User talk:Cnmirose
Welcome!
Hello, Cnmirose, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
- If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!
-Poli (talk • contribs) 03:35, 2005 July 29 (UTC)
Hey. I'd just like to apologise in case you thought the comments in this VfD seemed harsh. Please understand that Wikipedians who are active in VfDs come across hundreds of "vanity" pages per month, and may get sick of deleting them. We tend to get very suspicious of articles created by users about themselves, and may "shoot to kill" on sight of them, without much consideration.
Personally, I would have voted to keep the article, since I think that being the author of something that appeared in Nature is a viable claim to notability. But in this case, I think the heightened sense of suspicion because you created the article yourself has doomed it. I'd encourage you to merge that information into your userpage, however, and please continue to edit Wikipedia. :-) Cheers --malathion talk 06:15, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
test message
[edit]test message
Re: Wikipedia in general
[edit]Hi Chris (you can call me Ryan). You wrote:
Why are the editors essentially anonymous unless they self-identify? Yes, there is some utility to having a level structure in which only logic is the determinant, but some issues are subtle enough that they could be better served by knowing whether the contents were carefuly vetted by experts or not. This is where traditional encylopedias have something like Wikipedia beat -- uniform vetting.
You've hit on a major "issue" with Wikipedia, which I have considered significant enough to feature prominently at the top of my talk page. I'll tell you what I feel is the general Wiki-consensus about this.
Wiki policy
[edit]The view of most Wikipedians is summed up with Wikipedia:NPOV. If you haven't already, I'd suggest you read it, since it is the central policy guideline that Wikipedia is based on, and that distinguishes it from other encyclopedias.
In the interest of Wiki NPOV, Wikipedia does not prefer the views of learned experts ipso-facto over those of the common folk. All tenable views should be considered and accurately represented. If there is controversy about a subject, regardless of the merit of the controversy, Wikipedia should report both sides fairly and not take sides. For example, it would be POV for Wikipedia to say something like "there is no evidence for intelligent design in the universe" despite the near-universal consesus among biologists, geologists, and astronomers to that effect. Wiki NPOV would say "Although intelligent design theories are widely supported by many Americans, most scientists and academics deny that they have any basis in evidence" or something similar.
Additionally, Wikipedia prohibits original research. This means that on Wikipedia, an expert's credentials are no more useful than those of a layman, since an expert would be effectively citing himself as a reference if he attempted to assert greater authority over a subject due only to his experience in the area, rather than citing some published work elsewhere. We are encouraged to cite sources regardless of our personal level of education, and other editors will judge the edits on their own merit. It would be perfectly fine to cite yourself if you are citing something you have had published and peer-reviewed, but Wikipedians can be very suspicious of experts who come across saying "I am an expert because blah blah, therefore this is right because I say so, and you plebes should let me edit in peace."
Now, I think this can be very frustrating to highly educated people, because they (rightly!) expect that all that work and time spent studying should mean that their expertise counts for something. This scares a lot of people like you away, which I think is a terrible shame, and it's part of why I am writing this long reply. All you need to understand is that your views can be represented here, but that the "common beliefs" -- wrong or right -- are going to get just as much air time. Strive to maintain NPOV, and never attempt to use academia as a club for brow-beating others out of reporting their views, and I trust that you will be found as a greatly valuable member of this community.
We need more people who can report on these kinds of highly technical subjects -- but we don't need elisists who will remove anything they disagree with in the name of science. It's not just an issue of ego; it's as issue of making the most detailed, fact-oriented, neutral encyclopedia possible, that always lets the readers make up their own minds.
Credit
[edit]Of course, then there's the issue of drawing experts into the mix deliberately and some form of compensation (intellectual/academic as opposed to monetary). That is, I'd be hard-pressed to browse Wikipedia to check articles in my areas of expertise since it would be a time-consuming labor of love for which there is no credit given.
Generally speaking, people on Wikipedia who want credit for what they have done are in the wrong place. If one wants to get a name for himself and get recognition, this is not the place to do it, and (as you have found out) Wikipedians can be intensely hostile to any perceived attempts -- real or otherwise -- to use Wikipedia for that purpose.
But if you want to help disseminate human knowledge, this is a great way to do it. Wikipedia gets more hits than About.com, Britannica, NASA, The New York Times, Reuters, National Public Radio, and is expected to overtake The Weather Channel and IMDB soon.
So it's really up to you. Wikipedia is made up of people who want to make a difference and make the world better without getting credit or money, and I'll be damned if it isn't working. I'm happy to be a part of that in my own small way, because I know what an incredible effect it is having, and how much use it can be to people.
At some point, Wikipedia has to grow up and provide some indication of the veracity of articles. The old way is to close down open submissions and empower a panel of experts -- this seems stultifying and prone to certain types of censorship. Perhaps there's a different way which vets without restricting participation -- simply allowing identification of editor qualifications? Note, the use of "allowing" as opposed to "enforcing" -- you could choose to identify or not.
I really don't think Wikipedia will ever do this. The thing is, "closing down" and providing indications of "veracity" is missing the boat. You are probably more used to academic journals where people make arguments and attempt to advance a particular view. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we seek to report, not argue; and that means that sometimes we give the microphone to views we very strongly believe are not right. We won't ever decide that Wikipedia favors evolution over creationism simply because that is the prevailing view of the moment. Wikipedia will not elevate any one person or idea over any others. It simply reports. It's simply NPOV.
I hope this has answered your questions fully, and I hope you decide to continue improving our encyclopedia. Please feel free to let me know if you need anything else. --malathion talk 04:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
By the way, after reviewing your personal website (and listening to your radio interviews) I've recreated this article. I would suggest that you not edit it, but please tell me if you think something there is glaringly wrong or missing. --malathion talk 05:30, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
My understanding of the Wiki-ethos
[edit]Hello again. I'm probably not the best authority on specialized scientific editing, but I suppose I qualify as an "expert" on a few subjects. There are actually quite a few genuine experts here, especially in fields like mathematics, biology, and computer programming. They tend to be more forward about their identities. Make no mistake, the vast majority of Wikipedians are effectively anonymous, inasmuch as they don't want to reveal their true living identities, but in a virtual community like this one, we find that one can build up a separate identity and reputation. People who want to work hard tend to maintain constant personas, which assist in weeding out fakers, vandals, and dilettantes. Long-term contributors tend to know one another personally, and trust one another's judgment. Experts on a particular area of expertise keep close watch over their little domain and try to maintain the overall quality of articles therein. In a way, this is kind of like "uniform vetting". Articles are continually watched and checked. A prime example of an expert is User:AxelBoldt (one of my personal favorite Wikipedians). There are also quite a few all-around policy experts, like User:RickK, whose main function is to regulate the encyclopedia and deal with problems. Of course, you also have users like User:Deeceevoice, who bring to the encyclopedia personal experience on a topic that would otherwise be ignored. Wikipedia is still relatively young, so we have to value every contributor, while realizing that each one has certain weaknesses.
A huge number of edits come from totally anonymous IPs. We realize that these are inherently capricious and unreliable, but they tend to be minor and (very importantly) trackable. Many anons have useful information that they want to contribute, and this is reflected by their edits. Vandals are easy to spot, thanks to the tools of the software. Problem IPs can be tracked and blocked without difficulty. There are a lot of Wikipedians who live to hunt vandals, so there's no danger of being overwhelmed.
- Of course, then there's the issue of drawing experts into the mix deliberately and some form of compensation (intellectual/academic as opposed to monetary). That is, I'd be hard-pressed to browse Wikipedia to check articles in my areas of expertise since it would be a time-consuming labor of love for which there is no credit given.
That depends on your conception of "credit". We welcome you to remain here as an editor, under your own name, just like Axel Boldt and our other academic contributors. By improving the Wikipedia, you can take credit for it, in a sense (at least that's how I think about it). Yes, it is certainly time-consuming, and often frustrating, but many editors derive considerable pride from watching Wikipedia get bigger and better. You seem like you'd have a lot to contribute to SETI and related articles, of which I must confess I am woefully ignorant. You should explore the history pages of those articles and develop a familiarity with their contributors. Expert editors add to the quality and prestige of the entire project, so they're especially welcome, and encouraged to edit under their own names.
- As an "expert" I felt that some mention of the "matter channel" work in the Nature paper was indicated in the SETI article and I'm certain that other experts in the field (even those with different viewpoints) would feel the same. However, any suggestion that the ideas be included is in some sense self-dealing "vanity."
I can understand how you would worry about a conflict of interest, having just had your article summarily deleted (the vfd process must seem a bit savage to a new editor). Our demand must seem paradoxical: only impartial observers can contribute, but impartial observers are inherently less likely to be experts. But let me try to explain the role of experts in editing pages. As a linguistics student, I run into a lot of very new, very conjectural material which I'm tempted to add, in one way or another, to Wikipedia. I imagine it's the same for you. There's a fine line between expertise and original research. As an expert, you would primarily serve as a critic, vetting and improving articles, and seeing that Wikipedia remains up to speed with established academic and scientific consensus. At the same time, you have to be very cautious about adding new information, especially if it's something that originates from your work or the work of a close acquaintance. As for your "ET Might Write, Not Radiate" article, its inclusion in Nature seems to speak for its notability. For the purposes of Wikipedia, we're interested primarily in its information. The article itself may be cited at the bottom of the page, but the information should be worked seamlessly into the article. If you provide conclusive evidence of notability on Talk:SETI, you should have no problem integrating this information into the article. Be aware, however, that this is always going to be a sensitive issue. Wikipedians are acutely concerned with neutrality and accuracy. We don't like to advocate or suggest new ideas until they're definitely notable. If I were in your position, I'd propose your information on the SETI talk page, and suggest that its contents are notable and enclyclopedic and should be noted in the article. If you make it clear that you aren't trying to self-promote, and invite other editors to comment, you will arouse far less suspicion from vanity-hunters.
- Perhaps there's a different way which vets without restricting participation -- simply allowing identification of editor qualifications? Note, the use of "allowing" as opposed to "enforcing" -- you could choose to identify or not.
I agree 100%, and many other editors agree with you. It never hurts to have contributors with real-world qualifications. Just be aware that your authority comes at a price. The only thing you can do to allay suspicion is to become a valuable contributor and acquire a reputation for neutrality and accuracy. Most Wikipedians choose to remain effectively anonymous because they escape harsh scrutiny, and can post whatever they want. Of course, they lack authority. It's a trade-off. Personally, I think we need contributors of both types. Many Wikipedians choose to use multiple accounts, to contribute to a variety of topics without spreading irrelevant loyalties throughought the project. You can only have one "real" identity, i.e. your "authoritative" account, but there's nothing to keep you from editing anonymously with a parallel account. This isn't a recommended activity, of course, but it often helps to prevent conflicts of interest. For example, you might use one account to edit political articles, and another account to edit scientific articles.
Anyway, I hope I've answered some of your questions. Don't hesitate to drop by if you need help with something.
Binadot 05:32, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Gregory Wright
[edit]The sentence He also studied at The Heights School in South Australia, but due to a tragic banana accident was unable to complete his SACE. has been added to Gregory Wright. Are you able to confirm it (so it can be properly wikified and perhaps even expanded), or advise that it's wrong? I understand you know the subject personally. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 13:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
covariance and correlation
[edit]Someone needs to check this page. Covariance = 0 and correlation = 0 are NOT equivalent. The usual definition is E[XY] = 0 --> ORTHOGONAL cov(X,Y)=- --> UNCORRELATED
only with zero mean X and Y are the two equivalent.
- Sorry, you're wrong. The only time covariance = 0 is not exactly equivalent to correlation = 0 is when the variances are 0, in which case the correlation is undefined.
- Also, please note that you can sign your name and date your posting by putting four tildas (~~~~) at the end. Michael Hardy 20:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 03:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
causa sui (talk) 03:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Notification of automated file description generation
[edit]Your upload of File:ChristopherRose.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
unified field theory
[edit]Hi My name is sara Pitten
I am fascinated by the Philidelphia experiment and recently watched the Dyatlov Incident I am intrigued by this field of work. outpost II. I currently work with computers and have been studying this for the last 2 years. I am not at university but on my own and I wish to learn more. I live in England, Cheshire and my email address is sara.pitten@outlook.com. is it possible you could forward some information to me. I would like to know about this. I am wanting to learn new things and this I have constantly wanted to know about. even if u have to teach me is that possible? I am not the best at maths but I really want to know. could we meet ? I live in Cheshire but I do have a passport and I want to learn please teach me?
Look forward to hearing from you sara P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.240.196 (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)