User talk:O18/Archives 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:O18. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welch article

Sorry for the mix-up, when I saw the article, all that was there was a stub tag. On another note, leave messages for people on their talk pages, not their main user pages (I moved what you put on my userpage to my talk page). On yet another note, it's generally not a good idea to blank your talk page, since it gives other users insight to your contributions. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 03:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean when you clicked on the article title (from another page) it took you straight to "edit this page"? If that's the case, no, the article didn't already exist. If that's not what you meant, could you explain what happened better? [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 21:50, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No problem, I'm here to help. [[User:Lachatdelarue|Lachatdelarue (talk)]] 00:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nuclear magnetic resonance

This edit is a bit garbled, but I can't figure out what it means so I can't fix it myself. --Yath 03:14, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I hope that does it O18 04:20, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Standard deviation

Finally I see what you meant when you said my mention of normality came too late in the article. It looks as if you meant an assumption of normality is used in showing that a certain statistic is unbiased for σ^2. But it's not. As long as

${\displaystyle \operatorname {var} \left[{\begin{matrix}X_{1}\\\vdots \\X_{n}\end{matrix}}\right]=\sigma ^{2}I_{n},\,}$

where I_n is the n×n identity matrix (in other words, all of the variances are σ^2 and the n random variables are uncorrelated (not necessarily independent!) then

${\displaystyle E\left({1 \over n-1}\sum _{i=1}^{n}(X_{i}-{\overline {X}})^{2}\right)=\sigma ^{2},}$

where

${\displaystyle {\overline {X}}=(X_{1}+\cdots +X_{n})/n.\,}$

Neither normality nor independence is needed (although uncorrelatedness is). Michael Hardy 01:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Richard Durbin

Please remember to sign your comments on article talk pages. DS1953 01:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lee-Jon

regards for the clarification on the NMR page. Lee-Jon 13:37, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

degrees Celsius

See this section of NIST SP811, clearly showing that you have jumped to the wrong conclusion. Gene Nygaard 14:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rudy Giuliani

Over at Talk:Rudy Giuliani on 4 October 2005 I asked for verification of the crime statistics you recently added to the article. If they can't be verified, they will be removed from the article. patsw 03:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Image:MaxwellBoltzmann.png up for deletion

Image:MaxwellBoltzmann.png has been listed for deletion, since it has been obsoleted by Image:MaxwellBoltzmann.gif. --℘yrop (talk) 03:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Generalized linear model

Hi, I reverted the page because I thought your edits made the topic less, not more understandable (to me, at least). You removed a good deal of material, including clarifying examples. Something funny is going on right now, though, because the page isn't parsing correctly (but if you link to it through the history, it parses OK...don't know what is happening.) Bill Jefferys 16:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again, I think that your re-edited article is much better and satisfies (more than satisfies) my objections to your original edit. Separating the main idea from the examples does the trick. I think that we can proceed from here. Bill Jefferys 02:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the GLM article a bit. Some of it is still unclear, but we will work on that. There's one sentence I still don't understand though, please see my comments on the GLM talk page.  :) -shaile 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

contact

I thought I'd mention that User:Drummond has been inactive since July. If he doesn't respond to your message or his account doesn't have an email address, he may also be able to be reached via his website, www.adaptivity.org .--Nectar 17:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Reply from JQ (also on my talk page)

My idea would be to have a hierarchy of articles, starting with a top-level article on the General Linear Model, which would include results valid for the GLM and a brief taxonomy, including discussion of discrete v continuous dependent variables. Each element of the taxonomy would be linked to a more detailed article. In the case of discrete regression, there would be a general discussion, and a taxonomy linking to logit, probit and so on. JQ 10:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Linear regression

Please leave a summary of the work you have done. Thanks! Chris53516 13:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot

Smackbot recently edited Radiation hormesis and changed "fact" to "Fact." in all but one instance (where it added a date). Is it really necessary to change "fact" to "Fact?" would it have made an edit if this was the only change? O18 20:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but it's neater, no it would be unlikely to edit an article without an undated template, although if the template was dated by a third party between being identified and edited, this could happen in theory. Rich Farmbrough, 10:12 5 March 2007 (GMT).

spam @ organic farming

Hi pdbaily - Apologies for not starting a section re: my reversions at organic farming. I made the reversions to remove the addition of further spam, by a user who'd already been spamming in another article. I did explain my motivations in these reversions in the edit history. Apologies again for not making it more clear. MidgleyDJ 22:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Statistician help needed

The WikiProject Vandalism Studies (Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies) just finished its first study and I was hoping that you being a statistician could help us formalize our findings. You can find our draft conclusions here [1]. Here's an excerpt of what we found so far:

The current study analyzed a sample pool of 100 random articles. Within these 100 articles there were a total of 668 edits during the months of November 2004, 2005, and 2006. Of those 668 edits, 31 (or 4.64%) were a vandalism of some type. The study's salient findings suggest that in a given month approximately 5% of edits are vandalism and 97% of that vandalism is done by anonymous editors. Obvious vandalism is the vast majority of vandalism used. From the data gathered within this study it is also found that roughly 25% of vandalism reverting is done by anonymous editors and roughly 75% is done by wikipedians with user accounts. The mean average time vandalism reverting is 758.35 minutes (12.63 hours), a figure that may be skewed by outliers. The median time vandalism reverting is 14 minutes.

Thanks. Remember 02:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

CAFE graph

The SVG format has many advantages over raster format for images, such as graphs, that comprise lines and solid colors. Since the graph you uploaded is of above-average quality, conversion seems hardly warranted. (Some people like to upload little 100 x 200 graphs that scream for conversion.) Yet, there are still some advantages to conversion; most of them are outlined on Wikipedia:Collaboration to convert graphs to SVG. Please don't be offended by my tagging of your graph. If you really feel it is a problem, go ahead and remove the tag; after all, there are more desperate graphs to be converted. Thanks. MithrandirMageT 11:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

There is certainly nothing wrong with your image; however, you are right about SVG being the "preferred" format for line drawings. As for quality: though there is no official policy, the Collaboration to convert graphs to SVG recommends hand-drawing SVG graphs in a text-editor, since most vector image-making programs seem to produce somewhat inefficient or inaccurate graphs. It is certainly possible to make nice-looking graphs by hand -- just check out Image:Netscape-navigator-usage-data.svg for an example. Click the image name to view the full image in your browser, then view the page's source; this shows you the underlying SVG code used to make the image. As you can see, they've come up with some clever ways to include the actual data in the SVG file and transform it geometrically into data points on the graph. Thus, the data are not lost as it can be in other image-making processes. I hope this helps! MithrandirMageT 01:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Providing the source data and the R code to transform it seems to me like a fine solution. Unfortunately, it means that fewer people can modify the image (i.e. only people with knowledge of R), but if it means more high-quality SVGs, then I'm all for it. Perhaps once the transition to SVG becomes more widespread, Wikipedia will adopt a formal set of graph guidelines; until then, what you've done seems great. Cheers! MithrandirMageT 13:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Grinnell College Alumni List

Thanks for your help resolving this situation. Hopefully, between the two of us, we can keep (at least part of) Grinnell College looking nice and clean. Jacobko 00:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:SPMA3.png

Hm. I marked Image:SPMA3.png with {{PD-USGov-USDA-NRCS}} because the source leads to an NRCS website ( http://plants.usda.gov/java/profile?symbol=SPMA3 ), but I didn't notice the "© Image generated using gd 1.8" right underneath the image when I went to look at it before. I suppose that means that the image is copyrighted under their policy here: http://plants.usda.gov/java/intellectualPlants . Sorry about the confusion. I didn't look at it as closely as I should have. --Strangerer (Talk) 03:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Well, we could bring it up at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images, or we can list them at WP:IfD with the rationale of CV. I suppose we could also sneakily delete the tags I put on there and list it as {{nld}}. Whatever will involve the least amount of effort is what will make me the happiest. ;) --Strangerer (Talk) 03:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent message; I had nearly forgotten about those images. I will be happy to help you manage them. Do you have a good way to keep track of which ones they are? Are you just using the user contributions page? --Strangerer (Talk) 12:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• Awesome, thanks. I started looking at them, and a lot of these wildflower images, like Image:Trillium flexipes.jpg, are pretty confusing. The copyright notice on the source website [2] says that some are public domain (though they want a credit to the USDA Forest Service and the listed photographer), and says that others could be copyrighted, but doesn't tell us how to distinguish between which are public domain and which are used by permission on that website. I think I will send an email to the address listed unless you have already done that. --Strangerer (Talk) 13:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm glad the organization helped you a bit - I figured it was better if I grouped images so I didn't have to re-check certain websites that were used a lot by the uploader. I am really not sure what to do about the images that don't have copyright notices - it is tough. I don't think there is a form letter for asking about whether an image is PD, but I did use some of the examples at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. Once we get a reply, we can forward it on to OTRS. --Strangerer (Talk) 06:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dais

You wrote dias on my talk page, but you meant dais. Anyway, you edited Talk:dais, which I didn't even look at before adding the Wiktionary template to dais. The Wikipedia article as it is now is clearly more than just a dictionary entry, and maybe has the potential to become much more. Contrast it with what is already at Wiktionary, wikt:dais, as well as other Wiktionary entries. I am also an active Wiktionary editor, and I would say Wiktionary entries are generally a lot different from Wikipedia artciles. So no, I do not think dais is just a long-winded dictionary, and nothing needs to be moved. The best improvement would be the expansion of both the Wikipedia article and the Wiktionary entry. —Kenyon (t·c) 00:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, to answer your other question, dais is encyclopedic because of pretty much everything after that first paragraph (the history, etc.). —Kenyon (t·c) 00:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

AMT

At the AMT page I screwed up and was going to make the same point for the other side but couldn't find the reference (I think it was Washington Post editorial that said state taxes shouldn't be deductible anyway, but I couldn't find it).O18 01:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for responding on my talk page to get my attention. The point you were trying to make does belong, although I think it might be better placed as a sub-bullet (or perhaps behind a semicolon; I'll preview it both ways and see what looks better) as a response to the Criticism, rather than an argument against repeal (since it's a related but separate issue from the AMT itself). I'll go ahead and put it there with the, just with a citation needed tag; when/if you find the reference, you can just add it and remove the tag. Sketch051 22:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Silvershiner.gif

Hi. It looks like you are investigating into the copyright status of this image. Given the image's apparent public domain status, I decided to reupload the original full picture as Image:Silvershiner.jpg, without realising that you were looking into it. So, I just thought I should make you aware of that. I'm sorry if I've stepped on your toes a bit. I've left the article's page as it is (pointing to the gif, with the unverifiedimage tag) just to be on the safe side, but I've removed the gif's BadGIF tag and marked it as obsolete, to prevent other people trying to convert it. I hope this is OK. With best regards, CountingPine 10:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

World's largest airlines

Some lists are encyclopedic, some are not encyclopedic. We'll see what the community thinks on this one, that's what AfD is for. DGG (talk) 23:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD

You're AfD on World's largest airlines is deformed, because, well, there's no reason. Cool Blue^talk to me 23:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, they've already closed the AfD, you can give it another round if you'd like, but other editors have already given other reasons. Cool Blue^talk to me 16:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes. Per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion cites "In many cases, the decision to "keep" or "delete" may be conditional on the community's acceptance of the additional action. These recommendations do represent the community consensus and also should not be overturned lightly. However, these are actions which can be taken by any editor and do not require "admin powers". If they are challenged, the decision should be discussed and decided on the respective article Talk pages. A second AFD discussion is unnecessary." In this case, there was a strong keep consensus, which resulted in a non-admin closure. However, on your part, there is a special situation at hand, which is the failure to give a reason at the AfD, which the keep would be upheld at WP:DRV, but you are constituted a second chance to run this through AfD, since you gave no reason the first time. Normally, AfDs so close to eachother are frowned upon, but this is a special situation. Regards, Cool Blue^talk to me 16:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd go the WP:DRV route. Speedy keeps can only be performed by admins, as non-admins cannot close before 5 days. You'll have a good chance of having the AFD reopened, rather than having 2 close AFDs. That said, given your problems with the other main contributor fo the article, your AFD appears to be sour grapes, and I'd strongly suggest you just let it drop (no threats there, just a suggestion). This is information that really can't be presented any other way than in list format, and I do beleive it has a place on Wikipedia. The real issue is a content dispute, and those should be handled in a different way. - BillCJ 16:54, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you can try the WP:DRV route in the way Bill suggests, but anyways, the AfD was closed because there was consensus on the AfD for a keep. I'm not saying that there would have been consensus that way if you would have had a reason, but nothing new popped into our heads. Honestly, I would just try to open a new AfD, rather than try the WP:DRV process which can take up to five days, too, and there's no guarantee that it will be re-opened. Don't take it personally, there have been many an AfD that I didn't like the outcome of, and there have been many AfDs before that have been closed by a non-admin, (e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pants). My advice, just run it through the process, again. Cool Blue^talk to me 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

you asked me also. I agree with Cool Blue, that the better way is to do it again, but see the considerations on my talk page first, where I've given you a longer answer. Several other editors with various views in general all think the article has merit. DGG (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I confused you with another editor, Huaiwei, in my mind. However, I still feel that an AFD is not the way to go on this, but that's just my opinion. THere appears to be some confudsion as to whether or not one can renominate after a speedy close. If you chose to rnominate it again, I won't revert it, as I was apparently mistaken on that being a hard and fast rule. - BillCJ 17:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

In response to the message on my talk page: the reason I closed the debate was because there was clear consensus on the page to do so. I considered that you might later add a reason for deletion, but my opinion was that by the time I reached the debate, it wouldn't have received a fair hearing if you had placed your reasons on the page, due to the number of keep arguments that would have appeared beforehand. If you feel I was incorrect to do so, I will not contest a DRV about the decision. I thing DGG's correct, however, that starting an AFD again is probably the better approach. I see no reason why that shouldn't be an appropriate action. JulesH 19:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The process for relisting is fairly simple: follow the instructions at WP:AFD, being careful to use {{subst:afdx}} instead of {{subst:afd1}} in the first step. I'd recommend using the "preloaded debate" link on the message added, as that should help you avoid the mistake you made first time. Preview everything to make sure it does what you expect: a small mistake can have nasty results when working with templates. JulesH 20:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

deletion

I processed the speedy request for your subpage. It had an associated talk page which you had also blanked and I deleted that as well. If that was a booboo, let me know and I'll restore it. Cheers, Carlossuarez46 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to User:BillCJ, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. - BillCJ 00:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I consider ANY unwanted changes to the userspace with my name (since I can't say "my userspace") to be vandalism. Vandlism is against WIkipedia POLICY - it's not a guideline, so how did I bereka my own rules?? Idiot. I know we didn't start off on the right foot today, but I did aplogize for it. Yet you insisted on redacting my userspace, like I was a common vandal, wtihout even the courtesy to appraoch me first liek a real adult would. If the wiki-break notice is a personal attack on my paer, then I'm sorry your feelings were hurt. I've had it today with people protecting the real vandals and abusers, then going after me like I'm worse than the vandals. Well, I've had it with idoits like you. And you really are stupid for nominating the largest airlines list. THere, now THAT was a REAL personal attack. GO get me blocked if you wish, but I'm gone from WIkipedia anyway. THought I may come back as an IP, since they get more respect than regular users from the likes of morons like you! - BillCJ 03:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ, please don't template the regular and assume good faith. @pple 08:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ had what I considered to be a clear personal attack on his user page and I thought it was policy to delete them unilaterally. I was wrong, it is not. But I made the edit in good faith and told him as much on his talk page. Obviously it ended poorly, I'm sorry to have pushed your buttons, I hope you accept my apology. O18 03:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

PDB, I'm sorry for my behavior last night, and I've stricken my comments - feel free to remove them as clean-up! I've had the joy of being the target of a wiki-stalker with multiple IPs,a nd there's not a thing that can be done to stop him short of blocking all IPs, which won't happen to Hilary opposes all abortion, or hell freezes over. Anyway, I'm leaving WIkipedia because of Jimbo and his lackeys' unwillingness or inability to protect me in anyway, due to their own silly rules regaring open editing. I just wanted to let you know I'm sorry for taking my frustration out on you, you just caught me on a very bad day! I have NEVER written something like that beofre,a nd know my harasser is posting it all over Wikipedia! Good luck with your endevors here, and I hope my shadow doesn't decide to stick to you next! - BillCJ 04:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

BillCJ, your appology is accepted. No hard feelings. O18 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re AWB

I crawl the stub category with AWB to find ones that shouldn't be there. Also, the edit summary is generic, as the article sometimes gets cleaned up as well. However, I will select a more appropriate one when changing tags from now on. robertvan1 22:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Sufficient" accolades ;)

I want to commend you for sticking to the Talk page and not reverting despite posting several comments there which, as I read it, have still not been answered to your satisfaction. I stand by my thoughts on the general wordings for now, but am quite confident that a really good consensus can be achieved. FYI, I asked a small question regarding Fisher's work there which I think will go a long way towards working everything out.

I should note I saw your note to Michael Hardy. I don't condone his style (and have pointed that out to him in the past, albeit softly) but at the end of the day if you just ignore it, he does know a lot about math/stat topics, does do good work on articles, and can be a valuable collaborator. I do hope you find conversing with me slightly less grating though ;) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Um.... what exactly is that crack referring to? In the discussion you seem to have in mind, I wrote this:

If it is meaningless to speak of the distribution of the data, then it is likewise meaningless to speak of the distribution of any statistic. But on this one you're just belaboring a semantic point. There is an obvious interpretation of the word "data" according to which you are right, and another obvious one according to which you are just as clearly wrong. As to the sample mean being sufficient for the population mean: that is certainly right if the variance is known and the whole family of distributions is indexed only by the mean. But obviously your inference about μ given the sample mean would be quite different if the variance is small, from what it would be if the variance is big.

Some people seem offended if "belaboring a semantic point" is attributed to them. Is that what you're talking about? Michael Hardy 19:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Answered your Talk page, Michael. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bios

Thanks for the note. I understand the concern for notability--Michael Johnson hasn't had a lot of press coverage, but he is a key government official. Ms. Graham definitely is within the guidelines spelled out in WP:BIO and has significant press coverage. Several DOD leaders are in Wikipedia; I was going to the same for the ODNI. - WilsonjrWikipedia (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on Jimi Haha, but I should say he does fall within the standards of notability as he is the frontman for a signed band Jimmie's Chicken Shack, who are in the allmusic.com guide. If you dispute this, please let me know on the discussion page.  immunity  talk  22:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Continuing from before, I saw you still questioned this, and as I recently have been helping to build this article, I have provided many points of notability on the article's talk page with references to make his notability stronger to your skepticism. If you are so inclined you can help and formulate both his article and the band's article to make them more full and fit to standards. Thank you in advance!  immunity  talk  05:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Great response over at the talk page. I think incorporating that information into the article should make it much better. You appear to be a bit defensive about this claim of notability (sorry if I'm making that up), and I think (if you are) it is understandable since it's obvious to you that the person in question is notable--and to me now that you've enumerated the reasons with verifiable sources. I think me pointing this out, and you responding has been a very valuable exercise for the article in question. If you don't see it that way, please tell me and I'll consider that when thinking about so marking other pages. O18 15:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting your user subpages

Just so you know, you don't have to use prods or MFDs to get rid of your own userspace items. Simply tag what you don't want to use anymore with {{db-u1}}, and it will mark it for speedy deletion. --UsaSatsui 23:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought I'd combed through the speedy reasons, but I didn't see it--guess I should have looked closer. O18 01:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Neutron activation Simple linear regression Empirical distribution function General linear model Matrix normal distribution Parabolic fractal distribution Proper linear model Jeffreys prior Location-scale family Three Mile Island accident Type-1 Gumbel distribution Minque Chi-square test Polar distribution Neutron economy Generalized inverse Gaussian distribution Landau distribution Fading distribution Army-McCarthy Hearings

Cleanup Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient Nuclear physics Degrees of freedom (statistics) Merge Parametric model Degenerate distribution Utility Add Sources Continuous probability distribution Health physics Doppler broadening Wikify Light water reactor Neutron transport Desalination Expand Type-2 Gumbel distribution Pareto distribution Magic number (programming)

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Radiation hormesis rv by WolfKeeper

this discussion moved here in this edit by WolfKeeper and regards this edit.

Wolfkeeper, would you please tell me why you made this edit comment, "(rv effect of edits indistinguishable from vandalism (although it's unclear that vandalism was the intention))" with respect to these edits. I'm asking for this because I'm a longtime contributor, we have discussed topics on that page several times (I think amicably) and to my mind, the edit comment and text on the discussion page was clear. O18 22:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I posted a reply to you at Talk:Radiation hormesis, in a day or two, I will take your continued silence there as tacit consent to all but point 4. O18 15:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit removed large sections of text, not because it was inaccurate, but because you disagreed with it, you also edited so that you left the following sentence:

It has a very high radiation from naturally occurring radium-226 (with an observed maximum of 260 mSv/year) due to its geology but is found to have no increased cancer risk relative to an.[18]

Basically, I've seen better edits from vandals; but I'm sure you're not a vandal. I would recommend you reread WP:NPOV, and consider why removing all the points (particularly referenced points) that are on one side or other of a discussion is a bad idea. Contributors to the wikipedia are supposed to try to edit from both sides of an argument, and it's a much better idea to add stuff pointing out why particular studies are bad (for example) than deleting studies that you claim (quite possibly with very good justification) aren't high quality.WolfKeeper 16:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with removing references in self-published work, but the criticism on the Taiwanese radioactive steel study was unreferenced, whereas the support for it was actually referenced. The article had weasel words about the referenced journal being of low quality, but that doesn't really cut it, there was no referenced criticism. And ultimately, even if the study is complete c**p, if it is notable, and this one seems to be, you still need to include it, with referenced rebuttals; that way we capture the counterarguments in a public place.WolfKeeper 16:39, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Wolfkeeper, I'll reply here because you appear to have an aversion to having this discussion on your talk page. I made my edit in good faith (as you appear to have). I think you will find that assuming good faith is a great way to treat other Wikipedia editors and will make the pages better with less nastyness. In particular, I think you would find the discussion to date illuminating as to my reasons for the edit and openness to its modification. I'm fine with my edit not standing, and even the rv. But I think personal attacks (i.e. references to vandalism in your edit summary and above, and claims of bad faith on my part) are overboard and uncalled for. I'd appreciate it if you were more sparing in the future in rving long time editors--even if you think the edit looks a lot like vandalism. This is because, in part, in order for an edit to be vandalism, its intent must be to harm and not help Wikipedia, and I think you should impute good intentions in others. It's especially hard to imagine bad faith on the part of long time editors. O18 19:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I reverted it because I considered it to be a bad edit, but I'm not accusing you of acting in bad faith. The problem I'm seeing with the article is that anything that supports radiation hormesis is entirely removed from the article. Good you probably say- and with justification.WolfKeeper 12:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Now, I completely believe you when you say that it's all very probably rubbish, published in dubious ways (probably the funding comes from a nuclear lobby somewhere). But the fact remains that notable sources, such as one of the Horizon programs on Chernobyl, repeated the claims about radiation hormesis. That means that we can't really remove them from the article, because they're notable. On the other hand we can present the issues that there are with these theories and this will leave us with a go-to place for people that may google for these kinds of things and show them how the best evidence points towards there not being any major radiation hormesis effects. Right?WolfKeeper 12:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Giuliani Crime Rate

Hi,

I'm examining the crime data (from which you constructed a chart) found here [3] out of curiosity. The national data are available from the given source [4], but I can't seem find the individual city data. The FBI has years of crime data available, but they do not provide the city points, only the national ones. I'd presumably find the 1995 New York City statistics under "Crime in the Unites States" and Table VI, but a search for "New York City" in the 1995 PDF [5], for example, yields nothing, and a search for "city" yields three matches, none of which relate to the chart. From what I can see, the individual city statistics in Table VI relate to the number of law enforcement personnel and not to crime rates. I assumed you were referring to "Section VI" and not "Table VI"; that was the only "VI" in the PDF. Could you explain where the city statistics are to be found?

Thanks, Aristotle1990 20:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle1990, I don't think the tables are searchable, but I'm not sure. there is one massive table the breaks it down by city, you will have to look for that. If you go to the library and look in the book, you will have no problem finding it because (as I recall) it's most of the book. O18 23:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

negative binomial distribution

original comment posted on Bo Jacoby's page, coppied here

In this edit you essentially rved an edit I made. I'd appreciate it if you started a discussion of it on the talk page. Also, your edit comment makes little sense to me. O18 (talk) 13:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

subsequent discussion

Hello O18. Your edit on negative binomial distribution stated that the variance goes from the mean and down to zero. That is true for the positive binomial distribution, but not true for the negative binomial distribution, where the variance goes from the mean and upwards. The link to cumulant, states that the variance/mean ratio is <1 for (positive) binomial distributions, =1 for poisson distributions, and >1 for negative binomial distributions. So that link contains the information that your edit probably was supposed to mean. I hope you will return if I misunderstood you edit. Have a nice day. Bo Jacoby (talk) 11:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC).

Bo Jacoby, I generally like to keep talk on one page, so I'll respond here and then you can continue to respond here. You are right that the mean and variance are related not in the way I said, but the opposite (divide by a number less than one, how stupid can I be!) and I thank you for the correction. Nevertheless, I'd appreciate it if you added the comments on the talk page after you rved the edit. I have more comments on the topic, I'll put them on the talk page since they are about the article, not the process of writing the article. O18 (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Great! I look forward to study your comments on the talk page. Sincerely 22:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Jacoby (talk • contribs)

U.S. National Debt

PD! Buddy! Your data on the United States public debt page is almost exactly 2 years out of date. That's like throwing a 9 ft rope to a drowning man 10 ft away! The Fiscal Year 2006 and 2007 figures for the debt, GNP and deflator are found at almost the exact same White House webpage you cited. It's at this shortcut. The new numbers have been out for while, so the White House figures (which follow the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Treasury), are relatively solid (low likelihood of revision) numbers for GNP for Fiscal year 2007 (October 1, 2006-October 1, 2007). Sorry to ask you to redraw the graph so soon after you made it, but come on, we're talking two years! 216.165.199.50 (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

216.165.199.50, thanks, I'll go fix it. The code is there, so it should not be that hard for others to do too! O18 (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't shirking or anything, if that's what you think. I just didn't know what that mysterious "R" was you used to make the graph. 216.165.199.50 (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

R (programming language) is an Open-source software implementation of S (programming language), it generally rocks at plotting and has a huge amount of statistics software written for it that makes it a statistician's dream. O18 (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

help request

{{tnull|helpme}}

I just looked at Talk:Radiation_hormesis#Further_reading and noticed that there is a bunch of garbage that appears to be signed by me. When I try to edit the section, I appear to be editing some other wikipedia article. When I try to edit the whole page, I can't even find the section. What is going on? O18 (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I am not entirely sure, but would you like me to remove the statements for you? --The Helpful One ^(Review) 17:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. You were using {{...}} where you should have used [[...]]. The former transcludes the other page (like a template), whereas the latter just links. Bovlb (talk) 18:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bovlb, Thanks. O18 (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Minimum Tax

Your graphs are helpful to understand the concepts, but they would be even more helpful if you relabeled the AMT curves as TMT or Tentative Minimum Tax. Also, you might want to replace the 2000 and 2004 regular tax curves with a single 2007 regular tax curve.

I have developed an elaborate Excel file to perform a similar computation that can include California state income tax and allows fixed amounts for property taxes and such to be added. By the time you do that the gap between TMT and regular tax virtually vanishes, making the graphs very hard to read. So your graphs are better for illustrating the point that the gap between regular tax and TMT starts large, narrows down or reverses between $100k and $500k, then increases again. Except that when you add California state income tax, the gap closes quickly and never re-opens, even at very high incomes.AMTbuff (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

AMTbuff, Thanks for the feedback. Are you sure it shouldn't be the AMT (not the label, but that I should actually be graphing)? O18 (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The graph is much more instructive when it shows a curve for TMT and another curve for regular tax. Those two curves are monotonic and look like what you might expect from a curve of tax vs. income. The difference between the two (AMT, when positive) is completely non-intuitive, especially in the absence of curves for these two components. It is best represented as a shaded zone in the region where TMT exceeds regular tax. If you were to add a modest state tax component to your formulas you would see such a zone across upper middle incomes. I can work with you on formulas if you like.AMTbuff (talk) 00:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do it. It might take a few days. O18 (talk) 02:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing out the problem! O18 (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Grinnell College

My justification for reverting your edits:

First of all, the quotation from Newsweek is just plain false (nowhere in the article does it state that) and grossly misrepresents what was really meant. Read the article here. The main criterion for the "best all-around" (not "best overall") college was "buzz." Second, Newsweek does not put out rankings as US News does and with the same authority. Third, putting a quotation from an article in a paragraph that has to do with rankings and accolades is misleading, suggesting that the Chronicle of Higher Education is ranking the wealth of schools when in fact it took that information from NACUBO's study (which is out-of-date for the year 2006).

The overall effect of your edits is to replace precise information with euphemistic information, making the article less informative, less authoritative and bulkier. (unsigned comment by User:Exeunt)

RE: List of presidents Grinnell College,

You're probably right to bring up WP:NOT and remove the list, but until we integrate at least some aspects of the information provided by the list into article prose, I feel that removing it entirely causes net harm to the article. How about reverting the list as a temporary measure, with the ultimate goal of eliminating the list and incorporating parts of it into the article prose? Avram (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to move this discussion to the GC talk page. response is there. O18 (talk) 02:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Probability and statistics sub-project?

I recently proposed starting a "probability and statistics" sub-project (aka task force or work group) of WikiProject Maths and was wondering if you'd be interested in participating. If so, please add your name and any comments at WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Probability and statistics. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive

Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith has been chosen as the first article in WikiProject Economics' first Featured Article drive

I am contacting you because you Supported the decision to choose Adam Smith as the first Featured Article that WikiProject Economics would work on. If you can, please help out and make this goal a reality! A discussion on this has begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics#The Featured Article drive is now closed. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to diagonal matrix

Careful there. ${\displaystyle e_{1}}$ I believe is an eigenvector of ${\displaystyle diag(a_{1},...,a_{n})}$ as ${\displaystyle Ae_{1}=a_{1}e_{1}}$. Also, the fact that ${\displaystyle IAI^{-1}}$ is diagonal gives away the fact that ${\displaystyle I}$ must contain only linearly independent eigenvectors as it’s columns. GromXXVII (talk) 10:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, didn't realize I was editing diagonal (I'm thinking about triangular matrices a lot recently and it must have slipped my mind). Thanks for the catch. O18 (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

RfD rationale

Good morning. You asked some questions about an RfD comment. I have answered on my Talk pages. Apologies for the length of the reply but I hope it helps explain a bit. Rossami (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: fixing redirects. You certainly should follow "what links here" and fix any double-redirects (that is, a page which was already a redirect to the page you just made into a new redirect). The reason is that the MediaWiki software does not allow redirects to operate in a daisy-chain. This is a self-defensive feature to prevent redirects from taking a reader into an infinite loop where foo redirects to bar which redirects back to foo, back to bar etc and the browser never knows what to present. But you should generally just ignore the single redirects as more trouble than it's worth for the database. See Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects for a full example with the server statistics. Rossami (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hang in There

Thought this might help. Don't let the naysayers win.------ And finally, I just wanted to throw in that "the Community" must never mean "whoever happens to show up". "The Community" must always mean "the community of good editors who are dedicated to our mission."--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)...Go Dormant for awhile...remember your early days...--Buster7 (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Airport notability discussion

You have shown interest in an airport AfD in the past at [[Chadwick Airport] You may wish to visit Stoney Point Airfield and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoney Point Airfield to participate as well. This message is being sent to editors who participated at Chadwick but have not participated at Stoney Point, regardless of the editor's opinion. Thank you!--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Marshallian demand function

I'm not going argue too hard against your reassessment. I want to ask a favor though. Could you leave a comment on the assessment talk page just saying that you changed it back from Mid to High, and your reasoning? My hope is that by keeping track of these discussions in one place, the importance criteria will start becoming clearer. And I do really appreciate your continued feedback throughout this process :). Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 10:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I'd drop you a line: I'm currently taking a graduate economics class, and we're learning the true importance of Hicksian and Marshallian demand. I still think the importance scale for WP:ECON is as it should be (focus on the lay person), but I'm really glad you raised the point earlier this summer. This stuff is pretty cool :) -FrankTobia (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Glad you enjoy learning about it. Keep up the good work on Wikipedia! O18 (talk) 23:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

help request

Two anon. users from the same IP block have edited Peter McCullagh to remove content and (this is where I don't know what to do) add what appear to be claims that he was academically dishonest. What sort of warning belongs on the IPs talk pages? Should I request the page be protected? O18 (talk) 02:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

If they're removing information that should be there, I would undo their edits and add the appropriate template (I would suggest the "Page blanking, removal of content" templates) to their talk page. There is also a template on that page for "Addition of unsourced material without proper citations" which should work for your other problem. I hope this helps! If this keeps up, then I would recommend requesting semi-protection. --Skunkboy74 (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I would try Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard --Skunkboy74 (talk) 04:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter McCullagh

You're welcome :). Pinkadelica (talk) 03:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

POV regarding hormesis

I have no dog in this fight. The only reason I am at all interested in the subject is that a leading nuclear physicist gave a talk a few years ago at my university where he made the claim that the number of cancer deaths from radiological disbursal was independent of the density. I found this claim surprising, and read up on it, and found out it is a consequence of LNT. I suspected LNT was only an educated guess, so I looked up the original data and found that it was inconclusive. I also read some of the literature on the hormesis hypothesis, and decided that this was also inconclusive. Then I found out that it was a raging debate, so I decided it would work itself out properly with time. I still think that.

The consensus of U.S. nuclear bodies is not particularly important--- they are a bunch of people reading the literature like you or I. The only difference is that they have a stake in the outcome, so they are biased. In the U.S., their faith in LNT borders on religious. The French nuclear bodies are at least honest--- they say that the assumption of linearity at low dosages is probably wrong.

The Red-flag business you brought up ticked me off a little, because the only "red flag" in the study you mentioned is the conclusion of the study--- which should not be surprising because it matches with every other epidemological study. They all find hormesis. The only studies I have come across that do not find hormesis are those that look for cellular damage, not cancer, and these see a linear rate of damage. There is no study that contradicts the hypothesis "damage is linear, cancer is hormetic", and this is the tentative conclusion that I personally draw. I really thought the literature summary was neutral. I hope you are not so wedded to the conclusions of the leading nuclear bodies to feel that any study that shows hormesis is by itself suspect because of it's conclusion--- that's a bit of a POV. Anyway, I am sorry for fighting so hard, but this LNT stuff is so entrenched in the U.S. that I felt that it would be hard to get a fair article without some fighting words, but I am sure that you are honest.Likebox (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Of course you are right, and I don't claim to be the arbiter, but neither are you. But I am sure we'll come to agree--- give me a little time to read the stuff you cited (I promise to do that)--- and I will try to understand your position better. I am open minded about this.

I don't think that there is any reason to bias the hormesis article with the somewhat negative NAS report, because I think you'll agree that it doesn't define scientific consensus on hormesis. It only defines the current tentative scientific consensus on how radiation risk should be assessed, which is not the same thing as rejecting all hormesis-showing studies.

As you well know, scientific consensus is a complicated thing, it involves thousands of people making up their minds, and studying the data, over many years. There are reliable studies published in journals of all tiers that support some form of the hormesis hypothesis, but there are also studies which cast doubt on it. It is not reasonable to say that there is consensus against hormesis, like for example there is against ESP or UFOs, because that is a misrepresentation of current scientific knowledge. What is reasonable is to say that the American consensus is that it is most prudent with the present state of knowledge to act as if LNT was accurate. This is a fair reading of the conclusions of the NAS stuff, and also of most supporting literature, and I totally agree with that. If somebody asked me to assess a cancer risk from radiation, I would use LNT.

But to put the conclusions of the NAS report on top doesn't just mean that LNT is a prudent best guess. It means that hormesis is "junk science" (as you say), but this is not a reasonable conclusion given our current state of knowledge, and I think even if you believe that LNT is right you can acknowledge that.Likebox (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Likebox, I never said, "hormesis is 'junk science,'" and you know it. I said that the Taiwan article in Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is junk science. You will notice that I am not saying that there should be no mention of positive results on the page, only that they should not receive undue weight. O18 (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Ok. I take it back. I see your point, but I am not sure about the Taiwan study. The "lack of control" problem might be a serious issue. I'll think about it.Likebox (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough--- I won't do anything while you're away. Thanks for the "counterpush", I think the article is becoming less biased.Likebox (talk) 23:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I struck out the ruder comments I made, and the overzealous claims that you showed were false.Likebox (talk) 00:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming around to your point of view about the Taiwan study. They don't seem to break down by age well, and I don't think that they compensate for only following the group for 25 years. Sorry for jumping to conclusions. But maybe the birth defect data is useful.Likebox (talk) 05:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

United States Public Debt

O18, I have arrived at my conclusion about using deflators when representing total gross federal debt. It skews the data in several ways. In my opinion, we should simply stick with nominal numbers just as they are presented in the White House document on the subject. Please review my latest edit to the talk page for more details. Gaytan (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hormesis again

I thought that the article was very good now--- it mentioned the Taiwan study at the very end, only to debunk it, and put the proper order--- discussion of the effect, cautions from nuclear bodies, then "ongoing debate" in the media etc. You again are editing it to reorder the sections, and you put up a POV tag, which is weird. Why?

That's ridiculous--- I read it and it doesn't read mad to me. It's composed of the article on "radiation homeostasis" followed by the old article on radiation hormesis. The caveats are all in place, and it is neutral in point of view--- it doesn't advocate hormesis. The fact that I tend to believe in hormesis and you don't should not prevent our agreeing. Can you articulate what the problem with the article is more clearly than saying it is a "mad rant"?Likebox (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I don't agree. Tag is absurd.Likebox (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No Discussion, no editing, no tag

That's it. If you are not discussing something, if you don't articulate what your issues are, then the tag goes. The article has been in good shape for weeks.Likebox (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Your post on the Rational Skepticism noticeboard

I noticed your post on my watchlist. If you want more eyes on the page, I recommend posting it on WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. That page has a lot more traffic on it than the RS page. Cheers, Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Radiation Hormesis

Took a look at the article and fairly thick commentary between you and Likebox. Can you summarize a bit what the central issue with the POV argument is? Is it, as I gather, whether the topic should be presented as a minority view or not? Djma12 ^(talk) 23:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Djma12, you are right, the disagreement is weather hormesis is a minority view. I think Likebox has agreed that it is not entirely mainstream, but does not want to follow the recommendations for style regarding minority opinions. O18 (talk) 23:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the disagreement is boiling down to whether a) Hormesis represents a minority view. b) How much space should be dedicated to it's articles if it is indeed a minority view.

a) Hormesis actually ISN'T a minority view, at least not in vitro. Most all radiobiologists agree that it happens in vitro. The disagreement is at what radiation dose hormesis actually conveys any benefit in relation to the increase in carcinogenesis. As this clinical data doesn't really exist yet, most regulatory agencies have (in my view) correctly continued with the LNT model. This doesn't make it a minority view -- only an experimental view that hasn't been clinically verified. A equivalent analogy would be black-holes before Chandra.

b) As this article is dedicated to radiation hormesis, I am unclear how WP:UNDUE applies to balancing the experimental data, especially when nothing from the LNT camp exists at an equivalent dose. If we don't place the data in this article, I'm not sure where else to place it.

Cheers,

Djma12 ^(talk) 02:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Non-strict two-phase locking Random matrix Stigler's law of eponymy Matrix normal distribution Goodness of fit Endogenous growth theory General linear model Fading distribution Kuiper's test MANOVA Roy's identity Growth accounting Strict two-phase locking Asymptotic distribution Psychological statistics Location-scale family Round-off error Counterpoint Wholesale price index

Cleanup Conditional probability Law of small numbers Behavioral finance Merge Parametric model Point estimation Conditional expectation Add Sources Continuous probability distribution Want Lock (computer science) Wikify Numéraire Neural gas Post-Keynesian economics Expand ACID Type-2 Gumbel distribution Pareto distribution

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Poisson mode arithmetic

Hi PD. Per your edit summary concerning the mode of the Poisson distribution, isn't the ceiling function applied to one less than an integer still one less than that same integer? One less is still an integer, so its ceiling is just itself? I.e., ${\displaystyle \lceil 4-1\rceil \equiv 4-1}$? Maybe I'm having a senior moment... Anyway, it would seem there should be a more elegant way of stating the mode expression regardless. We'll get it right eventually. Thanks, Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Baccyak4H, The problem is that there is one mode (you are right, at ${\displaystyle \lceil \lambda -1\rceil }$) unless λ is an integer, then there are two. At λ and λ-1. The expression you gave correctly identifies all modes when there is only one. When there are two, it fails to find one of them. you could write ${\displaystyle \lceil \lambda -1\rceil ,\lfloor \lambda \rfloor }$ which is only one value when λ is not an integer and has two values when λ is an integer. O18 (talk) 01:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I misunderstood what the original expression was trying to convey. Of course, co-modes. I am not sure about giving ${\displaystyle \lceil \lambda -1\rceil ,\lfloor \lambda \rfloor }$ as it night suggest that there are always two to the casual observer. What do you think about using a \begin{cases} \end{cases} construction? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is great. O18 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: 208.3.91.202 back at it

Thanks for the heads-up. I see they managed to not edit at all for about 2 and a half days then back to the vandalism. I'll put a {{uw-vandalism4im}} on there and keep an eye on them. Tonywalton ^Talk 16:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I doubt those are the same person. The 208 address seems to be allocated to a company in Massachusetts while the other is an ISP in Virginia. Unfortunately the word "Ream" does have sexual connotations so childish minds are likely to have the same childish thoughts. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Linking Java applets as external links to Probability Distributions

Could you please consider reverting back the changes you made to remove the external Java links to the probability distributions? These links were provided as they are extremely useful for many educators, learners and general users, and carry absolutely no spam. Indeed Java is a required software to be able to see these interactive applets, which may justify a brief explanation to that effect. RE: User_talk:Iwaterpolo#applets. Thanks. Iwaterpolo (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

• WP:ELNO recommends avoiding such links (Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required.) But you seem to imply that these additions were spam, which is incorrect. Iwaterpolo (talk) 16:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Look, not only do these require Java, the also have a certificate that is not signed by a signing authority that require many clicks to accept or not accept. Why are these required? Also, there is nothing inherent about what the pages do that requires Java. Simple Java script or servlets could do essentially the same thing. O18 (talk) 21:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You bring a couple of interesting points. These applets do include a security certificate, however, all these applets are signed by Thawte. This may require some users with restrictive internet-security settings, or behind some firewall networks, to be prompted to accept the signed certificate. Signing was required in these applets to ensure interactive data I/O and mouse buffer (cut-and-paste) functionality is allowed to the applet. You are also correct that one could do many (albeit not all) of these functions using Javascript or servelets. However, if we are really honest, there are 2 reasons why this approach has only had a limited efficacy in practice -- one, of course, is the ability for interactive _graphical_ manipulations; and the other is the complexity of these calculations when Special functions are involved. This is exactly why in all probability distribution topics, it's easier to include static snapshots of distributions and provide non-graphical means of computing with these distributions. These applets solve simultaneously these 2 challenges and demonstrate how the graphical (via web-browser) and heavy-duty statistical computing can be delivered in a cohesive, visual and effective manner. I included the external Java links at the end of some distribution topics because these tools will provide a much needed interactive exploration aid for many users. 128.97.126.109 (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please review, edit and update, as appropriate, this discussion page Category_talk:Discrete_distributions. Thanks. Iwaterpolo (talk) 20:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

continuation

• Does this discussion change your opinion on including external links to Java applets in most/all probability distributions pages? There seem to some community evidence to suggest these may be useful. If you still strongly object to this, will it be better to create a brand new page, say Interactive Probability Distributions Java Applets, that can be listed as a category at the bottom of all distributions. This new page can contain a list of all distributions, each item containing direct external links to various Java applets for the specific distribution. What do you think? Thanks. Iwaterpolo (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Iwaterpolo, it appears nobody supports including these links, they should not be included. O18 (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, from this discussion, it appears as if MichaelHardy, Melcombe and I support at least the inclusion of a new web-page Interactive Probability Distributions Java Applets, that can be listed as a category at the bottom of all distributions. This new page can contain a list of all distributions, each item containing direct external links to various Java applets for the specific distribution. If you strongly object to this, perhaps we can invite a formal dispute review and resolution. Thanks. Iwaterpolo (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a rather creative reinterpretation, but no. Melcombe just says, there have been discussion in the past. Nobody really voted, so (if things are where they last stood) it is still 2 v 1 that this should not happen. O18 (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

O18 informed me that this discussion is still continuing. I was not previously aware. I do not support this inclusion. I for one do not run a java virtual machine inside my browser as an example. My concerns are as follows:

• Articles should exist that are self supporting. Articles that soley link to external content I would propose for deletion under most circumstances
• Articles should not assume that bandwidth is as widely available -- many users, even in first world countries do not have high-bandwidth capacity [6]. prose should be the medium of exchange. Images should be used where prose is cumbersome, and animations should be reserved soley where the former are unable to convey meaning. Examples of such are the four dimensional tessaract projection animation, or even my own KD tree animation. Interaction should not be a substitute for good explanation
• Articles should be in existance to describe a logically or physically realisable object. Interactive applets, regardless of language, should not be an article for any reason -- if they do not deserve to be in their respective articles, I fail to see how grouping them in one article makes them more relavent

Secondly, and not directly related to the content, I have reservations with the manner by which the user is going about this. The user appears to have some COI, and is pushing these somewhat. Finally I don't see dispute resolution as particularly helpful here, as the debate is still quite level-headed at this time. User A1 (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Probit model

In this edit, what do you mean by "solving the models"? As a guess (especially since Fisher was the author), I'd guess it means finding maximum likelihood estimates. But the reader shouldn't have to guess. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Michael Hardy, I'm somewhat surprised you have to guess, I would think you would know this chapter in history since the paper was ahead of its time by decades.

Back on wording, when I read, "finding maximum likelihood estimates" I want to change it to "solving for the maximum likelihood estimates." I think I just like the verb to solve. I also don't really like calling the MLE's results, "maximum likelihood estimates." In any case, change the wording any way you see fit, it is just not a big deal. O18 (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

One does solve the likelihood equations for the MLEs, but you never said that maximum likelihood was what you had in mind. One could plausibly mean any of several other things. Finding confidence intervals for the parameters, for example. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Michale Hardy, ah, now I see it. Yes, the method finds CIs too, but I don't know if Fisher realized that at the time or not--if Fisher information was invented, I'll bet he realized it. O18 (talk) 02:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

by the way, excellent word choice in the article. O18 (talk) 02:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Disambig page style

I responded on my talk page. -- Donald Albury 12:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Help for the math-challenged

Hi. Thanks for slowing me down when I fact-tagged too many statements here. The paragraph in question has too many of those superscript things as it is. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:USDebt.png

File:USDebt.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:USDebt.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:USDebt.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Alternative Minimum Tax & effect of 1986 law changes

Your comment that the 1986 AMT changes may have reduced revenues in the short term but still contribute to the problem in the long term is a fair comment and also an accurate description.

A specific item that act introduced is the phaseout of the AMT exemption, starting at an AMT income of $150,000, and not indexing that amount. Now every year Congress adjusts the AMT exemption for inflation, but they have never touched this 150,000 start-of-exemption-phaseout figure. That is certainly something to criticize in the 1986 bill, and it is a significant factor in the overall AMT problem. (However revenue from AMT, adjusted for inflation, did not surpass 1986 levels until 2004, and in the meantime there were two substantial AMT rate hikes. My earlier changes were motivated by my belief that it is unfair and misleading to single the 1986 bill out for special criticism, since it's a small part of a long-running saga with many bad bills. And in addition, the 1986 bill also had some good points.) PMcGarrigle (talk) 21:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

US Public debt talk page

There's no reason to delete sections from the US public debt talk page. It's just a discussion page, and the discussion you deleted has relevance to the article. I have undone your change. Bond Head (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Bond Head, I have no idea how this section could possibly help improve the article, but maybe you can enlighten me. Look, I think a little bit of someone asking a question on a discussion page is fine, but 10k of trying to push a conspiracy theory that is obviously bunk is counterproductive (I think the answer you ended up giving him is within one click of the Fed's homepage). O18 (talk) 01:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

CAFE Graph

Here is the new data you requested for your graph on historical CAFE.

	Standard	Actual	Fuel Price
1979	18.79	20.08	 $0.88 
1980	19.05	23.07	 $1.22 
1981	20.73	24.63	 $1.35 
1982	22.32	25.07	 $1.28 
1983	23.96	24.84	 $1.23 
1984	24.74	25.04	 $1.20 
1985	24.82	25.39	 $1.20 
1986	23.96	25.91	 $0.93 
1987	24.16	26.19	 $0.96 
1988	24.04	26.05	 $0.96 
1989	24.29	25.62	 $1.06 
1990	24.69	25.63	 $1.22 
1991	24.59	25.63	 $1.20 
1992	24.55	25.07	 $1.19 
1993	24.39	25.19	 $1.17 
1994	24.21	24.72	 $1.17 
1995	24.47	24.98	 $1.21 
1996	24.32	24.88	 $1.29 
1997	24.16	24.63	 $1.29 
1998	23.99	24.70	 $1.12 
1999	24.02	24.51	 $1.22 
2000	24.01	24.80	 $1.56 
2001	23.84	24.50	 $1.53 
2002	23.68	24.68	 $1.44 
2003	23.64	25.07	 $1.64 
2004	23.41	24.61	 $1.92 
2005	23.70	25.37	 $2.34 
2006	24.21	25.76	 $2.64 
2007	24.63	26.62	 $2.85 
2008	24.74	26.92	 $3.32 
2009	25.09	27.47	
			Nominal Price all grades

Table 5.24  Retail Motor Gasoline and On-Highway Diesel Fuel Prices, 1949-2008

Sorry about the formatting, I am relatively new to this. If you look in the edit version, the data appears as a table.

 EnCM (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

List of sea captains

You're probably right that it doesn't make a lot of sense to have one and not the other, but the AFD only covered List of naval commanders, and deleting List of sea captains would be out of process. If I was more familiar with the subject matter, I might try to figure out some solution, but I'd rather leave this to editors who know what they're talking about in that area to figure out whether it makes sense to delete that, redefine its inclusion criteria to cover some people from the deleted list, or what. Steve Smith (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Should it, and it alone, have been nominated for deletion? Very possibly not. In the context of the AFD that we had, was deleting that article, and not List of sea captains, the correct close? I think so. Anyway, now that you've discovered the discrepancy, I'd suggest that you either try to get the sea captains deleted at WP:AFD, or try to get the naval commanders one undeleted at WP:DRV. I have no particular objection to either. Steve Smith (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Any consistency at all is the hobgoblin of Wikipedians. Steve Smith (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Pd, if you want, you could, within the rules of WP:CANVASS leave a note on the talk pages of each of the editors who participated in the "List of naval commanders" AfD and see if they want to comment in this discussion. Then we might have a decision that treats both articles consistently. I asked Steve Smith to give me a copy of the old article in my user space, and then everyone can see it. Maybe we can recombine information from both articles in a way that would get consensus. JohnWBarber (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

JohnWBarber, I appreciate the idea, and I think it is a good one. but I don't really have the time until after the AfD closes. O18 (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Randomness

Regarding this edit: At first I thought you had removed unsourced-but-correct information; then I read it more carefully and realized I thought the removed text said something different. On re-reading I agree with your removal.

Just the same, "insane" is too strong. It is true that a deterministic machine with bounded storage must eventually repeat. The reason is that it has only finitely many possible states, and a deterministic transition from one to another; thus you must eventually hit a state you've hit before, and from that point on the machine must follow the same pattern indefinitely.

The reason given in the removed text was not a sufficient proof of the claim, but in some sense it was progress towards it, as it refuted one otherwise-possible approach to insuring non-repetition. --Trovatore (talk) 02:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Certainly "insane" was hyperbole, and I probably shouldn't use it in edit summaries, thanks.

On the topic of the article, one could also use a process that provably does not start over again, or is simply actually random.O18 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

SD image nomination

I think there is a bot that comes along and notes it on relevant article pages. – ukexpat (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done [7] – ukexpat (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! O^18 (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

US taxation

For the purposes of the U.S. tax article and the image, consider it resolved. We can leave it out. I don't agree with the reasoning, but I don't want to edit war to make a point. The discussion is underway regarding the general use of advocacy sources and I'll continue to voice my thoughts there. Sorry I was an ass about it, you caught me on a bad day. Hope there is no hard feelings. Morphh ^(talk) 0:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Morphh, it takes two to tango. Sorry to have ruffled your feathers. 0^18 (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I replied back to the William Gale question on my talk page to keep the conversation together. I feel like we got off on the wrong foot and feel bad about it. We seem to keep bumping heads. I thought I might be able to help you improve radiation hormesis since I know nothing about it. That way I can help you out and not get in the way.. haha :-) Morphh ^(talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Morphh, I'd say we are just both interested in some difficult to handle POV articles. I actually think we both did very good jobs when working on fairtax, I don't think either of us RVed the other one or did any other similarly annoying edits. A heated discussion page section is totally fine editing behavior so long as everyone sticks to talking about the article and keeps the conversation moving, knowing when you are just going to disagree and what to do about it is good discussion page editing. 0^18 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"who would expect that here?"

[8] Yeah, I was wondering that too while working at the page. I still think it should be in it though, for the sake of general information. It is, after all, possible that someone would look at the list without specifically looking for something, just browsing around.

As for the "consonant vowel" thing: I wanted to add a short description about what it means, but I fear I'm too stupid to understand it (Syllable#Syllable_structure). Not that I understand everything at that page, but with those entries I could at least copy-paste bits from the article in question. I don't get the Aircraft carrier thing neither. It seems to say that CV is used to refer to those ships. In what context? And what does it stand for? Cheers, theFace 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is so much junk on that page that someone might already be looking for, I think the page should not have cruft on it. But I think this is a point of style, no call is exactly right.

As for syllables, CV is words like "pa" or "goo" where there is a consonant sound, then a vowel sound. It is special because it is not closed by another consonant (i.e. "dog"). So the "C" stands for consonant and the "V" stands for vowel. and they are in the place that a sound is. so "dog" is CVC.

For aircraft carrier, they have a call number, like how the starship enterprise is NCC-1701, all other starships have an NCC call number. Similarly, aircraft carriers have call numbers that start CV. I hope that helps. 0^18 (talk) 22:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, what do you think of this edit? I know it's strictly seen not allowed to have two links in one entry, per this, but perhaps we should make an exception here. As I stated in my post above, I rather give clear information than trying to guess which direction a user wanted to go. Cheers, theFace 14:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't really like it. I think that if you browsed to that page looking for information on aircraft carriers, you would already know what a hull classification symbol is, or at least not be looking for information on hull classification symbols. Also, the violation of the no piping rule (on the next line) doesn't seem warranted to me either. In contrast, the multiple links at the top of the page where both curriculum vitae and resume are linked seems like a good application of "break all rules". 0^18 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have different views on what disambig-pages should be. You see them as an intersection of roads, of which the signs should be clear enough to redirect users into the right direction. While I of course agree with that, I also see them as articles, at which users could look out of general curiosity. Because of that, I based my edit on the assumption that readers would not know what a hull classification symbols is. In that case, I think my description was a bit easier to understand. Cheers, theFace 17:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you prefer this, perhaps? - theFace 17:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it. Sometimes I end up at a dab page looking for a particular article. If it is, as you say, "written like an article" this grossly interferes with my navigation. It is important to remember dab pages are a navigational tool, not an article tool. From the lead of MOS:DAB, "Disambiguation pages (`dab pages`) are non-article pages in the article namespace, similar to redirect pages. Disambiguation pages are solely intended to allow the user to choose from a list of Wikipedia articles, usually when searching for a term that is ambiguous." —Preceding unsigned comment added by O18 (talk • contribs) at 19:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I partly disagree with the majority. Dab page or not, it remains a page in our encyclopedia. And an encyclopedia exists to inform us, both for practical reasons and for entertainment. I think the information should get priority. Nonetheless, I have removed the second link, in accordance with the mos (and your wishes, I hope :-)). Cheers, theFace 10:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the point is that they are not supposed to be encyclopedia entries. I can see the possible source of confusion because some of them do become encyclopedia entries. 0^18 (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Might want to consider this

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2475951/ Unomi (talk) 16:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can tell me more about what you conclude form the fact that the same author wrote another paper with the same data and got the same conclusions. 0^18 (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can. Unomi (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't make any sense of this statement. 0^18 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh, maybe you can tell me what you conclude from the paper. Unomi (talk) 23:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm still really confused. Did you come to my talk page to ask me to summarize an article for you? I guess I'm wondering why you posted on my talk page. Maybe this is what you are after: the existence of other articles in the primary literature by the same author with the same unusual research design doesn't really answer the fact that NAS concluded the research design was without merit. 0^18 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Good, yes, that was exactly what I was after, I just noticed the change you had made on the page and wondered if there was a published version of that paper. I rely on and have no reason to doubt your judgement in this. Unomi (talk) 00:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you are talking about the part I deleted because it was unreferenced! Now I'm starting to understand. I think the proper thing to do (if following Wikipedia policy) with that section is to delete it outright. However, I think that is more likely to start an edit war than conversation on the appropriateness of the section. Looking for a published version of the paragraph seemed besides the point to me, but if you want you can add back the paragraph with the published source. 0^18 (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any strong opinions on the matter and I don't really have the time at the moment to look into the merits of keeping the passage. I just wanted pass you the source I found, there was no deeper intention than that :) Unomi (talk) 02:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bot approval

It wasn't explicitly approved for that task, no; rather, I was using it to save me pressing AWB's Save button 100 times in succession every 7 seconds, though I did sit there watching it do so whilst chilling to some music.

I guess I should probably take some time to explain to you what the point is? Well, it's for the same reasons many WikiProjects renew their membership lists in a similar way on a regular basis: to see who's still around. Contributors come and go, and it is helpful to know who can be relied upon. This becomes useful further down the road; once we know how many active participants we have, we know how many ought to comment on a proposal before it's approved (or not). We can make sure no interested parties get left out of discussions, and so forth.

Anyway, apologies for spamming your talk page. Assuming you don't want them, I shall ensure you receive no further communiques from my hand in future. You may still want to sign the list, however.

- Jarry1250 ^[Humorous? Discuss.] 13:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously I don't agree, and would (and did) happily invoke WP:IAR. I didn't force anyone to take three minutes to read it, and anyway, the point being that it hardly matters whether technically a bot did it or I did. But yes, I did post to the project's talk page; even so, I do like also going direct, especially if others have watchlists as long as mine :) Holding a !vote on whether I should go ahead and do it... well, that seems like hell to me, maybe others would have had the nerve, I don't know. - Jarry1250 ^[Humorous? Discuss.] 15:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite. I think I would do it again though, to get everyone included. Not just to make them feel involved, but also to actively try to make them more involved. Hopefully that won't be necessary in the future, and maybe we can just have a newsletter for those who want it, but for now I maintain that it was a useful option. - Jarry1250 ^[Humorous? Discuss.] 16:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Rmetrics

Dear O18,

why have you removed the section about R metrics in the R "(programming language)" article? Rmetrics is a very well known R package. It's together with Bioconductor on the official list of the releated projects: http://www.r-project.org/other-projects.html

Kind regards (Dedwen (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC))

Dedwen, I think the appropriate thing to do is to start a discussion on the talk page about it. I can tell you that I removed it because I don't think the article should list all of the packages in paragraph format in the middle of it. Because packages are so integral to R, I'm not really sure what the best approach is, but I don't think the way that was added is it. Again, if you are really concerned, please start a discussion on the talk page. 0^18 (talk) 13:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sound pressure citation

Do you have a citation you can add to the Krakatoa entry in Sound pressure that you recently modified? The table could use some additional citations. --Kvng (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No. I removed the dubious tag because it is not dubious in my judgement and when I clicked on the "discuss" link, there was no discussion. I also noticed that it was over a year old, so I wondered if the person who added it really was paying attention. If you want to read it, you certainly are free to, but please start a discussion section and link it from the tag so that others can respond.

BTW, this claim is not dubious to me because (according to the Krakatoa article), Krakatoa emitted air shock waves that affected the sea level in England and circled the globe for five days. This suggests that it was a very powerful disturbance, possibly capable of emitting an almost full scale audio response. 0^18 (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Gotcha and I I'm fine with your edits. I just thought you might have had a non-Wikipedia source to contribute - there's lots of uncited but plausable information in the table. --Kvng (talk) 18:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I searched for a bit and found [9], but not sure if that is an RS, and [10] which gives another reference that is too vague to track down, googleing it only gives reprints of the link. 0^18 (talk) 19:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

These are helpful. Especially the second one since it has its own list of references. --Kvng (talk) 20:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Twins

Sorry for not responding to your message sooner -- I was off Wikipedia over the holiday weekend. But I do agree with User:JHunterJ that Twin, and not Minnesota Twins, is probably the primary topic for "Twins." I think a lot of people are looking for the team, but probably not more than are looking for the multiple-birth usage. (Actually, if it were up to me, I'd probably put the multiple-birth topic at Twins instead of Twin, but I doubt that's worth arguing.) I'm hoping all the twin issues are now resolved. Propaniac (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I agree with you that Twin should probably be at Twins, suggesting that the baseball team really shouldn't be there. 0^18 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

R Programming Language - internal v. external links

I have re-reverted your edits. I appreciate the concept of converting links to internal Wikilinks wherever possible; however, since the pages you attempted to link internally to do not exist, your edits have broken previously-functioning linking, which runs contrary to the intent of Wikipedia to provide usable information to the user. When the relevant pages are created, Wikilinks can substitute for external links. Cheers, Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)