User talk:Duoduoduo

Welcome!

Hello, Duoduoduo, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Math notation

Your recent edits to repeating decimal prompt some comments. See WP:MOSMATH where most of this is codified. Some of it is in WP:MOS.

• You seem to be under an impression that one should italicize everything in non-TeX mathematical notation. That is wrong. One itaclizis variables, but not digits nor parentheses or other punctuation nor operator names like max, log, sin, gcd, det, etc.
• One uses proper spacing before and after "+", "=", and the like. (I use a non-breakable space with binary operators like "+".) (But "+" as a unary operator should have no space after it, as when one refers to the number +5.)
• A minus sign is not a stubby little hyphen.
• So for example this is wrong:

p-5

whereas this is right:

p − 5

You should notice four things here: the "5" is not italicized; the p is italicized; the minus sign is not a hyphen; and a space precedes and follows the minus sign.

• Use \text{} when appropriate in TeX. Thus

$a={\text{period of }}b\,$

is right whereas

$a=period\ \ of\ \ b$

is not. The TeX code for the former is this:

<math> a = \text{period of }b \, </math>

• Use \pmod in TeX when appropriate. Thus

$a\equiv b{\pmod {n}}\,$

is right, whereas

$a\equiv b\ mod\ n$

is not. The TeX code for the former is this:

<math> a \equiv b \pmod n \,</math>

• Use \max, \sin, \log, \exp, \det, \gcd, etc. with backslashes in TeX. This prevents italicization and makes proper formatting automatic. Thus if you write

5\sin x

then the x will be italicized but sin will not, and a space will appear between sin and x and between sin and 5. But if you write

5 sin x

in TeX, then it will come out as 5sinx with both sin and x italicized and no space between them. Similarly if you write \max_{a \in A} in TeX, it looks like this:

$\max _{a\in A}\,$

whereas if you write max_{a \in A} with no backslash, it looks like this:

$max_{a\in A}\,$

In effect, the backslash tells TeX to use the proper formatting conventions for the occasion.

(I don't think \lcm works; you need to write \operatorname{lcm}.)

• In ranges of pages, use an en-dash, not a hyphen. Thus pp. 52–63 is correct. Similarly for ranges of years or other numbers:

John Xmith (1892–2008) was a great mathematician.

etc.

Michael Hardy (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, another one: Don't write

\text{ln} \ \ 2.

Instead, write

\ln 2

This automatically causes proper spacing to appear before and after ln, which will be unitalicized. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Inflation

Thanks for your recent edit at inflation. Nice cleanup! LK (talk) 00:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Economics terminology that differs from common usage

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Economics terminology that differs from common usage. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Outline of economics. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Outline of economics - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. andy (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Economics terminology that differs from common usage

The article Economics terminology that differs from common usage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

POV essay, references are incidental to the article's subject; original research

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for improvement

I'm confident that the article will not be deleted. I think the best way to help that would be to start improving it. I understand that it may be difficult to work on something that might be deleted, but lets' see what we can do.

Your third paragraph in the Money" section is problematic. While I agree that many people misunderstand the distinctions between flow and stock, this isn't the place to make that distinction. Your primary point is solid - the everyday statement, "she has a lot of money" is not the economic usage. However, in the statement, "he makes a lot of money" the usual mode of payment is money, so the confusion isn't about the meaning of the term "money" but the flow/stock distinction, which belongs either elsewhere or nowhere, or wait till later.

I suggest ditching the third paragraph for now, and work on sourcing the other two.--SPhilbrickT 01:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

• I now think I was incorrect in my speedy deletion tag, sorry. I see that another editor restored their {{Prod}} tag but I've now removed it because it should not have been restored once you contested it. I'm sure the article won't go to AfD. :) andy (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer

I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Good job addressing this and that throughout the economics space! CRETOG8(t/c) 02:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Monetary economics edit

How, D. I can only welcome the presence of an economist on economics pp.

I wonder if you could expand slightly on your Monetary economics edit at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monetary_economics&diff=370339259&oldid=370119650 with an Edit summary of: "correct name of reference section". I can find nothing in the WP:MOS suggesting that the previous headings were incorrect or inferior. I'd be happy to see your arguments here (or wherever) to the contrary. I hope that you'd feel the same about my own arguments. If we can't agree, we could always take it to the ME Talk page, unless you'd like to go there now. Thx. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, ThomasMeeks! Having just taken another look at the page WP:Citing sources, I see that the guidelines give wide latitude. My reasoning in the case of Monetary economics was this: Before my edit, there was a section called "Notes" that contained nothing but references, and a section called "References" containing additional references. If someone clicked directly to "References", they would miss the most important references—the ones important enough to have been cited in the article. Since "Notes" contained (as far as I could see) no notes (no sentences), just references, I renamed it "References". And since the old "References" contained only some of the references, I renamed it "Further reading". This is a common approach in Wikipedia, although often "Further references" is used instead of "Further reading". Another approach would be to delete the "Further reading" section heading entirely, and just have its articles appear at the bottom of the section I labelled "References". I've seen this done too, and perhaps it is the best approach.

What do you think? Duoduoduo (talk) 17:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate your are explicitness. We're agreed on WP:Citing sources as to wide latitude. I also agree that there's nothing "wrong" w the Refs/Further-reading usage, but it's not hard to find scholarly sources that follow the Notes/Refs terminology either. I haven't scoured my Chicago Manual of Style or Turabian (oops, I tossed the latter to save shelf space), but I don't think that they say that either is wrong. So, I don't think that an alleged semantic advantage is likely to be persuade here. Instead, we look for what conveys the advantages of each section heading. For ease of reference, let me number points below.

1T. As your comment suggests, one standard usage of 'note' is def. 3b(2) at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/note linkable as noun, as a printed comment and/or reference set apart from the text. 'Notes' has the advantage of conciseness (2 syllables less than 'References', 1 less than 'Footnotes' or 'End notes'). IMO, the bigger advantage is in reserving 'References' for an appropriate later and usage (on which see below). Those who click to a fn. number surely will not be disappointed to find "only references," which is usually the case in WP. Nor would they have any good reason to depend on their repetition in the "References" section. There is no such repetition.

2T. "Further readings" suggests references that are less important than the text of the article — else it would have been included as a fn. "References" avoids that suggestion. In the earlier usage of ME, Refs. includes many general references ("classics", closely-related subjects, handbooks, top-of-the line textbooks, treatises, etc.) that tie in to ME, but not necessarily closely enough to make the fine-grained subjects in the text of the article. That does not make them less interesting or useful to the general reader. Indeed, they might be more useful for distinguishing the "forest" from the "trees" in a comprehensive, unified way. Game theory#References has a nice breakdown according to types of Refs. (Possibly the Refs. section in the earlier version could be retooled along those lines — I'm not sure here b/c of the small number of refs., but I could work on it.)

3T. On removing a separate heading for non-footnoted "Refs.", that looks like spillover. The fn. and non-fn. cites have different functions, warranting different headings, according to common scholarly practice. I hope that we're able to reach agreement. It's not a matter of win/lose here but of fruitful discussion. Thx for your response above. All for today. P.S. I might be a while in responding to your post on my Talk page. You might press the Watch tab on that page. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion about it, so I'll leave it up to you. Thanks, Duoduoduo (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your consideration. For some time, I have thought reorganizing the section following the endnotes in ME. I'll try to come up w something better than the status quo ante* before proceeding. Thank you. P.S. I've replied to your separate point on my Talk page. * Yes, I do like those links. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Duoduoduo. You have new messages at Fuhghettaboutit's talk page. -- ~~~~~

Signing out

Over and out.... Duoduoduo (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Economics

Hi again, D. Per Talk:Economics#Didn't Get Past the First Sentence, I don't think it would be wise to act wout consulting you first. Care to discuss it here or there? BW, Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:16, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Request a review

This has not been added to a wiki.

It reads like soapbox , POV, but more importantly is the statiscal information being presented Are they working from the right side of the graph to exclusion of the entire sample, if it is a true frequency distribution why a multiplying factor, would't that fudge the results? AA's 100% of the population sample is already included in the graph. http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf

Would appreciate lay man speak in your reply.

Sincerely yours Jayseer (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

The link you provided (http://hindsfoot.org/recout01.pdf) seems to be an internal AA document, and not a peer-reviewed article. As such it would appear to be a primary source and thus one that is not appropriate to cite in Wikipedia. Beyond that, I don't think I have enough time to do a detailed review of that article. Hope this helps, though. Duoduoduo (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. The document is not an internal aa source . It is a piece written by anonymous authors, It appears to be a POV piece, the statistics and how they derived them are questionable. Jayseer (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

re reliable source

sorry to bother you one more time, I will keep my postings to a minimum, I need some help regarding what is and what is not a reliable source.

a little help on clarification of reliable sources. Bankole Johnson Is this a reliable source if not the reason why? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660.html He is publishing a book it will be within the next 3 months, would it be better to use the book as a reference.

This newspaper article says that there is little evidence for something. The Wikipedia article should not state that there is little evidence, but it could say that "it has been asserted [give citation and qualifications of author: professor of psychiatry and neurobehavioral sciences, and paid consultant to pharmaceutical companies] that there is little evidence...." Also, this newspaper article says: "A recent review by the Cochrane Library, a health-care research group, of studies on alcohol treatment conducted between 1966 and 2005 states its results plainly: 'No experimental studies unequivocally demonstrated the effectiveness of AA or TSF [12-step facilitation] approaches for reducing alcohol dependence or problems.'" You might want to go back to that source and cite it in the Wikipedia article, since it looks like it probably presents unbiased and careful research. Also the forthcoming book could be cited when it comes out. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Duoduoduo, I wll stay in touch you have been most helpful, I botched up editing on the wiki in the psst and a friend said rather than get into editing conflicts consult the reviewers the people with the awards and recognition. P.S. the link below my gut feeling is that it doesnt meet wiki critiera, that it may be a violation , if that is the case which one. Jayseer (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

is this a reliable source for wiki purposes, can it be cited and the link posted as a reference on the wiki. http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/AAHistoryLovers/message/4447

Also did some research on a Loren Archer.

Loran Archer was co-director of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism when the Rand Reports were published in 1976 and 1980. The second, four-year Rand follow-up was particularly hard on disease advocates since it found that – among a highly dependent government-treated population – safe drinking resolutions were as stable as abstinence – more so for some sub-groups! Archer and the NIAAA’s director, John DeLuca, set about reinterpreting the research. This provoked a response from the authors published in an article by Jane Brody in the NY Times (January 29, 1980), along with Archer and DeLuca’s rejoinders: The directors of the alcohol institute ... readily acknowledged their 'honest differences' with the scientists in interpreting their findings. The Rand Researchers, in turn, have expressed dismay with what they see as a distorted interpretation of their findings ... Mr. Archer said that he was strongly committed to the philosophy that total abstinence was the only sure path to recovery from alcoholism. Mr. DeLuca questioned whether any alcoholic who could safely return to drinking had been an alcoholic to begin with.

http://www.peele.net/blog/100106.html

More So he appears to have extreme bias

The second Rand report (Polich et al., 1981) responded systematically to criticisms of the original report; again, the investigators found substantial numbers of what they termed "nonproblem" drinkers. Criticism by the NCA and related groups was somewhat muted this time around, while a large number of social scientific reviews in the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and the British Journal of Addiction were almost uniformly positive. The most remarkable consequence of the second report was that the Director of the NIAAA, John DeLuca, and his executive assistant, Loran Archer (neither of whom had a research background), offered their own summary of its results. This summary emphasized that abstinence ought to be the goal of all alcoholism treatment and that AA attendance offered the best prognosis for recovery, statements the report explicitly rejected (Brody, 1980).

http://www.peele.net/lib/denial.html Jayseer (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayseer (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The key thing about appropriate edits to Wikipedia articles is this: If you or I have an opinion, it's irrelevant. If a public figure has publicly expressed an opinion, and if there is reason to believe that his job title indicates some expertise, then it is appropriate to say in the Wikipedia article that "so-and-so [give job title] has asserted [give citation] that such-and-such is true". If there has been a public disagreement between two people who could reasonably be said to have some expertise, then the Wikipedia article should fairly state the arguments of each. Also, if the public figure has anything that anyone might consider a conflict of interest, the Wikipedia article should clearly state that (without claiming that the person should or should not be trusted). For example, if one person in the public debate is a paid consultant to pharmaceutical companies, that should be mentioned in passing, since some readers might consider that he has a financial interest in pharmaceutical treatments rather than AA-type treatments. Similarly, if a public figure is affiliated with AA, that fact should be mentioned, because some readers might think that makes the person biased in favor of AA techniques. The key thing is to give the reader all the information he needs to form his own judgments, without Wikipedia expressing any opinion of its own. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Volt

Hi Duoduoduo. I understand your request to change the language in the intro of the Chevrolet Volt article, but I am inclined to leave it as is, due to the inclusion of the word "primarily." Since the output of the ICE is only mechanically coupled to the drivetrain at speeds above 70 mph (and maybe only when the batteries are drained... I forget), I think it is fair to say that the ICE acts primarily as a generator.

I also noted that an editor removed much of the other language you inserted. I'm "on the fence" about that reversion, but I think I will leave it as is for now.

Sorry. I've not been much help to you in this. I don't tend to do a lot of "big" editing on Wikipedia these days. I mostly just correct errors and revert vandalism. If you feel strongly about the points you raised, please bring them up on the talk pages of the associated articles.

Sincerely, Ebikeguy (talk) 03:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Proper referencing style"

Your edit summary for this edit implies that you think that parenthetical (author-year) referencing is somehow improper. It is not. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Chord (geometry) - Calculating circular chords

Hi user Duoduoduo, I have the information of the reference book but I don't know how to write it. I am an Argentine mathematician with poor knowledge of English. If you can and want to do, I would greatly appreciate.

@book{déplanche1996diccio,

 title={{Diccio f{\'o}rmulas}},
 author={D{\'e}planche, Y.},
 isbn={9788477471196},
 url={http://books.google.com/books?id=1HVHOwAACAAJ},
 year={1996},
 publisher={Edunsa}

}

The formulas are provided on page 29 of the book.

A greeting to you.--Gusbelluwiki (talk) 09:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please Sign Talk pages.

Please sign your signature on talk pages. Thank You. The signature icon looks like a pen at the bottom of the menu. Thank you sir. Papa Smooch (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk-page blanking

This is not correct...see WP:BLANKING guideline. I don't know if I agree with it, but it's the current standard. DMacks (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info -- I stand corrected. The problem with this policy, obviously, is that a repeat vandal can avoid having vandalism notices accumulate, so I'm guessing that someone dealing with a later vandalism incident will not realize there's a pattern. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yup, it certainly makes it hard for observers to notice the history. When I'm vandal-trackin', I always look at the talk-page history (or at least the edit-history of the editor) rather than just the current state of the talk-page when deciding how to warn/block/whatever. If you have WP:POPUPS enabled, pointing at the editor's name/IP in a vandalized page's history will pop up a list of his recent edits. DMacks (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)