User talk:Talgalili

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

AfD nomination of Talk:Keratosis pharyngis[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Talk:Keratosis pharyngis, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talk:Keratosis pharyngis. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. NeuroLogic 18:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I am fine with deletion. All I said in the talk page was that the article seemed wrong. and now that it is offered for deletion - I am glad :) Talgalili (talk) 14:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Barak Marshall[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Barak Marshall requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. ttonyb (talk) 08:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Threshold in piecewise regression analysis[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, Threshold in piecewise regression analysis, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Threshold in piecewise regression analysis. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Outrageously belated welcome[edit]

Hello, Talgalili! I'm not sure how you've gone so long without anyone saying this, but welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. You might be interested in the templates {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}}, which make citing scientific papers a snap. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 23:44, 9 December 2010 (UTC)}
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
Miscellaneous
Hello Adrian, it is a pleasure to get to know you.
Thank you for the kind welcoming words (and links). I never knew that anyone at Wikipedia was "supposed" to be welcoming - it is very nice to experience :)
I just jumped over to your page - I will reuse some of your boxes there with mine :)
See you online, Talgalili (talk) 08:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Effect size[edit]

You have edited in the article on effect size reverting a change by another user. I wrote the original formula based on the Hartung book. I do not have access to this at the moment but I believe there is something wrong with the Wikipedia article now and it does not correspond to the formula given in the book. I have earlier written on the effect size discussion page. — fnielsen (talk) 09:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I now checked it. You're right. I fixed it. Cheers. Talgalili (talk) 13:38, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Your link[edit]

Hello! It is my pleasure to meet you in Wikipedia. A very minor comment: the link "Me in real life" on your User page does not work. With very best regards, Alexander--Agor153 (talk) 12:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't remember putting it there, I do not have any connection to that page. I have now fixed it. Talgalili (talk) 04:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Haha, that page used to be my real-life webpage – I think you copied it from my page along with some userboxes etc. And Angor153's message has made me realise it's no longer live! I hadn't even realised! Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 13:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Adrian - lol :)

R software page[edit]

You edited the R (programming_language) page and removed a link to a web interface that I added because it was a "not-notable-enough website". To help me understand the rationale, could you tell me why you did not apply the same principle to the other items on the same list, specifically, the link to R AnalyticFlow, Red-R, RKWard and RStudio? In case it was due to language that was not neutral, I've added the link again using the same neutral language as described the other items on the same list. It seems that all these options are equally valid and potentially useful to the public - and should have the same principle applied to all items. Thanks. Slowtortoise4 (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello dear Slowtortoise4,
I have moved this discussing to -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:R_(programming_language)#Linking_to_an_R_web_interface_website_-_and_adding_a_web_interface_section


General messages[edit]

Thanks for the outrageously timely welcome. FordPrefect1979 (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

 :D well you ARE welcome :) Tal Galili (talk) 07:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Ward's method[edit]

Thanks for your note on my page - I had almost forgotten about my draft of Ward's method. In several months I have been too busy to contribute to Wikipedia and I have not logged in since before your message. I will try to get that online as you suggest, soon. Thanks for reading it and commenting. Mathstat (talk) 22:39, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mathstat,
I am glad to hear you are going to get this to happen! With regards, Tal Galili (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yoav Benjamini[edit]

Hello, Talgalili, and thank you for your contributions!

An article you worked on Yoav Benjamini, appears to be directly copied from http://www.math.tau.ac.il/~ybenja/. Please take a minute to make sure that the text is freely licensed and properly attributed as a reference, otherwise the article may be deleted.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Yoav Benjamini if necessary. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. This is fine - and I also responded regarding this issue in the article's discussion page.

Thanks for your warm welcome![edit]

Hello dear Tal,

I just finished correcting some mistakes on the "Shape" section of the Beta Distribution, as well as adding some new material, when I noticed your kind message.

This is to let you know how much I appreciate your note!. It is rare to receive notes of appreciation. Particularly receiving such a note from a statistician like you is very much appreciated and it makes me feel that my effort was not in vain!

Kind regards,

Jose'

Jose' Rodal, Ph.D.

Hello dear Dr. J. Rodal, I just noticed your huge contribution to the article on the Beta distribution - thank you so much! With regards, Tal Galili (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. J. Rodal (talkcontribs)


My pleasure! With kind regards, Tal Galili (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Talgalili. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Message added 12:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

False coverage rate[edit]

Hey Talgalili, I'm posting this message on your talk page because I noticed that you've recently created the new article False coverage rate--The citations and references seem to abide to Wikipedia's referencing guidelines.However, I noticed there are some holes that may need filling: the article does not contain Wikilinks, and so doesn't follow [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style {linking}|Wikipedia style guidelines]]. It would be great if you could also add references to the related article Closed testing procedure.

And have a beautiful day! Cheers, Amy Z (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello dear Amy.
The article, as it is, already contains wikilinks (in its first part, and in the "see also" section). I agree that there is room to add more wikilinks throughout it (and also turn the math into LaTeX, and many other tasks).
You are welcome to do so (either with the closed testing article, or with other ones), you do not need my approval :)
As to myself, I try to improve articles when I use them. The next time I will need the FCR article, I will work on improving it more.
With regards,
Tal Galili (talk) 08:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Talgalili,
Thank you for getting back to me. I'm sorry for not responding earlier, I will go ahead and make a few tweaks to the article.
I am a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University examining how to make interaction in Wikipedia more effective. Our research has shown that certain types of feedback encourage Wikipedians to edit more while others seem to discourage them. Experienced and less experienced Wikipedians seem to have different reactions to very similar feedback. I am interested in interviewing you about your reaction to the message I sent you. A discussion with you will help us better understand the types of feedback that can encourage newcomers's participation to Wikipedia without turning off old-timers.
I can talk with you via online chat, on Skype, over the phone, or just through Wikipedia messages if you are more comfortable with that. The interview should only take about 30 minutes. You do need to be over 18 years old, and consent to be a part of the study in order to for me to interview you. This study has been approved by Carnegie Mellon's research ethics committee (the IRB), and the Wikipedia Research Committee.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. We will be glad to send you a draft describing our research results right after the interview.

Amy Z (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC[edit]

You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Knitr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDE (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) 11:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Šidák correction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Probabilist (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) 12:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pearson's chi-squared test may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ]<ref>. See 'Discovering Statistics Using SPSS' by Andy Field for assumptions on Chi Square.) - {{citation needed}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Geometric distribution may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Duncan's new multiple range test
added links pointing to Clustering, Treatments, Power, Distribution and Hochberg

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Tal Galili (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Post-hoc analysis[edit]

Hi, thank you for your edits on Post-hoc analysis. I just wanted to point out that when you use a source more than once you can use this syntax. Happy editing - Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that, I realized you already know - Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I do. But thanks anyway :)
That edit had copy pasting from other peoples editing - so I just didn't get to fix that. Thanks for the help.
Tal Galili (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2014 (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) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Quantile[edit]

Thank you for your edits to the Quantile article. Unfortunately, I find the text and the first reference hard to understand (despite that Quantiles are a topic I know well), and the more comprehensive, second reference is behind a pay wall. In short, if you could clarify the new material soon, it would be much appreciated! 𝕃eegrc (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Leegrc, thank you for the comment. Do you have references regarding the biassness of quantile estimators? Tal Galili (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

It is not so much the references I am worried about, though we should strive for a good job there too. My worry is that the current text of the new section is opaque to me and thus I worry that someone who is less of an expert than I has less of a chance to understand what is presented. If I could get at the reference you provide, I'd read it and try to help edit the article. I strongly suspect that you have important information for the article, and anything you can do to address my concerns would be much appreciated. 𝕃eegrc (talk) 01:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

For example, would you define ECDF for the reader? Would you give a one sentence non-jargon description of what bias is in the context of quantile estimation and, perhaps, describe why we should care about it? If not an actual proof, can you give a feel for why the bias might be proportional to the standard deviation of the unknown distribution? Can you give a feel for why bias might be smaller in the central quantiles? Could you use N rather than n, to be consistent with the rest of the article? Unfortunately these sentences, which "come from a summary of a person on crossvalidated", aren't particularly encyclopedic. Perhaps worse, if the copying is close to verbatim, there could be copyright issues. You may be on to something important here, but if left as is, it might better serve wikipedia by being deleted. 𝕃eegrc (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi 𝕃eegrc,
The text in crossvalidated is CC-BY, so there is no problem using it (and I gave a link back)
I will not get to extending the text in the way you propose in the near future, so I deleted it from the article.
I believe the biasness of the quantile estimators should be discussed, and hope you or someone else would find the time to add it.
With regards, Tal Galili (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Warcraft (film), did not appear constructive and have been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 4TheWynne(talk)(contribs) 10:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for helping maintain article quality, 4TheWynne, but you might want to take a look at WP:DTTR. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 10:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I removed the speculative part (although I thought it was a rather obvious hint), and kept the other parts which are factual. Best, Tal Galili (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
p.s.: it seems I am not the only one who noticed that hint (that Medivh might be Garona's father). See [1] and [2]. I agree it is a speculation since the movie does not explicitly say it, but it might be worth adding to the text (but I won't argue over it, since it is not crucial to me). With regards, Tal Galili (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Talgalili. 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)

References[edit]

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi User:Doc James. If the sentence was about claiming that A leads to B then obviously it should have been based on reliable secondary analysis. However, the sentence that I edited said there were a few studies that found a connection between A and B, while no other extensive research had been conducted to detect a relation. Hence, I did not cite the sources as a way to claim that A leads to B, but as an example of the statement made by the sentence. I think the content should return, as it gives evidence to the statement made in the article. Thanks for the consideration. Tal Galili (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
We should stick with high quality secondary sources. This is one of the ways we determine appropriate weight that should be given to content. If something is not covered in a high quality secondary source we should likely not mention it either. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
ok, thank you for the explanation :) Tal Galili (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)