User talk:Fly by Night/Archive Jan 11

The following content exists solely as an archive.

PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY IT IN ANY WAY.

Expanding a bit on my comment to you at WT:RFA, with a sample size that is literally millions of times greater than RfA, assuming a constant success vs. failure distribution in the population, getting anything remotely distant from that underlying success/failure rate is well-nigh impossible, whereas in a sample as small as 30, or even 100, it is remote, but not effectively 0. Of course, the underlying success/failure rate itself is not constant, but I was taking the liberty of "averaging it out" as it were. My point still stands though that statistically speaking it is MUCH MUCH MUCH easier to get a result that does not reflect the underlying choices in an RfA than a presidential election. One has a Z measured in the 3-6 zone (30 vs 100 people) the other has a Z > 251. -- Avi (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point I was making. In both cases it's a closed system. Having 60% of the vote from the whole electorate of 10 million people makes your approval no more valid that having 60% approval of another entire, disjoint electorate of 10 thousand people. If you had two elections in two countries, one with a larger population that the other, and the Presidents both won with 60%; then you can't possibly mean that the larger country's President is more deserving of the presidency than the smaller country's President. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I was making a different point, in that it is harder to reach 51% of a large number than 70% of a small number under certain basic assumptions. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Pinched torus.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed more like a stub to me although there is not really much more biographical information in the public domain, except from more details of her mathematical research gleaned from her publications. Some one else is working on a portrait of her for the page. Billlion (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree; it probably is a stub. Someone's working on a portrait? That sounds really cool. I hope they're a better artist than me. I'd end up with a stick woman. — Fly by Night (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just come across the matter of spaces in grid refs in your talk archive. I feel rather guilty that it has taken me about four years to come up with this simple edit. Spaces in grid refs are now allowed. It would be better if we supported   as well - I will give it some thought. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for the dispute we had on the RfA before,

I was truly out of line,

and I apologise.

I am Sorry.

MelbourneStar☆ (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Sorry about the late reply; my internet's been off for a few days. And yes: I have been paying the bills. I appreciate the message but don't worry about it: all's fair in love and RfA. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above content exists solely as an archive.

PLEASE DO NOT MODIFY IT IN ANY WAY.