User talk:BrotherE

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


Hello, BrotherE, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  RJFJR 17:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Resurrection - Modern de-emphasis in Christianity[edit]


on 8 March 2007 (06:44) you have removed completely (from position 3.2.1 of the main article Resurrection) the sub-section “Modern de-emphasis in Christianity”, with the following “motivation”:

  • “Removed NPOV material which presents one side of the debate about what happens between death and resurrection - such material belongs in the main article, not here”

As you have not moved the a.m. subsection anywhere else, but, in fact, removed/erased it, unless you explain in a satisfactory manner the motive of your drastic edit, I am going to restore the previous situation.

Miguel de Servet 14:44, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

February 2008[edit]


Hi, the recent edit you made to Massacre of the Innocents has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Waggers (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Civil Law[edit]

Hello. Thank you for note in my talk page.

I admit that I am much more a dabbler on this issue, Scandavian law specifically. Another difference I've seen mentioned, though without citation, is that Scandanavian systems make greater use of custom as a source of law than systems closer to the French and German models, where scholars discuss its place a lot, but apparently have few practical examples to discuss. See custom (law). This is again from the Merryman book. As I said, the person who wrote that never provided a source, so I don't know if it might just be caselaw or something distinct from custom as understood in the civil law tradition

It is a shame that there is not a separate section on the Scandanavian legal tradition, or even sub-tradition. I admit with my limited knowledge that the differences make it seem like a separate tradition, rather than those differences being exceptions of the civil law tradition. 1) No real code, or at least not a centralized code, 2) something more like precedence than jurisprudence, 3) significant use of custom (or maybe not- source uncertain).

Again, I don't know much about the issue myself, but if I ever have the copious time and inclination, I'll check out your sources and look up more. Otherwise, I'll be leaving the article alone.IMHO (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Microsoft Visual Studio[edit]

Can you cite how much more the dreamspark license is restrictive when compared to the normal license? I hunted around the dreamspark site but cannot find the license anywhere. --Blowdart | talk 18:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The Lamplighter (poem)[edit]


This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Lamplighter (poem), and it appears to be a substantial copy of For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 22:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The cogsci septagram[edit]

Many thanks for the support :-) --Andy Fugard (talk) 19:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


Thank you for adding the reference on R-Tree. I'm not sure that this completely satisfies the call for a a reference there: you added the priority r-tree citation, but ideally it should be an external citation that asserts the superiority. I recently saw a keynote by Lars Arge on his optimal tree research. It was quite impressive, but to me it was a lot along the lines of "optimal in complexity theory, too costly in reality". I'm fine with keeping the article as-is since I respect his research a lot (and I really enjoyed his keynote). However it would be nice to find a real-world evaluation of the PR-Tree performance. --Chire2 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pearson Correlation[edit]

Howdy, I noticed your change in the pearson correlation page "Corrected error in second formula for sample covariance". I think your change is wrong, when computing sample correlation on perfect two test vectors using that change to the formula -- 1/(n-1)^2 instead of 1/(n-1) -- the correlation comes out as 0.111 instead of 1.0. Are you sure your change is correct?

I'm trying to implement pearson correlation in software, and i've been banging my head against my answers all day because they were obviously wrong; I had been using the 1/(n-1)^2 version for a while; then somewhere else I saw 1/(n-1), tried it, and my test vectors are working fine. I really think your change is wrong.

-- Antiduh — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:36, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I was in error. The problem resulted from my OWN code that I couldn't get to work. I had an extensive test set of correlations computed from a mathematical software package and my value always resulted in being too large by a factor of n-1. So, I assumed a typo in Wikipedia. Redoing things by hand now, I had the same problem. After checking my work, I discovered that in the hand-calculations, I was computing the standard deviations incorrectly. Having an incorrect formula for the correlation hid this error. Now, I need to revisit the code I originally wrote.

The real problem is that the original contributor of this formula neglected to cite his source. Had there been a citation, I would have checked it before substituting my correction. Even now, I have been unable to source using n-1 rather than n in the denominator. For example, the top link on Google defines r as \frac{\sum_i z_{x,i} z_{y,i}}{N}. I find the same definition at which publishes a statistics book.

Thank you for correcting my error. I will atone for my sins by finding a reliable source for the correct formula. I'm still looking. Many of the sources depend on this very Wikipedia page - up to using the illustration.

BrotherE (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)