User talk:

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

Welcome to Wikipedia![edit]

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

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but you may want to consider creating an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address ( is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! – Fayenatic London 23:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

April 2012[edit]

I think that Ferguson's book on large sample theory has a nice discussion of conditioning on Order statistics, besides Cox and Hinkley.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Collaborative editing[edit]

As a courtesy, you should alert me before removing reliable sources that I have added to articles, please.

I am usually happy to add in-line citations within a few days.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy to all Wikipedians you should follow Wikipedia standards of including reliable sources when editing, not waiting for someone else to point out that you haven't bothered. (talk) 05:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Large-scale deletions[edit]

Please don't do this. If material is unsourced, the appropriate action is to add either a {{fact}} to the sentence in question, or {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} up top if refs are needed everywhere.

In the case of Categorical distribution, you simply deleted 75% of the article, without justifying any of your deletions other than "it's not sourced", without discussing the deletions, without asking the authors (e.g. me) to add sources or notifying them that you were deleting the text, without identifying what, if anything, you think isn't correct, etc. etc. Your history of contributions shows that you are a relatively new user with a history of similar actions. I only found out about the changes because another user notified me. All of this behavior is rather uncivil. I'd suggest reading the Wikipedia page on civility, and the related pages on how to best make editing changes. I have no problem adding sources and will gladly do it if asked (although I'm busy and it will take a little while). The proper way to get such changes, however, is to ask for them, not to just slash and burn articles and wait for someone else to clean up the mess you've left.

Furthermore, there's no Wikipedia rule that says all articles must be sourced. This is a goal, but a secondary goal, whereas the primary goal is to create a repository of knowledge. Deleting unsourced but correct text sacrifices the primary goal for the secondary -- not a winning proposition. The only exception where such deleting is called for is with biographies of a living person where you think the information could be libelous, which clearly doesn't apply here. This is what you should do instead:

  1. Add the appropriate tags as above.
  2. Note on the talk page that citations are needed.
  3. Note on the primary author's page or primary authors' pages that citations are needed.
  4. If you genuinely think information doesn't belong and should be deleted for some OTHER reason, discuss this on the talk page. But make sure this is a REAL reason, not simply something you're inventing because you really want the info deleted simply for being unsourced (which is not an appropriate reason for deleting something, as I've mentioned).
  5. If the notes on the talk page and author's/authors' page(s) don't get action, try leaving more notes.
  6. If still no action, consider just adding the sources yourself, if you care so much.

Please also assume good faith (avoid calling people "arrogant") and avoid edit warring. Multiple people have reverted your changes, so rather than insisting on continuing to delete large sections, get consensus on the talk page. This applies to other pages besides just categorical distribution, as well.


Benwing (talk) 23:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't try your bombast with me. You have absolute failed to follow even the most basic Wikipedia standards of providing sources for materail contributed. I suggest you bother to read {{Wikipedia:Your first article}}. The fact that you have got away with such a lazy tactic of not bothering to provide proper citations on multiple articles is no excuse. See WP:BURDEN "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source." Remember that your personal opinion is of no interest to Wikipedia readers. The fact that you have still not bothered to add any citations to the material you added to categorical distribution can only be taken as clear evidence of your unwillingness to comply with Wikipedia conventions. (talk) 07:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Civility level 1 warning[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on median. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. In particular your edit summaries contained offensive language which breach the Wikipedia:Civility policy.--Salix (talk): 08:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)