User talk:Chris53516

Notice: Chris53516 is attempting to take a break from Wikipedia.

I'm a bit sick of vandals and arrogant editors. When I am ready, and have the energy, to tolerate such behavior again, I'll return to editing. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 06:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).

Place new comments after existing ones within relevant topic sections.

Separate topic sections with a ==Descriptive header==.

Do NOT edit other user's comments. Ever. Anywhere.

Comments

Hi Chris, I posted a question to someone (ie. you) on the Econometrics page. It has since been answered the issue is dead and non-contentious. I am writing to inform you that I'm deleting that discussion as it serves no useful purpose to anyone - is that allowed by the rules? anyway, letting you know as a courtesy. If you object you can always revert.--ToyotaPanasonic 14:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on talk pages should NOT be deleted. They can be archived, but not deleted. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 14:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism at work

You warned User talk:167.93.112.106 recently about vandalism. I just stumbled across 4 more instances bringing the total to 15 in past 9 days. As you first tagged this prankster, do you want to continue? HJ 16:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get the IP address correct? I don't see anything there... There isn't a user contributions page either. Besides, what do you want me to do? I'm not an administrator, so I can't do much other than warn. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 16:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chris. Yes, I did. Just wnated to let you know I was in hot pursuit of this prankster. As with the 3 revert chap below (moved his retort to you out of this section where it was inadvertantly (or intentionally?) left with his other banter, you have to put user talk in front of the IP address to see the discussion page...for some reason Wiki serach on a IP comes up blank. Still not sure why though. HJ 08:19, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert war

Chris, You're guilty of the same 3 reversion violation that you claim I'm guilty of. Threatening me with banning my IP is ridiculous. You are not an administrator, and I have your user name and will report you for your bullying and lack of discussion of the topic. I'm done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.183.104 (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You need to cool off and read Wikipedia's policies. I'm not breaking the rule, YOU are. Furthermore, do NOT threaten me. You have no idea what I'm capable of. I've already reported you. Even with my user name, what are you going to do? Write it somewhere? OOO, scary. (I realize that you may not even see this because you can't watch my page as an unknown user, but I don't care.) — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am required under Wikipedia rules to inform you that I am in the process of requesting arbitration over the matter regarding the dispute of the first paragraph on the topic "Correlation does not imply causation," as well as your response (and lack of response)to my talk/discussion additions. Please note a user does not need to be registered to request arbitration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.240.183.104 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You think I do nothing but watch Wikipedia pages? Unlike other unknown users, I have a life outside of the internet. Changing something as important as the first paragraph is worth discussing FIRST, NOT AFTER THE FACT. If you persist in acting this way, I will simply let someone else deal with you. I am frustrated enough with users like you. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 05:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings templates

You might want to update your user page with the latest user warning templates. Do you intend to update your user page to list the new templates at WP:UWT? Will (Talk - contribs) 21:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got a chance to look at them, and I don't like the length of the template names. Why aren't these templates replacing the old ones instead of making new ones? And what's with the "uw" part? That seems rather pointless and a waste of my typing time. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 19:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question of free usage agreement on list of diseases and drugs

hi there, this may be out of place or an odd question, but I am programming a free medical dictionary reference tool thing in visual basic 6.0 and I'm wondering if I can use material from wikipedias disease list and drug list? Of course I will put a link back to the wikipedia articles, but I'm just wondering if I was allowed to do it for free. Thanks Justin M (Talk) 06:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The rules that apply to copyrights and plagiarism apply on the web too. So if you're going to use direct material without quoting it, you would be plagiarizing. On the other hand, if you cite Wikipedia as your source, I see no problem in using the list. Personally, I would not use it as a source because of potential vandalism. Why not use a source that Wikipedia cites? Also, I would snoop around Wikipedia some more and find someone more knowledgeable than me about this topic. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 15:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your edits using ~~~~ so you're signature appears. If you did that, then please wikify your signature so I don't have to search for your name to go to your talk page. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 15:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, I was thinking about using the sources that wiki puts with those article but I didnt know if they were allowed to be reused by other people. BTW how do you wikify your signature? Justin M (Talk) Justin M 03:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought perhaps you modified your signature in the preferences. If you just type four ~, it should be wikified unless you modified it. If you didn't modify it, don't bother messing with it. If you did, you should reset it. Or you could use the following code for your signature:

[[User:Justin M|Justin M]] ([[User talk:Justin M|Talk]])

Orphaned fair use image (Image:STAR.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:STAR.jpg. 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 05:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Removing and reporting vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them again to the AIV noticeboard. Thanks. PS. This was the IP's first vandalism in a week. If they vandalize today after your warning, they will be blocked. Thans for keeping an eye out for wiki! -- Avi 15:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

Hi, Chris!

I'm writing to you here because you're apparently the one person who's most interested in the article about statistics. I see that it's been identified as one of the 150 most important topics on Wikipedia, so making the article even better than it already is should be a high priority. I'm willing to work with you to make that happen, if you're interested.

One thing I noticed the first time through the article is that there's only one mention of the Central Limit Theorem, in the "See Also" section. I think that's a weakness. I also notice that others have criticized the article for not discussing Bayesian methods in more depth. I'm curious what you think of that criticism, in general. Oh – I also see that the article doesn't even mention non-parametric statistics. I'll have to hunt around Wikipedia to see if there are any articles about that … I've been spending most of my time on topics in complex analysis, but a recent note on the WT:WPM page got me thinking about statistics for a while, so here I am. ;^>

Thanks for your time. Have a great day! DavidCBryant 16:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I have time, I can help. Nowadays, I don't have much time, and my internet was disconnected at home because a roommate forgot to pay a bill. :( So, I'll do what I can as soon as my internet is back up. Oh, and check out the link that I wikified in your comment. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 16:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the problem with the roommate. I used to have problems like that – usually with the rent, though. I'm glad to see that the prohibition against editing others' comments is not absolute … while you were wikifying a tag I was running a search, so I did learn that extensive coverage of non-parametric methods exists on Wikipedia. Good job! Unfortunately, those methods aren't mentioned in the main article. DavidCBryant 16:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like non-parametric statistics deserves it's own category. I'll see if I can make one. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - it has come to our notice that you have recently created a new stub type. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, on the template page for new Wikiprojects and in many other places on Wikipedia, new stub types should be proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies, and whether better use could be made of a WikiProject-specific talk page template.

In the case of your new stub type, its name is ambiguous and there is nop guarantee that it would reach the standard stub-splitting threshold. Your new stub type has been proposed for either deletion or renaming at WP:SFD - please feel free to make any comment there about it. And please, in future, propose new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 03:05, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Hi Chris, I recently added a link to ebulawa.com on evite page. However, it was deleted. I have raised a question before on one of the pages on wiki about it, but never got a reply. What is wrong about my link? Thanks sri — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srikondoji (talk • contribs)

Please sign your comments with ~~~~ and read this:

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Alphabetizing Dab pages

Hi, I notice you alphabetized Renaissance (disambiguation)‎. In general, my understancing from WP:MOSDAB is that the pages should be ordered by how likely they are to be the desired article. If they knew where alphabetically their item was, they would likely have entered that term in the search box. (John User:Jwy talk) 16:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no rationale for organizing that page, so alphabetizing them is okay, I think. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 16:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regression analysis

Dear Chris53516: Concerning the above article evidently I was wrong not to ask from the start how long you would propose to have the Talk section you created posted before action on the article page was taken. Well, bygones are bygones. I am sure that you, as I, would like to see continued improvement on the article. Would you consider that any further dialogue might be helpful? --Thomasmeeks 13:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I have no idea why you think this conversation is just you and me. We have to have it with everyone. Furthermore, I am confused by your grammar sometimes, and that's one of the problems with the lead your wrote. The grammar is just funny. For example, above, you wrote, "I was wrong not to ask from the start how long you would propose to have the Talk section you created posted before action on the article page was taken". That is not very clear, especially the italicized part. I know what you mean, but it isn't grammatical or clear, especially to other users.

And frankly, I don't have the time right now to revise your lead. It is your burden, as the one objecting to the current lead, to make the best lead. Just as it is the burden of proof for someone making a claim, it is yours to make the lead better. I'm sorry, but right now, I can't help you. I would ask for help in the Talk:Regression analysis page. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 00:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I think that my efforts have triggered really bad karma, for which I can only express regret.* Still, an honest critic always helps. Even your initial responses with the nice WP:LEAD link helped, although baffling me at first.

I cannot duck your earlier opposition. I also accept that you are busy now & can't afford much time in any case. Still, my guess is that if you looked at Talk: Regression analysis#Proposed introduction through fresh eyes (in particular, those of the uniniated but curious), you might be more sympathetic. And, no, I'm not asking you to revise (though I'd welcome it). Criticism is fine. Of course, like you, I'm not exactly a potted plant. What would I need to do to enlist your help, if not now, later?

* Sorry too about the quoted periodic sentence above. I believe that it does parse, but, OK, I should have chunked it. I would have deleted this note, except that it may explain what you were objecting to earlier. (Also, I was delighted that the linked terms actually meant what I was trying to say!)

P.S. I plan to change the heading of the the Talk section to "Proposed lead" to distinguish it from section 1, to which I am pretty sure you would not object. --Thomasmeeks 18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only?

You wrote:

Student's t-test is only used when there are two groups. When there are more than two groups, use Fisher's F-test.

That is false. With only one group, Fisher's F-test is not capable of testing a one-sided hypothesis. And when the distribution occurs in such a wide variety of settings, it is very hazardous to use the word "only". Michael Hardy 20:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you just making an attack or do you have a point? Really, you could find a better way to say that. Your statement came across as nothing but rude. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 05:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point was that the insertion of that into the article was an error and that that will often happen with too-free use of a word like "only" (or "always" or "never", etc.)

I don't know why that would come across as rude. Michael Hardy 20:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh geez, I do that all the time. Really, you could have just changed the damn thing without saying a word about it. Did you really need to waste our time talking about it? Why on earth would you go back through the history just to find out who is responsible for one stupid word? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 23:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not in any way suggest that you do that all the time nor that you've ever done it on any other occasion. When I change things without saying a word about it, then people sometimes complain to me about the fact that I didn't explain why I changed it. Finding out who wrote it and pointing it out can prevent edit wars and in some cases results in disagreements being discussed on talk pages instead, and that's the right place for such discussions. Michael Hardy 01:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dissertation Abstracts International

Contest deletion

The intent of this page was not to sponsor any publication. This publication is very common method for publication of doctoral dissertations. I would like the poster of the spam template to give his/her reasons for citing this as spam. Simply because this article is a stub does not mean it is advertisement or useless. The burden of proof is on you. If you do not give adequate evidence for why this article is spam or useless, then there is no reason for deleting it. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 20:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the page and the company are the same. The word "international" is a dead giveaway. There is no claim to notability, no third party references. The article burden of proof is not applicable. The page that is applicable is WP:SPAM, in other words, you as the creator and supporter of the article should show that the article is encyclopedic, so, should the article become referenced as to importance, and be developed generally then it should stay. I leave it to you for the moment. --Richhoncho 21:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copying and pasting from talk page. Doesn't satisfy or assert any notability criterion (there needs to be other sources major that refer to it is usually a good one). Check under WP:CORP as that the closest or ever WP:BOOK for some ideas on what is notable. Sasquatch t|c 21:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You had no right to delete this page without even waiting for a response from me or other users. I think the page could be linked to many other pages, but it hasn't been done yet. Why did you delete it so quickly? — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 21:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief search on Wikipedia, I found over 20 articles with "Dissertation Abstracts International" in the article:

Wikipedia search

— Chris53516 ^(Talk) 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]