User talk:Biogeographist

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

A belated welcome![edit]

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm! Face-smile.svg

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Biogeographist. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Apparition11 Complaints/Mistakes 18:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Schema Therapy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stephen A. Mitchell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Compendium (software), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Douglas Walton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reflective practice, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Blackwell and Palgrave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Resistance (philosophy), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doubleday (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Learning styles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. John's University (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John C. Norcross, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Behavior change (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Meaning-making, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages George Kelly and Praeger (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quantitative (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Functional analytic psychotherapy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Empowered Holistic Nursing Education, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drumming (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chip Heath, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Press (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DSRP, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Questioning and Pluralism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of books about negotiation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free Press (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Decision-making, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Monitoring (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HyperTalk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lingo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

RiskAoA vs multiple-criteria decision-making methods[edit]

RiskAoA is similar only in goal. These tools involve no new technology or approaches that an educated person couldn't use or derive. Most are linear, and especially are "garbage in, garbage out." One of the amazing things about RiskAoA is that errors with data are not reflected in the results, it extracts the goodness from data, and the badness cancels, garbage goes in, but useful information comes out. It does require reasonable information fidelity, it can't make miracles, or withstand deliberate spoofing. But none of those tools, the linear parameterization tools, the fuzzy logic, etc., involve application of any novel techniques.

Weighted models, can not predict. RiskAoA can, it does not use weights. Fuzzy is essential a way of artificially increasing accuracy with artificial chaos and artificially increasing number. ELECTRE could greatly enhance RiskAoA, if one wished to invest the time, though I am not sure that there would be much benefit. The others seem to be exactly the kinds of models I complained about in our other conversations. Linear factors, added together, they usefully keep track of many details, but don't do anything else extraordinary.

I can't tell you how RiskAoA works, but I may be able to satisfy your curiosity.GESICC (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@GESICC: Thanks for the note, which sounds very interesting, but I am still very skeptical because there is a lot that I don't understand and I don't have any published sources that I could consult to understand better the magic you are describing. I also don't understand why RiskAoA would be so magical when the list of RiskAoA's steps that you added to the article on decision-making do not sound magical or innovative. There's no way to verify the novelty of RiskAoA in comparison to whatever the most comparable methods might be.
I'm also skeptical that you present RiskAoA as being in a class by itself and there is no way to verify that claim either. For example, the article on risk management tools begins with a sentence written by you that currently reads: "There are three distinct types of risk tools: Two are identified by their approach, Capital asset pricing model (CAP-M) and RiskAoA, and the third, Probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), is the mainstay of project risk management." The same classification is stated in the risk approaches section of the RiskAoA article. No reliable source is provided for this classification, which makes it look like original research (prohibited in Wikipedia), but apart from that problem, this classification presents RiskAoA not merely as a Microsoft Excel-based software package but as a whole class of tools. There is no support for this idea in any of the available sources on RiskAoA.
If there are any other published sources you can recommend that I can read to learn more, no matter how general they may be, please share them. Biogeographist (talk) 02:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Really, you don't understand it and so you want it to go away? You do have sources you can consult. Ask the program office. As to inputs not being spectacular, well, they are far above pro/con, +/-, and it's not the people in the vehicle that determine what it does, but whether it's a space shuttle, plane, car or bike. As to unique tools for risk, you can understand that easily: One determines if you need a new project, one determines which project is most likely to succeed, and the third manage your risks for components of the project. This is also how the out puts are different. GESICC (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@GESICC: The first sentence (or question) in your response doesn't make any sense to me. As for the rest: I completely understand the conceptual distinctions you are making, but: (1) Those distinctions appear to be original research because they are not supported by a reliable, published source, to my knowledge. (2) You are saying that RiskAoA is the only tool that "determines which project is most likely to succeed", but other organizations also have tools that they use to determine which projects are most likely to succeed: for example, quantitative multiple scenario tools, qualitative scenario analysis, and case-based decision analysis combined with information aggregation tools. (3) The fact that all you can do is tell me to call the program office highlights the lack of information available about RiskAoA and how it compares to other tools. Thanks, Biogeographist (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
You keep saying that the US Air Force, the Defense Acquisition University, etc., etc., is not a reliable source. In this you are incorrect. Also, show me these other tools that use a trade-space of risk to enable decisions, because that is the claim, but if you can show a project management tool that operated in that larger regime, that isn't simply accounting, I'd be very interested. That you keep bring up non-sequitur tools, sans naming them is unhelpful. In addition, you can verify that RiskAoA is distribution B, which means that is is notable for those reasons, AND information is understandably unavailable, just as if it were Secret. Are you attempting to elicit unlawful information? GESICC (talk) 21:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@GESICC: The answer to your last question is: No; I am asking for publicly available information. I never said that the US Air Force, Defense Acquisition University, and other parts of the US government are not reliable sources. The issue we are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RiskAoA is that, for purposes of determining notability, they are not independent secondary sources. The classes of tools I mention are just my general knowledge from reading about decision support systems; I am not an expert in this area. I will look for specific examples of implementation. I don't know of another tool that uses a tradespace of risk in particular. Biogeographist (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I also mention that being Distribution B is an indicator of notability. One that puts a straight-jacket on other forms of notoriety, but does itself make what is ascribed it notable, it it a technology worthy of Distribution B. GESICC (talk) 23:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@GESICC: Hmm, I will have to think about the argument that "being Distribution B is an indicator of notability". I don't know. In any case, I am learning a lot from this discussion and will continue to learn, so thanks for that. Biogeographist (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@GESICC: Are you familiar with Decision Dashboard? It too is Microsoft Excel-based decision support software that its creator claims "is an ideal decision making tool for Analysis of Alternatives and Alternative Analysis two governemental [sic] methods used to manage acquisition costs". It can be downloaded here if you are not already familiar with it. I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on how it compares to RiskAoA. I am also compiling a list of sources on other comparable decision support software, but I still need to read all the sources to determine which ones are relevant. Biogeographist (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think I was asked to review it years ago and gave it a thumbs up. I think AFRL disagreed with my assessment. It looks like it has been re-engineered since then. I believed the utilization of thresholds was an excellent innovation (assuming it's the same tool), which I heartily endorsed. But compare it to RiskAoA? they used different trade-offs in the approach. Dave's is an excellent classical approach, but involves no new technology, for example. GESICC (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@GESICC: Well, as I've said elsewhere, there is a big opportunity for you to explain more clearly, in a published article or book, and beyond the very general statements you have made above, why the technology you developed for RiskAoA is such a technological advance over the techniques used in, e.g., Decision Dashboard or other comparable techniques. I realize that such an explanation may have to wait until the DoD approves wider distribution. Biogeographist (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Higher-order thinking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Research Council (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Biogeographist. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

article[edit]

[1]placed it in italics b/c its a quote, however if you feel differently, that's ok...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style § Quotations in italics: "For quotations, use only quotation marks (for short quotations) or block quoting (for long ones), not italics. (See Quotations below.) This means that (1) a quotation is not italicized inside quotation marks or a block quote just because it is a quotation, and (2) italics are no substitute for proper quotation formatting." There are a few exceptions (see, e.g., Template:Verse translation) but not in this case. Biogeographist (talk) 21:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed "cafe" merge[edit]

You may be interested in Talk:Knowledge café#Merge with World Café (conversational process)?. Yaris678 (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of systems theory, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White box (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at my last edit[edit]

See my last entry in why editors are leaving wikipedia as it has some suggestions for you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icantevennnnn (talkcontribs) 11:54, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Icantevennnnn: Instead of writing this message on my talk page, perhaps in an indirect attempt to call me a "deletionist", you could instead self-reflect on the fact that two different editors independently reverted your edit, and you could contemplate the great likelihood that this fact indicates that your edit was deficient in some aspects, and not that the other editors are "deletionists". (In other words, the problem was in the content of your own edit, and not in the behavior of the other editors.) You could have used this opportunity to ask me more about what was deficient about your edit and about how you could improve; if you had, you might have learned something. Learning is, after all, the purpose of Wikipedia. Some of the problems with your edit that I reverted were: it was unsourced (lack of reliable sources); the logical links between sentences were insufficiently clear, giving the passage the flavor of a non sequitur; I could see no warrant for including the passage in the section on postmodernism; as I mentioned in my edit summary, the deleted passage did not clarify the meaning of the section, and Einstein was completely out of place in the section. If you wish to add a passage about "the human body and the meaning of life" to the page again, I recommend that you should provide better argumentation, cite reliable sources, avoid original synthesis of published material, rely less on quotations, and link to the article on embodied cognition, which seems to be highly relevant. Biogeographist (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Data collection system, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Case management (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You![edit]

Illusory star.svg The Psychology Barnstar
For your insightful, cogent, empirically-grounded contributions to articles and discussions on talk pages. I've learned a lot from you!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) 04:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

NLP AFD[edit]

Hi, as somebody who has contributed occasionally to articles on neuro-linguistic programming I wondered if you could have a look at this AfD, which is not getting much attention. Famousdog (c) 07:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

@Famousdog: I will comment on the AfD, although I will note here that my only edit to the article in question was a minor correction of capitalization; I have no interest in NLP, nor have I made substantial contributions to articles on NLP as far as I can see. Biogeographist (talk) 19:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)