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

Warnings and notes[edit]


Please do not add advertisements to Wikipedia articles such as article name. Wikipedia is not meant as a vehicle for advertising, so please don't treat it as one. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you.

Phone #[edit]

It is a very bad idea to publish any contact information on the Internet, as our information is replicated widely (such as and personal information can become far more public than you intended. (For example, phone numbers can produce very personal information.)

Blanking sections[edit]

Please do not remove entire sections of articles like article name without explaining the reason in either the edit summary (if the reason is trivial) or the article's talk page (if it may be controversial). Because there was no explanation, your earlier change had been reverted. Feel free to make your change again if you feel you have a justified reason. Thank you!

Date format[edit]

Welcome! It looks like you are working on reducing unneeded wikilinks in articles like article name. When you are removing overlinking, please leave dates (such as 10 August, January 12, 1423, or 12 June 545) linked, as it allows the "Date format" preference for registered users to work. Thanks, and happy editing!

POV Appeals and Messages[edit]

(for "please donate to the hurricane/earthquake victims!" or "Beware of Aspartame"-type things)

We respect your efforts, but unfortunately, these kinds of messages are not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Please post your views or requests in some other venue, such as a forum or blog, where it is more likely to be welcomed. Thanks.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for adding information to Red Fox. However, articles should not have passages which advocate for some view or action; it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article. There are many other sites where such things are more-appreciated - maybe try searching for terms like "conservation forum" or "nature discussion boards". Thank you for understanding! Please continue to help improve the encyclopedia; happy editing!

Having trouble using Wikipedia[edit]

(leaving stuff like ''Italic text'' <math>Insert formula here</math> all over the place, etc.)

Hi! From your edits to (Article Name), it looks like you might be having some trouble getting the hang of Wikipedia. If you need help, try the Wikipedia:Introduction or tutorial - or, if you just want to try things out, try the sandbox. You can also message me with a question by going to my talk page and then clicking the + at the top next to "edit this page".

Be bold[edit]

Hi! I noticed your suggestion; if you wish, you can go ahead and be bold in making changes like that, since it doesn't seem to be very controversial, and you probably know best what you mean to do. If anyone disagrees, one can always go to the talk page to discuss afterwards. I can help out too, if you like; just contact me on my talk page. Happy editing!

Strong opinion[edit]

Hello! It looks like you're having a rough time editing some articles because you have strong opinions about the topics they cover. Being in such a situation causes many problems, since Wikipedia treats strong opinions the way that museums treat tigers. That is, we can display them and admire them, but a living tiger roaming around can be a big problem indeed. Please reconsider how you are displaying your opinions, and consider not editing articles in which you have such strong opinions. Thank you.


Hello! Please do not add opinions to encyclopedia articles, like you did to Global Warming, since that is not the place for them. If you would like to discuss the article, do so on the article's talk page. If you would like to discuss the topic of the article, please check the external links or use a search engine to find internet forums and other methods to express your views - Wikipedia is not the right place for them. Thank you, and happy editing.

Please cite sources[edit]

Hello and welcome! I noticed your edits to article name, so thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! However, please cite where you got your information (websites, books, magazines, etc.), such that we can verify the factuality of your additions. It would be great if you could go back and add sources to your contribution, especially anything tagged with this: [citation needed]. Thank you, and happy editing!

Message in article instead of talk[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you (or someone else at this IP) were trying to write comments about the article article name. Please place any such comments on the article's discussion or "talk" page, accessed by clicking the "discussion" tab near the top of the page. Repeatedly adding comments inside the text of an article may look like vandalism, so please avoid doing that. Thank you, and happy editing!

Interesting pages[edit]

School IP[edit] 19:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

math thing[edit]


WP Messed Up Diff.png

Norm Coleman blog thing post copies[edit]

1) (slightly reworded) If one disregards the slips into attacks, his argument is quite correct. EnderW's post has many inaccuracies as to the functioning of Wikipedia, and his actions at Wikipedia have broken quite a few rules.

Being that all editors at Wikipedia are just regular people volunteering their time, the occasional slip can be forgiven. His personal attacks are not worse than "take your high-and-mighty wannabe editor status and shove it", and possibly might be induced from the same reason (I presume frustration at enforcing a rule).

2) Please note that:

- Wikipedia has no "staff" editing the articles - nearly all contributions to the encyclopedia are from volunteers. Some people are administrators, which means they have been entrusted by the community with certain functions (such as blocking and one-click rollback) - they are not "staff". One can, of course, argue that there is some sort of systemic bias in Wikipedia or within Republicans' biographies on Wikipedia, but that is very different from saying that "staff" is pushing or allowing a pro-Coleman bias in the article.

- Wikipedia is not a place to reply to the Senator. The fact that Mr. Coleman attacked Mrs. Clinton in a similar fashion does not mean the text is any more appropriate for the encyclopedia. It's an encyclopedia entry, not a container for a debate.

- It is possible that your changes were removed simply because you had been blocked, which means you weren't supposed edit Wikipedia at all. A blocked user should appeal the block first (or just wait out the time). If someone else desired to reinstate your addition, they are allowed to re-add the passage (or some version of it) and, in a way, "take responsibility" for it. Glancing at the history, it does not appear to me that anyone else agreed with your changes.

IRC Pass reminder to self[edit]

Not the normal password, more like Cel's LJ password.

Work laws[edit]

As numbers of users increase, the proportion of those actively editing (good or bad) decreases, as a fewer proportion of users have the computer skills (or confidence in their skills) to edit.
Bad or poor edits (needing reversion or cleanup - hearby referred to as "vandalism" for simplicity) increase disproportionally (order > 1) with number of users - a larger proportion will be bad-faith as those not familiar with the Internet and/or Wikipedia increase. For the same reason, vandalism also increases disproportionally (order > 1) with number of (active) editors.
As good-faith editors increase, encyclopedic work per user decreases. Total work done is proportional to the square root of the number of editors, as the work used up in administrative tasks and meta discussions increases. (This can be modeled by a solid triangular hierarchy of administrative tasks and discussions, where encyclopedic work that is done is the bottom widest "row" that slides up and down as the triangle changes size. The row is of constant height - only its width can change, since too high of a row causes not enough administration to oversee editing. As users increase, the last row shifts downward slightly to accommodate, causing some of the work to go into administrative tasks.)
The quality of the encyclopedia is a function of how much encyclopedic work is done against how many poor or bad destructive actions are performed.
Sneaky or disruptive vandalism increases proportionally with obvious vandalism. Sneaky vandalism takes more work to undo. Work needed to undo vandalism increases faster than the number of users

LC 173 formulas practice[edit]

y = plus or minus sqrt(r^2 - x^2)

y = sqrt(r^2 - x^2)

dy/dx (the slope) = -x / (sqrt(r^2 - x^2)) = (-x) * (r^2 - x^2)^(-1/2)

d^2 y / (dx)^2 (the rate of change in the slope) = (-x)[-1/2 * (r^2 - x^2)^(-3/2) * 2x] + (r^2-x^2)^(-1/2)*(-1) by product and chain rules = -x^2/[(r^2-x^2)^(3/2)] - 1/sqrt(r^2-x^2)

Weighting of participants' predictions for overall prediction[edit]

From Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Mathematics

Imagine I have a game where people try to guess the outcome of some event - for simplicity's sake, let's say it results in a number up to 100, and this game involves skill and analysis. A tally of results is produced, and statistics are made with it, the most useful of which might be the average error of each person away from the actual result. So now I have a database of people, their average error, and the number of times they've played. They've also entered their guesses for the next round.

How do I convert this data into an overall prediction for the number in the next round? (If there is a name for this process, could someone point me towards it?) Thanks! —AySz88\^-^ 06:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's linear prediction, which kind of assumes that your "some event" process is predictable using a "simple" model. See also forecasting and predictive analytics for a broader survey of several methods.
You need some model. Here is one possible model: A participant's prediction is the true future outcome + an error term. For each participant, the error term is a random variable with a Gaussian distribution with fixed, participant-dependent mean and variance. In a formula:
in which the are independent random variables with mean 0 and variance 1.
From the past performance you can estimate the parameters μi and σi. Now, given all Pi, the maximum likelihood estimator for F is a weighted sum of the quantities Pi − μi, where the weight of the i-th entry is inversely proportional to the variance σi2.  --LambiamTalk 08:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I'm looking for linear prediction - I'm not saying that each outcome is in any way connected to a previous outcome, just that the participants of the game have enough data to make a prediction for the outcome. In other words, the rounds are all independent of each other.
But I think the second bit was what I was trying to get an idea of... thank you! —AySz88\^-^ 01:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not Caring about Low-level Triviality: The case against deletionism[edit]

(incomplete; just a sketch)


  • The energy and motivation of Wikipedia's volunteer community comes from the joy of contribution (from Sue Gardner, in this article)
    • Also, there is not much commercial non-volunteer support.
  • To keep Wikipedia growing, this motive needs to be introduced to new users and preserved
  • New contributors (should and do) start small
    • Starting small is especially true for those who are responsible and grow to become valued contributors
    • Contributors that don't start small can get in over their head quickly; those that jump right into a fire need to be encouraged to start smaller
    • They do easy fixes (mispellings, non-cites, copyedits...) which are often some of the first things fixed in an article
    • Are easily scared away if their contributions are not valued
  • New contributors need a place to start small
  • Wikipedia needs to sustain and grow its volunteer population
    • Especially if it wants to grow its high-quality sector and expand its audience; there will never be enough janitors
  • Wikipedia needs an area to capture and develop starting contributors
  • There are few such areas now
    • We have lots of well-developed and relatively mature areas
    • Those areas that aren't are generally those that are historically problematic


  • Learning areas need to be trivial - people shouldn't care whether an edit is perfect, just that it made things better
    • i.e. not in contentious areas
    • a generally highly non-BITE, low-lawyering area, like:
      • content without manual of style following is okay
      • uncited new info is not reverted if not dubious, etc.
      • good content but bad text is okay
  • Such areas need to be high-interest - so that new contributors are naturally drawn towards improving those areas
    • A strength of the wiki model; people will just create the things of high interest to them
  • Such areas need to be low-quality (or, er, start-quality) - to allow easy contribution
    • Which is easily provided for by allowing a large number of such areas to proliferate
  • High-quality targets need segregation away from trivial but high-interest areas
    • Already being done in efforts surrounding WP 1.0
    • "Non-notable" topics are currently segregated to Wikia or private wikis, but this isn't sufficient for learning purposes: there's not enough integration and transfer to the culture of Wikipedia; people tend to learn how to work here and migrate to other wikis, not the other way around
  • Deletionism takes away areas of high-interest low-quality triviality, where non-Wikipedians can learn to become Wikipedians


  • Take advantage of the long tail of not-quite-notable content
    • Especially if such content is niche, trivial, and not so contentious
  • Don't Care about these articles - let newbies learn in that environment

Needed structure / side effects:

  • Identify areas that are most desired
  • Explicitly concentrate admin work in areas that are of highest value