I'll keep an eye on the TEFL article too, although I know little about the topic. -- Chris53516 (Talk) 19:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CRS1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CRS1.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone could just take a picture of one, but I don't have one so I can't do it. For me, it's not feasible. -- Chris53516 (Talk) 17:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vigilance

Thanks for your support of my edits of the links on TEFL. If and when there are protests or counter-rationales, I hope you (and other like-minded editors) will be around to help me defend the encyclopedic spirit of the page. BrainyBabe 14:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sure thing. : ) – Chris53516 (Talk) 14:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to Effect Size Page

I have added the following to the effect size page where you assumed I had probably ripped off someone. Thought I should do the honourable thing and let you know that I had replied. Cheers Grant

I am watching that page, so I know you responded. – Chris53516 (Talk) 14:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

70.118.171.33 - About the Sancho edit

Hey there,

Just to tell you that I did not do that edit on the Sancho article. It was probably my brother. He's not here so I'll probably block his access to the Wikipedia website, since I run via a router.

I apologize to Wikipedia for the vandalism has occured. My username is User:Cbmaster and I will use it from now on to avoid such warnings as they will go directly to my brother not to me.

Thanks, Alan

Thanks for taking responsibility! Make sure your brother isn't doing that anymore; it's annoying! – Chris53516 (Talk) 02:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help

I need help with the review of an article written by someone who is involved with the topic in the real world. Can someone help? – Chris53516 (Talk) 17:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP, Wikipedia:Autobiography, and Wikipedia:Resolving disputes may be helpful. —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. I won. (does a little dance) [1] – Chris53516 (Talk) 05:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't blame me for wanting to gloat. At least I'm not rubbing it in the other users' faces, right? – Chris53516 (Talk) 05:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

student's t distribution

Hi. You reverted my addition to the Student's t-distribution page. You may be right; however, please discuss this on the talk page for that article. Otherwise I'll put my addition back in. Thanks. --Coppertwig 14:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but NO. You added unreferenced material, and it should not have been there in the first place. Do NOT add it back. – Chris53516 (Talk) 14:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can we consider this dispute resolved? How about removing the expert template from the page? (I think you were the one who put it in but I can't remember for sure.) Thanks for your collaboration; I really think the result is better than my original edit. --Coppertwig 05:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accelerated Reader

Someone's been fiddling with the AR page, moving it first to Reading Progam, then realizing their typo, they moved it to Reading Program without changing any of the text. I pointed out that this would be incorrect - even if they were going to include a discussion of other software (which they didn't), it would best be at Guided reading software (use of capital letters per WP:TITLE). I tried to reverse the move, and it wouldn't go, so I've asked for assistance at WP:RM, citing WP:TITLE - the correct name for the article is the name of the software, just like every other page about software on Wikipedia. Just thought you should know. --JohnDBuell 16:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! That's absolutely ridiculous. What a waste! Why on Earth would someone move an article to a title that's not even its name? "Reading program" is generic and a bad title (e.g., what is a "program"? software?). This article should be at Accelerated Reader without any question. – Chris53516 (Talk) 14:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It DID get moved back – the administrator noted: moved Reading Program to Accelerated Reader: correct name of software – as you may have already noted. --JohnDBuell 18:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I'm just saying that if anyone challenges the notion that it should be on another page, they're absolutely wrong. – Chris53516 (Talk) 19:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm sorry. I messed up the page. I was under some anger that week, so I guess I just lost control. Sorry, it won't happen again.Ice12 02:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

What's up, dude? 24.177.128.131 17:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this edit. There's not much up with me. Who are you? – Chris53516 (Talk) 02:59, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Normal Distribution?

Hello - I made a change so that the support is in R instead of (-inf, inf). It's just a matter of consistency with the Multivariate_normal_distribution and Probability_distribution articles. Mathetically (-inf, inf) and R can also be shown to be equivalent as they're trivially subset of each other. So my question is...what do you think is wrong enough to warrant a revert with no reason? It can help me do better in subsequent edits. Thanks! --— Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.171.52.2 (talk • contribs)

Since R is synonymous with (−∞, +∞), if a reason needs to be given for one of them, a reason should also be given for the other. R does generalize readily to higher dimensions. Michael Hardy 02:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, I have no idea what the heck you're talking about. If I reverted an edit, please point on which edit. I revert edits all the time. When an anonymous user gives no reason for changing an article, or there is no apparent reason, I'm apt to revert it. Why don't you sign in? – Chris53516 (Talk) 03:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done, remade my changes. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Normal_distribution&oldid=89840963
I don't have a sign in, just a user trying to update things when I see them, and did it quite a bit. There must be good reasons for anonymous access otherwise they wouldn't be allowed, isn't it.
When you sign in, you're still anonymous, unless you choose an ID that reveals your identity, which wouldn't be a good idea anyway. The only good reason for allowing anyone to edit is to be a truly "open" encyclopedia. If you were to sign in, we would be able to discuss matters more easily. Further, if you go to another computer, we can still discuss you edits without any confusion. (Just an FYI, I'd rather see this page instead of the one you posted. It makes it easier to see what changes we made. This page is accessible through the history tab.) – Chris53516 (Talk) 17:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I'll be using an account, then. Thanks. I thought having an account would make the system intrinsically less scalable because it'll have to manage user id's. Guess I was wrong! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.32.147 (talk • contribs)
Please sign your comments using four ~. When you do that, it leaves your IP address or user ID (if you signed in) and the time you left the note. Thanks! – Chris53516 (Talk) 02:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The edit I refer to was to the article titled normal distribution. You have only one recent edit to that article. Michael Hardy 02:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation implies causation

I don't think there are any strict time limits, consensus seems to be there so I'd go ahead and move. I've now added {{db-move}} to Correlation does not imply causation. --Salix alba (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Chris53516 (Talk) 15:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted your changes for now; the right way to do a move is to use the "move" tab, not to copy-paste the text and create a manual redirect. This makes sure that the history is transfered too. In this case, it is not possible to do the move because there is already a page at the target of the move; this is the reason why Salix alba requested speedy deletion of the page, as indicated above. Once the page is deleted, we can proceed with the move. Schutz 15:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I didn't know that. I think the move page was a new feature after I signed up and I never paid attention to it. I started moving redirect already... Yikes. – Chris53516 (Talk) 15:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; an admin has fixed it, so the move has been done correctly. Cheers, Schutz 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re: Reading Progam

It was kept for the exact reasons stated by John Reaves during the deletion debate. You might want to check the second & fourth rows of this table. Wikipedia practice is not to actively create redirects based upon misspellings, but if someone accidentally creates one, we typically don't delete it unless it is unlikely someone else wouldn't make the same mistake. This one doesn't fit the unlikely category. -- JLaTondre 03:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a jerk

User:Connel MacKenzie blocked me from Wiktionary because I only edited one article (Wiktionary:smurfy). What a jerk! He didn't even warn me about being blocked, like you're supposed to (see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Dealing with vandalism). Who the hell does he think he is??? He even removed COMMENTS I made on a page, which is another violation of Wikipedia policy (see Help:Talk page). Good god! I've been bitten! — Chris53516 (Talk) 02:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, the next time someone nominates me for sysop here, I can count on you voting oppose, right? --The Aforementioned Jerk 02:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can count on me not caring. I would oppose it if you continue to treat me as you have. — Chris53516 (Talk) 03:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use

There is a fair use image on your user page. Current fair use policy does not allow fair use images on user pages. It would be best to remove it. Thanks. JoshuaZ 02:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per your request, please remove this fair use image from your userpage, in accordance with policy. Thank you. Luna Santin 02:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this image; please do not add it again. It is against Wikipedia policy to use them on user pages; we essentially don't have legal permission to do so. Ral315 (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you JoshuaZ and Luna Santin for asking me politely to edit my page. — Chris53516 (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ral315, BITE ME. Do you enjoy being blatantly rude? My user page is MY user page. If I am in violation of some policy, notify me FIRST, and I will make the changes. I am a responsible user, and you should respect that. If, once asked, I did not conform to policy, only then should you edit my page. — Chris53516 (Talk) 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Userpages are not owned by anyone. Since using the picture on your page was a legal issue that can be serious if a complaint is received, it should be removed immediately. Ral315 (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm right here, right now. Isn't that immediate enough? You still have no right to remove it without posting a message FIRST. — Chris53516 (Talk) 02:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit-conflict] You are running up against WP:NPA with some of your comments, please calm down, and realize these people are just trying to help. Prodego talk 02:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to whatever odd pretense you're operating on, this is a wiki and I have every right to edit any page as I see fit. Moreover, I (and every user) have the duty to remove copyright violations on sight. Ral315 (talk) 02:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first removal provided adequate justification in the edit summary, which should have been your clue to figure out why the image was removed. However, if you still think that notification is required before making changes to comply with policy, I encourage you to read WP:FAIR#Policy number 9, WP:RFUI, and WP:UP#Images on user pages. Don't shoot the messenger, and please cool your jets. You don't win any popularity contests for blowing up at people for just trying to comply with policy. -- mattb @ 2006-11-30T02:38Z
There is no such thing as popularity on an anonymous webpage. Those who think there is are deluded. I just think it's courtesy to tell someone when you're going to screw around with their page. It's like the landlord just barging in to your apartment because you have a dog and you're not supposed to. According to this state's law, that's illegal. I don't know about other states or countries. Quite frankly, I could care less what the policies say. We should be polite to each other first. I only return the behavior that is inflicted on me in the first place. — Chris53516 (Talk) 02:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the original user who removed the image had simply left a message here, none of this would have happened. I would have said, "Oh, okay," and gone on. But no message was left. Seems rather rude to me. — Chris53516 (Talk) 03:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block vandal request

Hello. This vandal (User:205.155.234.130) needs to be blocked indefinitely. He/She has vandalized far too often to be given any more chances. Would you be able to do that? — Chris53516 (Talk) 19:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Chris, thanks for the note. I'm afraid that I am unable to do as you ask for a number of reasons:
  • Because I am not an administrator I do not have the authority to block anyone.
  • The IP address is part of the California State University network and is used by multiple users. It is against policy to issue long blocks on these IP addresses.
  • I don't believe that I have ever seen an IP address with an indefinite block, leading me to believe that it is against policy to do so, but I may be mistaken.
In my opinion (shared by many Wikipedians), anonymous edits from unregistered users should not be allowed. The registration process is quick and simple enough for it not to be an issue to anyone who wishes to contribute positively, but it will make the casual vandal think twice. I have seen registered users who do vandalise, but they seem to be closed down very quickly with indefinite blocks.
Regards LittleOldMe 11:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. I thought you were an admin for some reason. Wikipedia can block users indefinitely, but not IP addresses? That's odd... especially since IP addresses are the worst vandals. Oh well. Thanks anyway! — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fidonews

Please stop changing the edits I make to Fidonews. You keep plugging in an old site (in the external links) called fidonet.ca. They no longer provide fidonews articles for us. fidotel.org is the official fidonews website for Fidonet -- and fidonet.ca doesn't work. Please read the discussion for that page for additional guidance. 138.162.0.42

"Additional guidance"? What are you talking about? There is no "guidance" there. I won't stop changing it until I see some proof that that's the new page. It appears that the .ca page is still active, especially since the archive still has 2006 entries. — Chris53516 (Talk) 15:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why remove my post?

On the topic of "Speaman's coefficient of rank correlation" you removed my comment of what it is called in Cockney rhyming slang, "knife and fork." I see no reason for this because it is perfectly in correspondance with the rest of the article. Could you please undo this or explain to me why you have taken these actions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chuckles Richardson (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

First, it doesn't make sense. Second, if it does, it is irrelevant to statistics (it may be relevant to Wiktionary). Third, you provided no source or example of its usage. It is not my burden to defend your edits, it is yours, so I will not add the content back into the article. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you can explain what it means and provide an example, I would not add it at the beginning. It is more like trivia, which is another reason it probably just shouldn't be there. — Chris53516 (Talk) 18:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk

Erm...why are you monitoring my usertalk page? -- Simondrake 04:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who says I am? — Chris53516 (Talk) 04:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Richardson

I have checked their edits/reverted where needed; and put them on my watchlist, so we'll see. Best, feydey 20:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm monitoring them too. It's very suspicious. I wonder if the "Chuckles" incarnation is an attempt to mislead others into thinking that it isn't Luke Richardson editing his own page. — Chris53516 (Talk) 20:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Soccerguy1039

I understand where you're coming from, but sometimes it's best to just not worry about it much. If he improves his editing behavior, there's little reason to insist he keep old warnings. Friday (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaSmart links?

11-Nov-2006

Hi Chris,

Why did you remove the AlphaSmart (Neo) links that I added? These are the only two non-AlphaSmart resources that I know of.

I would note that the link to the fonts is not commercial. They are widely used, and are no more commercial than (for example) the Flickr site contents.

Also, the reference to Don Johnson is no more commercial than the references to RL or AS made throughout the page (and has the distinction of being about the only third party software that is available...)

Thanks,

-- Mark (Alquanto)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.6.101.232 (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

First, if you are Alquanto, sign in and leave a make your edits. Second, read Wikipedia:External links. Third, Don Johnson has nothing to do with AlphaSmart, and he shouldn't be in the article. Regarding your specific links, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of links. That's why I removed it. You could go to the Microsoft Windows page and add thousands of software pages that run on Windows, but someone would probably remove them. It's the same here. — Chris53516 (Talk) 04:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation

Chris, I was looking at the changes in article Correlation. I have left the discussion on the reference/external link on my talk page, but I don't understand why you removed the different papers by Abdi and others ? Your edit summary says "removed "references" that are not even referenced in the article" — indeed, they were not referenced (by footnotes) in the article, but (at least some of them) are still relevant to the article (even though I agree that they may not be the best possible references). Many, many articles have list of references and no footnotes; this is still much better than nothing. And a very general reference (such as an encyclopedia article) can be used to check and source the main facts of an article even though no direct reference to it is made from the text. Schutz 00:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"References" are referenced in the article. The person that added them is promoting him- or her-self and has added those articles to other articles without much reason. I have removed them there as well. You can add thousands of articles if you want, but unless they are used in the article, it's pointless. If you wrote an article for a scientific journal, you would not add references to the paper that you didn't mention in the paper. — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above: while I may agree with you in this particular case if there were other references left in the article, it does not look to me like a good reason for removing these references in general. You mention the example of a scientific article; on the other hand, in books, one will often find a bibliography at the end, without footnotes or direct references detailing which references were used where. An encyclopedia article is probably somewhere in between. The reason I am concerned about your removal is because in some cases, where I find a reference relevant to an article, I often add it before I actually incorporate it later in the text, and I would not like these to disappear. If you really don't want them to be counted as references, may I suggest that you move them to a "further reading" section (provided that they are related to the subject of the article, of course) instead of simply removing them ? Thanks, Schutz 18:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine, but I would only use one or two of Abdi's articles, and I would populate the section with other articles. If you were to re-add all of Abdi's articles, I would again be concerned with self-promotion (from the original editor) and biased literature review. — Chris53516 (Talk) 18:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that only of few of Abdi's article would fit here; and I agree too that other articles would be welcome, given the lack of references/further reading in this article. I'll see if I can find a few relevant ones. Schutz 06:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to vandalism citations

You do have guts? Excuse me the edit on scene kids, was not vandalizing. I simply put the truth. This article is not the truth as alot arnt true. So I tried to fix it. Go ahead and block me for doing nothing wrong! I don't trust the info on wikipedia and you are defenitly not a very nice person. BTW. i am scene so you think I would know, not some wierdo 50 year old nerd like u. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.40.10.150 (talk • contribs).

Uh huh. You vandalized this page: [2]. And you did vandalize the other one. I didn't revert the edits, someone else did. As far as talking to me here--don't even bother if you can't spell check or attempt to write in complete, grammatical sentences. You won't get my serious attention. Oh yeah, and don't make personal attacks. — Chris53516 (Talk) 22:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation

Sorry for being back here so soon — I don't want to give you the impression that I am harassing you, but I have another question about your recent edits to article Correlation. You added the {{fact}} tag in the following sentence: "Several authors have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient. Cohen (1988),{{fact}} for example, has suggested the following interpretations for correlations in psychological research:". And "Cohen (1988)" is one of the references cited at the end of the page, so this looks like a well referenced statement (except perhaps for the exact page which is missing); am I wrong ? What else do you think should be added before we can remove the tag ? In addition, I did not realise this before, when you removed the reference (which has been readded in the meantime), but since it is actually referenced in the article, it probably deserve to go in the "References" section instead of "Further reading". Cheers, Schutz 14:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you aren't even reading the reference. It appears that both are completely different books. The one under further reading was published in 2003. The one referenced in the article was published in 1988. If the book was re-published, then the date should be changed in the article and a reference should be added. Otherwise, they are TWO DIFFERENT REFERENCES and whoever added the 1988 reference should add a citation. — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, sorry for missing that. I'd suggest you point it out in the edit summary, for the benefit of readers who read too quickly and miss these kind of things. Schutz 15:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't read too quickly then make accusations. — Chris53516 (Talk) 16:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry if you took that as an accusation; I intentionally asked "am I wrong ?" and phrased my question to make sure that it was not an accusation. My main worry is that we can lose valuable content and references if we remove them too quickly just because they are not directly referenced in the article; this is especially true here since there is no other reference in this article. To compensate for my too quick reading, I have dug out the history, in particular this set of edits which indicate that the editor who added the 1988 did indeed add a citation; the reference was changed later for the other book, but the reference was not changed. I'll readd the previous reference. Schutz 21:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

WikiThanks
WikiThanks

Thank you for help with the Regression spammer. Happy editing! --Ioannes Pragensis 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. If you're interested, see me user page for the steps to blocking them, which I took from somewhere else on Wikipedia. — Chris53516 (Talk) 16:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Intrinsic motivation into Motivation

If you don't have time, then I'll do it or find someone to help (I guess). Please let me know whether or not you'll be able to do it. --Gellender 20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't have the motivation to do it. Just kidding : ) I will try to get to it later this week, and if I don't do it by then, go ahead and try it yourself. Just be sure to be careful moving everything and redirect the intrinsic motivation page (and related pages) to Motivation. — Chris53516 (Talk) 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Econometrics

I think you might have possibly messaged the wrong person as I have never edited Statistics. :) --195.128.2.68 09:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, forget it. Damn ip :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.128.2.68 (talk • contribs).

You may not have, but someone else with the same IP or using the same, public computer may have. — Chris53516 (Talk) 14:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chris53516&oldid=103236074"