- 1 Welcome to the Wikipedia!
- 2 AfD nomination of Foundations of statistics
- 3 Empathy and caution
- 4 Placement of main article in category
- 5 Re: Feynman quote
- 6 Revert of Marmite#Nutritional_Information
- 7 Reference you added to Bertrand's paradox
- 8 ArbCom elections are now open!
- 9 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 10 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Welcome to the Wikipedia!
Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, TheSeven! Thanks for the interesting comments about WP:NPOV tags and the ArbCom's unenviable task of distinguishing the difference between content disputes from the allegedly restricted matters within its purported purview (e.g., bullying, Wikiturfing, Wikistalking, etc.). Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:
- Take a look at the New contributors' help page, the Wikipedia Tutorial and the Manual of Style, and If you still need any help, you can always post your question at the Help Desk.
- When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia and Assume good faith, but please keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
- Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
- Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!
And some odds and ends: Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~. Best of luck, TheSeven, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 21:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Foundations of statistics
An editor has nominated Foundations of statistics, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foundations of statistics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Empathy and caution
If I made the rules around here, then there'd be no question that you'd get to tell clueless people to bugger-off from discussions of whether there should be a separate article on the foundations of statistics; I'd probably direct harsher rhetoric at them than you have. But I don't make the rules, and real civility (rules designed to minimize conflict in general) is not understood by those who do. —SlamDiego←T 01:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
- Kind thanks and much appreciated! I'm sure you are right. TheSeven (talk) 09:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Placement of main article in category
I see that you didn't like my breaking out the main article statistics from the alphabetic listing in the article list section of Category:Statistics, by means of the ordinary trick. This is really not very important; the article anyhow is listed in the text introduction of the category, and supposing that you saw what the idea was before you rejected it, I have nothing more to add.
- Hi JoergenB,
- Sorry to take so long to reply (this is my first time signing in since then). I do not have strong feelings about this at all, but the "trick" is confusing for people who do not know it—like me, for example!
- Good wishes, TheSeven (talk) 08:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: Feynman quote
OK, I've also changed the redirect to The most remarkable formula in mathematics] back to Euler's formula. I was overconfident when trying to fix those edits. At least I know the fixup of this cut and paste move was to the right article. Graham87 00:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Revert of Marmite#Nutritional_Information
- Thanks and You're welcome! I'm glad you kept me on my toes — because of your input, we have the footnote about B12 much better documented. And now if someone could find out the <fact>s about about the RDA change! YBG (talk) 02:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Reference you added to Bertrand's paradox
Recently you added a reference to Bertrand's paradox (probability). The reference is to a newly posted arXiv paper, (2014 March 8) that wasn't even published in a peer reviewed journal at the time when it was added (2014 May 26). Many papers have been written about this topic, and this is the very latest one, which means that it is clearly not one that has been recognized as a important result (at least not yet).
Such an edit could easily be mistaken as an attempt by the paper's authors to advertise their result by trying to ride the popularity of Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. To avoid such misunderstanding I have removed the reference. It was not cited in the article and there doesn't seem to be any evidence that this should be treated as one of the primary references on the topic. BarroColorado (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- You do not seem to understand how arxiv works for mathematics: please read up on this. And being the latest paper on the topic is an asset.
- I do not know the authors. The misunderstanding is yours.
- As neither of your objections are valid, I have undone your edit.
- TheSeven (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- I understand very well how arXiv works. You have simply ignored all my arguments. You did not show why this paper is any more relevant than all the others an again ignored that it has just been posted and has not had time to receive any sort of verification. By the way, it's a physics paper, submitted to a physics journal. This is not a case of a math paper staying or arXiv for years and becoming a recognized reference even before it has a chance to get published in a peer reviewed journal. This looks like a random reference to a very new paper, added to the article without being cited (either by the article or by any other papers) and without making it clear why it adds to the article. Having this as one of the highlighted references creates the false impression that it is one of the go to sources on the problem, which is not the case. Since you failed to address these points in your reply, I removed the reference again.
- If you choose to add references, please choose relevant ones. Not random new papers which have received no citations or recognition from the community. Such references are no useful for the general audience of Wikipedia. According to Google scholar there were 20+ papers published on the topic in the past 15 years, several of them have may citations. If you think that it is good to re-add this reference, please explain why it is a more relevant paper than all the rest. BarroColorado (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- You previously accused me of acting in bad faith: conflict of interest. I am glad that you are no longer doing that.
- I found the paper by doing a google search for Bertrand paradox, limited to results from the past year. The cited paper is one of the top three, when I search. I have not studied the paper closely, nor the prior work. The paper seemed to make a substantial new advance; so I put it in the references for the Wikipedia article. I did not change the content of the article; I left that for future editors.
- I would not characterize it as a physics paper. Rather, it approaches the problem using the principle of maximum entropy/likelihood (the two are effectively the same in this context: see AIC). There is a physical interpretation (which motivated the authors), but that is not necessary to get the result.
- Anyone interested in the topic should be pointed to both major old articles and scholarly recent articles. If you know of major old articles, I believe that you should include them; of course, the really major old articles are presumably cited by the scholarly recent ones. Recent scholarly articles surely are "one of the go to sources on the problem": readers benefits from knowing about them.
- Today I repeated the google search. This turned up one additional article, which I also included in the Wikipedia references—for the same reason.
- TheSeven (talk) 18:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough, I'll try to add more references eventually. To clarify: I did not explicitly claim that you were the author of the article. There was no evidence for it (or for the contrary) so I was careful not to say so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BarroColorado (talk • contribs) 04:32, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
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) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)