User talk:Qwfp

Archive 1: Jan 2008 – Feb 2009

Unlabeled Loglogisticpdf

Hi Qwfp,

FYI, I created a derivative image of your Loglogisticpdf.svg which omits labels (commons:File:Loglogisticpdf no-labels.svg), so it looks better as a thumbnail in {{Theory of probability distributions}}.

Thanks for the template & image, and hope you like it!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nils! My original image was moved to Commons by a bot recently, which it seems somehow affected the thumbnail as the text failed to shrink in proportion and looked a mess. No idea why.. Qwfp (talk) 21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oxford and Cambridge Universities cricket team

Thanks for your edits to this article. The thing is, though, they didn't play the Australia national cricket team; they played the Australians. Apologies if you already knew this, but there's a rigid distinction in operation here: "Australia" as such only play international cricket; all matches against counties, universities and so on are listed as "Australians". Ditto with other countries, so that (for example) "Worcestershire v Pakistanis" doesn't mean any old Pakistanis, but always the national team playing a non-international match. For that reason I'm inclined to change those edits back, but I'll leave it a day or two in case you want to come back at me. Loganberry (Talk) 17:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To answer the obvious question, where there is no convenient adjectival form, one just adds "XI" to the team name, so that you have "Barbados v England XI" or whatever. For historical reasons, until the 1970s, England played as "MCC" in non-international tour games. Loganberry (Talk) 17:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Loganberry. I didn't know about that distinction. I'll change it back. Qwfp (talk) 18:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As with most things cricket, the logic isn't perfect (eg theEngland matches against the Australian Forces in 1945 are "England", not "England XI") but it's usually reliable otherwise. Loganberry (Talk) 14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Computational statistics

With this tag, I meant there are a lot of redlinks. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I had no idea that's what you meant – that's not part of the definition of wikify in the glossary. I didn't add those redlinks myself, but I can't see anything in guidelines such as WP:Red link that would give a reason to remove them. Two of the redlinks in that list of journals have turned blue since the list was added. Qwfp (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys

Hi,

I got the standard message on deletion of content, because I have copied word-for-word. I work for the MICS team with UNICEF. I understand the concern of copyright, I just can't handle going through a process of getting consent to use something that is obvious information. Please give me and colleagues a couple of weeks to rewrite some of the content and then we should be ok.

Cheers,

Bo UNICEF Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa Nairobi

German grammar

Concerning this edit: Polya's paper says "Über den zentralen Grenzwertsatz", and if you go to the article on German Wikipedia that is the counterpart of our central limit theorem article, it says "zentraler Grenzwertsatz", with a final "r" rather than a final "n", and both are correct, but to do them the other way around—"n" in the article title and "r" in Polya's paper—would be clearly incorrect. Likewise in the subject of a sentence, the phrase "Der zentrale Grenzwertsatz" with neither an "r" nor and "n" at the end would be correct. It depends on context, and just how to do it when writing in English may be unclear in some cases, but the nominative case is generally considered the lemmatic form. So I changed it to say:

(in German: "zentraler Grenzwertsatz")

Michael Hardy (talk) 21:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Michael. German grammar is certainly not my strong point. Qwfp (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Public-public partnership

Good work on Public-public partnership. You rolled up your sleeves and made Wikipedia better.Emargie (talk) 02:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Utopian novel and Utopia

Thanks for the italicization help!

I believe that the Utopia entry has more discussion of The New Atlantis, and so was a useful link. Howver, your editing stands unless you agree. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, you've got a point. I admit I hadn't properly looked at the articles "utopia" and "utopian and dystopian fiction" (to which "utopian novel" redirects). I just thought that linking consecutive words to both seemed like overlinking as the reader would be unsure which link to follow (if they even realised there were two separate links). Having looked at both articles it seems more useful to me to link to "utopia" than to "utopian and dystopian fiction", and in fact the second adds little if anything of relevance here, but that would effectively imply undoing your edit. What do you think? Qwfp (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

REPLY: Dear gentle Qwfp: With your blessing, then, I will link both words simply to utopia. Thanks for your advice (especially about over-linking, which may be a fault of mine). Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

That TW removal of links was completely my error! I am going to work on restoring them right now. My apologies. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:16, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Charlton-on-Otmoor Church.jpg

Hi there. It is preferable that Geograph images are uploaded to Commons. They can be better organised and they are easily available to other projects. Regards. Adambro (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 665b656e6f039f25de1aebd8aa938c3b

I am now the proud owner of a TUSC account!

NPOV smile

OK, your NPOV edit gave me a grin today.[1] -- SEWilco (talk) 03:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Qwfp (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Template talk:Statistics/Experimental design

I like your proposal of a template for Experimental Design. Kudos to you!

I added some designs (and topics) and then tried to organize some of the designs by category.

I also commented-out the topics that are more important in observational studies and random-sampling than in non-observational experiments, and I apologize if this was unwarranted.

Keep up the good work! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! To be honest I'd quite forgotten about that. I only created it as a quick example for the discussion at Template talk:Statistics#Split?, which didn't result in any clear consensus so I lost enthusiasm and moved on. I'm entirely happy for you to take it over – sounds like you know a lot more about Design of Experiments than I do. I think i took the topics from the main Template:Statistics, with a few additions and deletions (I've no idea now why I included effect size though), so i've no particular attachment to them.

If you want to put this to use you'll need to move it to Template space of course, and transfer the discussion to an accompanying talk page. Qwfp (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Helpful Qwfp, thanks! If it's easy for you to do, would you please do this movement. My wikipedia learning-capacity is about saturated now. Otherwise, I can try to move the template-directory sometime myself. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically you just click the "Move" tab and fill in the boxes, but I'm happy to do it. But first we need to decide on its name: Template:Experimental design or Template:Design of experiments ? Personally I'd favour the latter for consistency with the article Design of experiments. I think I created the subpage as Template talk:Statistics/Experimental design as "Experimental design" was the name of the group in Template:Statistics at the time (but it has since been changed). Qwfp (talk) 16:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

OOPS! I used "Experimental design", because I was afraid of a conflict with "Design of Experiments". I thought I read all your posting, with the explicit comments, which don't seem to have been added in a later edit. I'm sorry for somehow missing your valuable comments, and am especially sorry because I failed to choose a better name. (In fact, I think now that "Design and Analysis of Experiments" would better cover ANOVA, etc.) Thanks for your help. I can change the name of the template in 1-2 days (since I'm tired now), which I used on the relevant Wikipedia articles. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I changed the name of the template (at least as it appears in the box) to "Design of Experiments". I organized the major categories: There's some logic to the organization, and it should be useful to the public (although some of the topics are useless, e.g. "factor" and "treatment"). I tried to cover the main topics. At this point, your feedback would be especially valuable. Thank you again for your encouragement. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"Bird rescue" question on refdesk

There I was, typing in a link to the RSPB "Baby Birds" advice and I find I'm edit conflicted by ... your link to the RSPB "Baby Birds" advice ☺ Two minds with but a single thought! Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 22:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Funnily enough, that was the first time i've ever contributed to the Science refdesk, and one of the few times i've ever even looked at it. I was following a cross-ref to a different question, which was beyond me entirely, then glanced at the question at the bottom of the screen and realised i was pretty certain where to find an authoritative answer.

Now i've just learnt fom you that there's an html code for a smiley face ☺ (works in edit summaries too) – although it's so small on my setup i have to look at it very closely to be sure it is smiling. Qwfp (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of useful Unicode characters! ☺. Cheers, Tonywalton ^Talk 18:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Iterative proportional fitting

On July 10, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Iterative proportional fitting, which you recently nominated. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wizardman 14:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I only nominated it (and made a few small edits). User:Hanzzoid created it. Qwfp (talk) 16:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Dines Green

Hi Qwfp, I origninally PRODed the article and the AfD had the desired success in drumming up some interest for it. I actually remember Dines green being builtWhen I saw that jeni was on to it I also came to the rescue (i'm fundamentally against deltions if an article can be kept). I was also working on it at the same time although this resulted in edit conflicts - my Internet connection here in the juhngle is slow (5 - 10 minutes to load a page and up to 30 mins to upload changes), besides which, Jeni knows how to automate a lot of stuff ;) If you have an interest in, or local knowledge of the county, you may like to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Worcestershire and help out more. --Kudpung (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Derbyshire

Thanks for the interest in the Ault Hucknall articles and associated stuff. Your edits are improving the quality considerably. I see the AfD for Common End failed ... but a merge is still a valid solution? Cheers and thx again Victuallers (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure merging / redirecting is still a valid solution, but perhaps wise to discuss it first at Talk:Common End, Derbyshire. Personally I'd favour redirecting to Ault Hucknall and expanding that by adding a section on the civil parish (which i've discovered is much larger than the village itself). The disambig page Common End could include a line something like ".. a hamlet in the civil parish of Ault Hucknall in Derbyshire, England."

Feel free to copy the above to Talk:Common End, Derbyshire. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Public Domain song

I notice that you have a DYK hook which includes file with someone singing the song. The song I Love You Truly was also published before 1923 in the U.S. Here's a link to the song. Would you do the short recording of the song? Royalbroil 22:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I found that .ogg file on archive.org. I don't have the software to convert sound files myself I'm afraid. Qwfp (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

HOWEVER, I just tried googling (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) and discovered that archive.org has an .ogg version of Elsie Baker's 1912 recording of this at http://www.archive.org/details/ElsieBaker, so it seems you're in luck! Qwfp (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! That worked! I didn't know that archive.org had archived some old public domain songs. Royalbroil 12:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nellie Dean

On August 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nellie Dean, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 14:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Axel Dreher

I saw that there was consensus in the way the h-index is used in these discussions, so I didn't think it useful to have a discussion there. But let me respond to your comment that Axel Dreher is easily notable according to WP:ACADEMIC. I disagree.

• He has a chair at the University of Göttingen, "one of the highest-ranked universities in Germany" (at least according to Wikipedia ;-) so passes WP:ACADEMIC criterion 5
  • In the German university system, being a full professor is almost the same as having a chair. It is not the same as a named chair though.
• he's editor-in-chief of an established journal so passes criterion 8
  • Review of International Organizations is not a major well-established journal, as required by criterion 5. It is a relatively new and unknown journal.
• and as XXanthippe says it looks like he passes criterion 1 too.
  • This is the only thing I may agree on. Although you seem to have settled on a quantitative rather than qualitative criterion. The fact remains that none of his publications are in a top-5 or even top-10 journal in Economics. But if the h-index is the way to go, fine by me...
    • By the way, what is a reasonable number to use as a threshold for the h-index to establish notability?

--CronopioFlotante (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• As you requested, a few comments. 1/ Chair: You are absolutely right, not a named chair (they don't exist in Germany, a far as I know). However, a "chair" there means a professorship at the highest level, which for someone 6 years after the PhD is almost unheard of. That's pretty notable already, even if it might not be enough in itself. 2/ RIO is indeed not yet well-established, it has been in existence for only 4 years. However, it is already listed in many databases, including Scopus. Listing in Web of Science and obtaining an impact factor cannot be far off (I know, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, but read on). Most importantly, Springer is a very serious major scientific publisher. Starting a new journal is a major investment and they would not put just anybody as EIC of a new journal. Again, pretty notable, even though in itself not enough. 3/ In my professional life as a scientist, I always rail against this tendency only to take publications seriously if they have been published in the "most important" journals. (And what determines if a journal is "top 5" or "top 10"? Read a bit of the criticisms on the impact factor and you'll see why many people don't think this is reasonable). Many important discoveries are not published in those journals (or course, many are...:-) Many articles published in those journals (as with every journal that exists) are never ever cited even once, not even by their original authors. Being published in a major journal just means that the editors and reviewers of those journals thought the stuff was good, nothing less, but also nothing more. And occasionally they are wrong. In the present case, Dreher has obtained hundreds (perhaps even thousands, I did not check) of citations to obtain an h-index of 25. In most disciplines with a "high citation density", having an h-index equaling about the number of years since the PhD is considered "good". I actually think that economics has a somewhat lower citation density than most "hard sciences", but even if that is not true, Dreher has an h that is 4 times the length of his career. 25 is something many scientists never achieve in their whole career, so Dreher truly is exceptional here. I don't think that there is any consensus of the type "an h above xx is notable", as it depends a lot on the field and the length of a subject's career. But 25 for someone just 6 years after the PhD is stellar. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

PS to Qwfp: thanks for the correction to my user page, I hadn't noted that mistake! So much for dumb cut and paste... :-) --Crusio (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Crusio, thank you for your comments. The identity of the top-5 journals is not subject to dispute in Economics: they are AER, Ecta, JPE, QJE, REStud, although economists may discuss about the ordering within that group. Finally, two points:
  • So that you understand why I nominated Dreher. Please look at this ranking of Journals at the U of Kiel [2]. It is representative of the ranking inside an economist's mind. If anything it is biased in favor of Axel Dreher's line of research since it is focused on international economics. His best publication is in the Journal of Development Economics, a solid C level journal.
  • The h-index counts self citations which seem to numerous for Axel's most cited article: [3].
• A final point: I understand that using the h-index provides a useful way to be consistent across disciplines. I just fear that by using it liberally Wikipedia might become no better than a directory of tenured professors.

--CronopioFlotante (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a journal editor myself (albeit in a different field) and I absolutely hate those idiotic rankings. An editor's function is to evaluate a manuscript, not to evaluate a certain researcher. Dreher's best publication is the one that had the most impact on the field, who cares where it was pubished (for all I care in the Monaco weekly jeu-de-boule report). Those rankings are made by and for bean counters who want a shortcut to "evaluate" scientists, without having to bother with actually reading their papers. The father of the impact factor, Eugene Garfield, has always warned about using such rankings for the evaluation of individuals. These rankings may compare journals and can be useful for librarians in helping them decide which journals they absolutely need and which ones they can do without. Nothing less, but certainly not anything more like judging individuals. --Crusio (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
• And by using the h-index, you may be implicitly measuring impact in the field by the number of citations in journals like the Monaco weekly jeu-de-boule report in a similar bean-counting activity. Anyway, let's not discuss anymore. I am willing to accept the h-index doctrine for lack of anything better. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• Very true, it's a form of bean counting, too, but on a personal level. Evaluating a scientist by the impact factor, one assumes that all articles published in a journal have the same impact, which is patently false. And I am against using h for promotion and tenure decisions, and such. I have less of a problem using it for WP as it is a rough measure of how much interest someone's articles have garnered. --Crusio (talk) 13:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for taking a while to respond. On looking over this AfD again, I think I was too harsh in questioning whether it was necessary to bring it to AfD. I'm still pretty sure he's notable, but on reconsideration it's not as clear-cut as I first thought, so it was not unreasonable to bring to AfD (though I'd still suggest it might be an idea to have have tagged it with {{notability}} for a while first). It's too late to alter my comments there, but please accept my apologies. To reply to your specific points above:

• I realised he doesn't have a named chair, but WP:ACADEMIC#5 says "has held a named/personal chair". My understanding of a "personal chair" is a professorship other than a named chair, i.e. as Professor#Most other English-speaking countries says, "a professorship awarded specifically to that individual". However, on consideration, I'm not sure if that can really be what WP:ACADEMIC#5 was intended to mean, especially given Criterion 6 and Note 13 further down. This may be worth raising at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics) (I may do so myself, but not tonight).
• You're probably right that it's not a major well-established journal; this is not my academic area. It is a major publisher though, and it's certainly not a journal "dedicated to promoting pseudo-science and marginal or fringe theories" as mentioned in Note 13. Again, perhaps the guidance at WP:ACADEMIC could do with clarifying.
• Generally I'm not a big fan of using the h-index to judge notability, and it's interpretation is certainly subject-specific, so I wouldn't like to give a threshold, but 25 seems pretty exceptional for someone who only got his PhD 6 years ago. I was more than a little surprised by the assertion in your nomination that "citations are rather low" given the Google Scholar results of 188, 82, 70, 58, all first-author papers from the last 5 years. In retrospect, I over-reacted in response.

Regards, Qwfp (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Qwfp for your kind response. When I said that citations were low, I based this on the citations rank on the IDEAS webpage (which is what economists like me are more familiar with). I was not familiar with citation counting on Google Scholar and the h-index at that point. Best. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

• On a somewhat unrelated point, regarding reputations of academic publishing companies, are you aware of the Elsevier-affair? --CronopioFlotante (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It sounds vaguely familiar, yes; I think I probably read about it on Ben Goldacre's blog. Elsevier have never been my favourite publishing company (partly for the reasons listed at the start of Elsevier#Criticism and controversies, as well as others I won't go into and can't fully remember myself as its really ancient history now...). Time I signed off for tonight I'm afraid, Qwfp (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Hassard Short

On August 21, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hassard Short, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 23:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

User Page Article

--Sterwick (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Hello, I have recently started an Article named 'Earth Story' on my User Page (User:Sterwick). Could you make any general improvments on the article, or some specific info on the topic, if you know anything about the BBC documentry 'Earth Story'?

DYK for Caroline Wyatt

On August 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Caroline Wyatt, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sir Charles Edward Trevelyan, 1st Baronet, KCB (2 April 1807 – 19 June 1886) was a British civil servant and Governor of Madras.

Popular Culture

• Trevelyan is referred to in the modern Irish folk song The Fields of Athenry about the Great Irish Famine, 1845-1849. For his actions (as referred to in this song), he is commonly considered one of the most detested figures in Irish history.

• A decendant, Laura Trevelyan, has been the BBC's United Nations Correspondent since May 2006. She wrote the book “A Very British Family: The Trevelyans and their World” which has the ironic preamble “It is a rule that no Trevalyan ever sucks up either to the press or the chiefs, or the “right people”. The world has given us money enough to enable us to do what we think is right. We thanks it for that and ask no more of it, but to be allowed to serve it.” – G. M. Trevelyan

User talk:199.105.248.28 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search it's not a serious book but a family history which ignores the most infamous acts by her pro-genocidal acestor. It's akin to Pol Pot's ancestors writing about their family tree and not mentioning the genocide in Cambodia.

It's ironic that her book includes the preamble >“It is a rule that no Trevalyan ever sucks up either to the press or the chiefs, or the “right people”. The world has given us money enough to enable us to do what we think is right. We thanks it for that and ask no more of it, but to be allowed to serve it.” – G. M. Trevelyan [1]

When Charles Trevelyan was a civil servant tot he chiefs / fight people and Laura uscked up to the press.

The world didn't give them money........... their masters did for doing what wasn't right ie allowing the starvation of the Irish people.

If anything my posting about the book should have been moved to Publications rather than Popular Culture altho it does refer to a book (culture) recently produced/published (popular / contempory). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.105.248.28 (talk) 20:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Sapsuckers

Oh, sure, it's probably a joke or a mistranscription (or, at least, a diligently duplicated joke or mistranscription). You were right to fact-tag it, I was just removing the wikilink from the quotation, per policy. Me hearties. --McGeddon (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Stephen Dunnett

On September 9, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Stephen Dunnett, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Mifter (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Specificity and sensitivity

Hi. Please see my comment at Talk:Sensitivity and specificity#Order. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)}`

Negative Multinomial Distribution Applets

Could you please provide your opinion on this Talk:Negative_multinomial_distribution page? It's regarding the the value of an external applet link and a results figure. Thanks. Iwaterpolo (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Environment for DeveLoping KDD-Applications Supported by Index-Structures

KDD is the common abbreviation for Knowledge Discovery in Databases. In EN wikipedia, that is linked to Data Mining, so how do you suggest to explain what KDD in the software name is the abbreviation for? Make KDD a Wikilink? The article was deliberately not called ELKI, which is the abbreviation of the framework name.

As for notability - well, there are at least three publications on important conferences involved, and if you check the authors you'll find their names all over Wikipedia, e.g. Hans-Peter Kriegel in DBSCAN and R*-tree. And they've been there for years.

So how do you suggest to improve the article? --87.174.65.52 (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining what KDD stands for. I'd suggest you could incorporate "knowledge discovery in databases (KDD)" somewhere in the first couple of sentences – i don't like to change it myself as I'm not clear on the distinction between this and "data mining" (which is currently used in both the first two sentences). I see that although KDD and Knowledge Discovery in Databases both redirect to Data mining, Knowledge discovery is a separate article, albeit one that could do with some attention from an expert in the subject. Maybe you could help with that? And consider whether the current redirects need changing? (see Help:Redirect#Creating and editing redirects for how.)

Notability requires reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Conference contributions by people involved in the project aren't independent. And notability is not inherited, so the notability of the authors or of other things they've worked on is beside the point.

Regards, Qwfp (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, "data mining" is formally a part of the KDD process, but basically the key part so they are often used as synonyms. I believe there is somewhere a specification of "the kdd process" which includes things like preprocessing and data mining as separate steps. But one may argue whether or not to pick on a particular definition or instead write on how the term is used in everyday communication. In german wikipedia they are two separate articles. Maybe I can get my hands on

Fayyad, Usama; Piatetsky-Shapiro, Gregory and Smyth Padhraic (1996), From Data Mining to Knowledge Discovery in Databases, AI Magazine, American Association for Artificial Intelligence, California, USA, Pages 37-54

which probably defined this "KDD process". As for ELKI itself: there are of course also other references, for example

Müller, E. and Assent, I. and Günnemann, S. and Jansen, T. and Seidl, T. (2009). "OpenSubspace: an open source framework for evaluation and exploration of subspace clustering algorithms in WEKA". Proc. Open Source in Data Mining workshop (OSDM'09) at Pacific-Asia Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining,.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

but it doesn't make sense to put this reference in the article (it's more focused around WEKA anyway). Notability of research is often hard to establish within a few years after publication. But does that imply it shouldn't be on Wikipedia? There are many examples where Wikipedia does try to be up to the latest news such as Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion --138.246.7.176 (talk) 13:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I think 'Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion' has received rather more in the way of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject! The reference you give above is the only independent reference found by a Google Scholar search for the article title. Looking at that article], ELKI is certainly mentioned, but i'm not sure it's enough to consitute significant coverage. Qwfp (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Chi square test introduction

Hi,

Needed a stats expert and you were first on the list! Just a quick check: could you briefly have a look at the intro to the chi squared test article? I think it is describing the experimental hypothesis, not the null hypothesis, but I'm not enough of a statistician to correct it myself.

Thanks

81.158.127.109 (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The chi-square test article? I can't see immediately see anything wrong with its intro. Could you quote which bit exactly you think is wrong? Sorry i'm about to go out for the day so if urgent you might want to try someone else.. Qwfp (talk) 07:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Making Mathematics Count

Hi Qwfp! You've written about U.K. topics, and so perhaps you could add something to the stub Making Mathematics Count, about the report of Adrian Smith (academic). Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Template:Statistics Great work!

You did a great job on the statistics template. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:44, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for The Penguin Dictionary of Curious and Interesting Numbers

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

You made some terrific improvements in Mathematical Methods in the Physical Sciences. Thanks very much! Robsavoie (talk) 02:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

McNemar & Cochran

According to the SAS procedures guide, "When there are only two binary response variables (m=2), Cochran’s Q simplifies to McNemar’s test". Therefore, Cochran's is a generalization of McNemar's. Perhaps there is more than one Cochran test? Regards, Btyner (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

MagicPlot

Hi, Qwfp! You did marked the article with {{notability|products|date=June 2010}}. Why? What secondary sources can be found for the not so well known software?.. I think this article may be useful for someone who search for some plotting software and came from List_of_information_graphics_software for example. (I am quiet new in Wikipedia editing...)

See WP:Verifiability: the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not whether the article may be useful to someone. As WP:Notability explains, if something doesn't have coverage in independent reliable sources we shouldn't have an article on it, as there's no way of verifying the info is correct and neutral in tone. That's why the article on LiveGraph was recently deleted: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiveGraph. Qwfp (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

And in List_of_information_graphics_software: Why did you delete LiveGraph from table of plotting software? It seems to me that the project is alive: http://www.live-graph.org/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electriq (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I was assuming that list should only include software for which Wikipedia has a corresponding article, but i've just noticed that's not the case so i've undone that edit. My apologies. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

So am I right that for 'not well-known' software in the 'list of plotting software' the article and link to that article will be replaced by direct link to software's website? I'm talking about this because this list is very useful for many people who search for some software (I am a programmer/physicist). Let's take a look at SciDAVis. All external links are to the official site or to open-souse repositories. Will it be deleted from Wikipedia? I only want to say that as user I read this article before going to SciDAVis site. (I am not going to argue with Wikipedia rools but I want to clear this question for myself). Electriq (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't say it that articles on non-WP:notable software will be deleted, only that they could be. See WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? I can't see there's anything in the Wikipedia article on SciDAVis that i couldn't find out by looking at its website, which is the first hit for "scidavis" on Google. Qwfp (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that the significance of such Wiki pages is that it contains the categories. And I think, that the list of categories can not be quick obtained from looking on product site. For example, what to do with Category:Free_plotting_software and Category:Plotting_software if there will be no articles? I think it will be not usable. I think Wikipedia has to help the readers to know a little about all software. It's my opinion. (Sorry, is it a correct place for this discussion?) Electriq (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that all free plotting software is non-WP:notable (e.g. i'm pretty sure gnuplot is). But Wikipedia is not a directory. If you want a directory, have a look at the Open Directory Project "dmoz". This is probably as good a place for this discussion as any. BTW, to refer to a category use e.g. [[:Category:Free plotting software]]. I've taken the liberty of editing your category references above. Qwfp (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

As for me, I consider some topics and categories of Wikipedia as a directory of well-known (notable) things. I consider List_of_information_graphics_software, List_of_vector_graphics_editors, List_of_raster_graphics_editors and similar to be very useful. But it is a directory in fact. So I agree that some articles about not-notable products can be deleted, but it will be great to keep them in List_of_information_graphics_software. IMHO. Electriq (talk) 06:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Sue Gardner

[4] Nothing to be excused, you are absolutely right - the story should have noted who she is, I wrote that in a bit of a rush. Thanks for reading and improving the Signpost! Regards, HaeB (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Svante Janson for DYK?

I could imagine the article on Svante Janson qualifying for a DYK. I'll try to add a comment by Knuth on Janson's contribution to their paper on the birth of the giant component in the next 3 days. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It had crossed my mind, but I couldn't spot an obvious 'hook'. I'll leave the content to you, but let me know if you want a hand with the process as I've done a few, as you can see above. However, nominated articles are supposed to have been created in the last 5 days; it's usually a bit more in practice, but Wikipedia:Did you know/Not exactly suggests we're running out of time as I created the article on 27 June and Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations currently starts on the 26th. Seems the backlog isn't as bad as it once was. 07:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that a DYK hook could be "that Swedish mathematician Svante Janson enrolled at Uppsala University when he was 13 years old and received his Ph.D. on his 22nd birthday. Janson's dissertation was supervised by Lennart Carleson, who had also received his Ph.D. at age 22." Regarding Janson, I would prefer not to nominate the article for DYK, because he's at my university. I added references to this fact yesterday. Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:08, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I nominated it myself, today. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've nominated Svante Janson, an article you worked on, for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article here, where you can improve it if you see fit. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Svante Janson

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Rob Brettle

can I ask why you want to delete the article for this historian - it seems he is enagaged in some useful research, and thereby making a contribution to mankind's greater knowledge, but you want the article on him deleted. Can you explain why - without referring me to the "Wikipedia criteria for notability", which seems somewhat subjective. Historyboy2010 (talk) 23:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Canvasing

Hi Qwip. I did not know there was such a crime. Sorry. One aspect of the rule of law is that statutes should be duly promulgated and published. Could you give me the text concerned, explain how was promulgated, and how such laws can be easily accessed? Thank you very much for your guidance in this matter. Knd regards. Perhaps you can also explain why ceertain votes go ont the Adf statistics and others don't?Rick570 (talk) 10:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Variance formula

I believe you're mistaken; the formula as it was originally posted is incorrect.

The incorrect simplification:

$s^{2}={\frac {1}{n-1}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\overline {y}}\right)^{2}={\frac {1}{n-1}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}y_{i}^{2}-{\frac {n}{n-1}}{\overline {y}}^{2}.$

The correct simplification:

$s^{2}={\frac {1}{n-1}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\overline {y}}\right)^{2}={\frac {1}{n-1}}\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}^{2}-2y_{i}{\overline {y}}\right)+n{\overline {y}}^{2}\right)={\frac {1}{n-1}}\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}^{2}\right)-2\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right){\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)}{n}}+n\left({\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)}{n}}\right)^{2}\right)=$

${\frac {1}{n-1}}\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}^{2}\right)-2{\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)^{2}}{n}}+{\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)^{2}}{n}}\right)={\frac {1}{n-1}}\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}^{2}\right)-{\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)^{2}}{n}}\right)={\frac {1}{n-1}}\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}^{2}\right)\right)-{\frac {1}{n^{2}-n}}\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)^{2}\right)$

$s^{2}={\frac {1}{n-1}}\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}-{\overline {y}}\right)^{2}={\frac {1}{n-1}}\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}^{2}\right)\right)-{\frac {1}{n^{2}-n}}\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)^{2}\right)$

Please post the error in my simplification here if I persist in being incorrect. Please let me know, I'll watch your talk page for a response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobertCoop (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Going from the end of your 1st line to the beginning of your 2nd line under 'the correct simplification' assumes $\left(\sum y_{i}\right)^{2}=\sum y_{i}^{2}$, which isn't right. The square of the sum isn't the same as the sum of the squares. Qwfp (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps my parenthesis are a bit misleading, but I'm not making that assumption. The simplification from line 1 to line 2 is equivalent to: ${\frac {1}{n-1}}\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}^{2}\right)-2\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right){\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)}{n}}+n\left({\frac {\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)}{n}}\right)^{2}\right)={\frac {1}{n-1}}\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}^{2}\right)-2{\frac {\left[\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)\right]^{2}}{n}}+{\frac {\left[\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)\right]^{2}}{n}}\right)$

which only requires that $\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)*\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)=\left[\sum _{i=1}^{n}\left(y_{i}\right)\right]^{2}$

If you require a textbook citation, refer to Montgomery, D.C. and Runger, G.C.:Applied statistics and probability for engineers, page 201. John Wiley & Sons New York, 1994. http://www.amazon.com/reader/0471745898?_encoding=UTF8&query=Computation%20of%20s2 , the formula on page 201 of that book reveals the correct simplification.

Thanks For Help

Thanks For the Tips and Help With Editing Science 2.0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrojed (talk • contribs) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cochrane Collaboration logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cochrane Collaboration logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 05:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It was orphaned because it was replaced with an SVG version, which i've proposed for deletion as an SVG isn't low-resolution so its non-free logo use rationale is invalid. I've now reverted this replacement. Qwfp (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I have been in contact with Nick Roye, CEO of the Cochrane Collaboration- The Cochrane Logo GIF image was incorrect, because it displayed the (r) registration mark. Permission has been granted for use of the SVG copy of the logo, and not the GIF copy. I will update the page to reflect the correct permissions.TDN (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and apologies for the misunderstanding. (It might lessen the chance of similar future misunderstandings if you fill in the WP:Edit summary). I've reinstated the {{orphaned fair use}} template on File:Cochrane Collaboration logo.gif as i'm now happy for it to be replaced by File:Cclogo.svg and deleted in due course. Qwfp (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Your removals of my work

Dear Qwfp,

Although I appreciate it very much that someone takes care that my work is edited, I merely want to contribute objective content. The links to instructional movies have no commercial intent (they were recorded at my university). The reference to (sometimes not yet written) pages are no different then the multitude of other references; thus I find it rather strange that they were removed (why not all the others). Furthermore, there are plenty (outside) links to commercial websites in Wikipedia (i.e. what is your problem with that?). Finally, why do you cloak your identity as Qwfp? To appreciate an editors' objectivity it should be known to Wikipedia contributors who you are.

Best regards, Eric Melse —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericmelse (talk • contribs) 10:36, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

ALan Sugar

I can't believe he deserves the category "statistician" at that level of employment. "Data analyst" might be closer, but I still think it requires a source to raise him to such an academic level. I did 1/3 stats for my Masters, but I wouldn't call myself a statistician. Rodhullandemu 21:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

In the cold light of morning I think you were correct not to take that categorisation seriously; I thought i heard Sugar himself describe his job as 'statistician' on last night's The Graham Norton Show (from 10:00) but listening to it again he in fact said "I was in the statistics department there, I thought I'd be a statistician". Which sounds like he changed careers before he reached the point a point at which he would in fact have called himself one. I may have failed to respect one point in my favourite Wikipedia essay. Qwfp (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

n=1 fallacy

Hi, I am the author of the n=1 fallacy. i understand you are unhappy with the article. I am unhappy with the link to pseudoreplication which doesn't address the problem of the n=1 fallacy. The problem is indeed widespread but i agree that the term n=1 fallacy isn't used frequently.

I am happy to rewrite n=1 fallacy and would be grateful for advice. 

Thanks

Lorenz von Seidlein MD/PhD menzies school of health research John Mathews Building (Bldg 58) PO Box 41096 Casuarina, NT 0810 Australia

lseidlein@gmail.com