User talk:Rgclegg: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
←Blanked the page Tag: Blanking |
|||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==[[Autoregressive integrated moving average]]== |
|||
Hello. When you write a new page on statistics, could you add it to the [[list of statistical topics]]? That way, everyone whose watchlist includes the [[list of statistical topics]] finds out it's there. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 22:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:: Thanks -- I will try to remember (still new to this and learning about the system). --[[User:Rgclegg|Richard Clegg]] 23:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Long-tail traffic == |
|||
''I would like to write a good page for [[long-range dependence]]''. A redirect has now been created at [[long-range dependence]], which after another redirect takes you to [[long-tail traffic]]. Is the latter a good page? |
|||
I am puzzled because [[long-tail traffic]] is one of a group of articles which are indexed by [[Teletraffic Engineering]]. These form a group of articles put together by two or three people who seem to be using Wikipedia for their own project. They do not create wikilinks either in or out, they write articles which duplicate other existing wiki articles, they do not seem to want to talk, etc. (The long-tail traffic article is better than the others as far as links go.) |
|||
Since your work has (fortuitously) linked to them, I wondered if you might recognise them. |
|||
-- [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] 15:46, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC) |
|||
: I have significant concerns about the page on [[long-tail traffic]] since it continually confuses the terms long-range dependent, heavy-tailed and self-similar. However, the edit required to fix it would be significant and I do not know when I will find the time. My PhD thesis was in part on LRD in teletraffic and I am very interested in the subject. My intention is to write articles on LRD and heavy-tails and then link to that long-tail traffic article after some corrections to it. If you are looking for an introduction to LRD then Beran's "Long-Memory Processes" is good. My PhD thesis is online at http://www.richardclegg.org/pubs -- chapter one has an introduction to LRD from a teletraffic perspective. --[[User:Rgclegg|Richard Clegg]] 17:18, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks. Fact is statistics goes right over my head. But you have confirmed my feeling that these articles need a bit of peer review. -- [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] 17:28, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC) |
|||
I have now created [[Wikipedia:Deletion policy/Teletraffic Engineering]]. -- [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] 03:09, 2005 Mar 7 (UTC) |
|||
== Boomtown rats == |
|||
Are you sure that the boomtown rats were not the last gig at central hall? I have met someone who claimed to be there (a parent of a friend), and another who spoke of it (campus ken). |
|||
According to campus ken, what happened is they found out that structurally Central hall was not safe, so the SU asked Geldof not to let the crowd stand up and dance. This of course, made him twice as keen to get them dancing. After the ban, the SU sued Geldof, but dropped the case due to Live Aid. |
|||
Obviously this could be a colourful imagination, but I have no reason to doubt the sources. -- [[User:Tomhab|Tomhab]] 20:41, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Found [http://yorkstudentsfirst.iainlindley.com/folklore/b-rats.html this] source for you. I won't edit the page for now until we're sure what happened. -- [[User:Tomhab|Tomhab]] 20:45, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:: I was just about to cite that reference --- (I've long since been a fan of the campus folklore page). If you read that you'll see it was misleading to claim that the venue was damaged (or I believe it's misleading) when, in fact, the damage was only to the fittings of the venue. Certainly the widely believed myth that central hall itself was damaged during a Boomtown Rat's gig is totally wrong. There have been gigs there since '85 -- I can recall Incantation for one (South American pan pipes, simply ghastly). I think the policy seems to be "gentle music is fine". --[[User:Rgclegg|Richard Clegg]] 20:55, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
:Fair play. I guess the article doesn't imply it didn't happen. Wasn't the last gig around 1989?. -- [[User:Tomhab|Tomhab]] |
|||
:: I've been here since '89 and can remember that one which would have been in around about '92/'93 I guess. I can't recall anything I'd think of as a "rock" act playing central hall in that time though. --[[User:Rgclegg|Richard Clegg]] 14:28, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC) |
|||
::: Hi Richard, just reopened this topic on the discussion page of [[University of York]] and would appreciate your input --[[User:Pluke|Pluke]] 00:52, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC) |
|||
== Desperate criticism == |
|||
Hi, I was very interested in your views about the criticism on the [[Safety Camera Partnership]] article. It is an article which I came to by way of various other "road safety" type articles, and it doesn't yet seem to quite plumb the depths that some of the others do in terms of "lunatic" rantings thinly veiled as ''criticism'', and lack of ''honest purpose'' and encyclopedicness - see, for example [[Safe Speed]], [[Association of British Drivers]], [[Transport 2000]]. I hope you might agree that compared to those, SCP seems quite sane. Regards, [[User:DeFacto|De Facto]] 15:09, 21 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: Certainly, I agree with all you say here -- it is not a terrible article which is why it is on my watch list (unlike SS or ABD). The problem is that it is an emotive issue. To my mind, the article [[Safety Camera Partnership]] should describe what a safety camera partnership is, when it was set up, what its responsibility and legislative powers are. However, it is gradually turning into a pro/con page about the safety camera issue and whether they are a "good thing". I wonder if it might be a good idea to have a new single page devoted to the effectiveness or otherwise of speed cameras? That might "draw the poison" as it were. (Since most of the to-and-fro ing on these pages is, in my opinion, basically a matter of argument about whether or not such cameras make things safer or more dangerous.) It's just a suggestion, I haven't thought it through properly. --[[User:Rgclegg|Richard Clegg]] 15:22, 21 March 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== [[Richard Francis Burton]] == |
|||
I replied on my talk page. [[User:Savidan|savidan]]<sup>[[User_talk:Savidan|(talk)]] [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">(e@)</span>]]</sup> 19:17, 3 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
Good work on the references; I've seconded your nomination for Good Article status. I'll add more comments to the Peer Review later. --[[User:Estarriol|Estarriol]] 17:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
I love the new map on this article! Well done :) Could you tell me which software you used? I am starting to get into creating and adding maps to Wikipedia, but my efforts don't look nearly as professional! [[User:TheGrappler|TheGrappler]] 19:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: Hey, thanks -- I use QGIS. http://qgis.org/ It's quite a nice tool and there are free data sets for most of the world. --[[User:Rgclegg|Richard Clegg]] 23:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Clive== |
|||
Don't mention it. I have a bit of a soft spot for both the 1911 ''Britannica'' and Macaulay (such portentous prose) so I can't quite bring myself to wield the knife (also we do risk losing a lot of very detailed info). However I appreciate that much of it is far from being NPOV, and given that we can't change the quotations from Macaulay (I've checked them against the original text to ensure they are accurate) they may have to be axed. [[User:Sikandarji|Sikandarji]] 23:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: According to John Keay in "The Honourable Company" Macauley had a real dislike for Clive (you couldn't tell from that passage) and wrote a lot that was hostile to him. Perhaps you could just trim the quote we have to keep the best parts and use elipsis? It would be a shame to lose ALL of the best refrenced part of the article. I love "Under such circumstances, any troops so scantily provided with officers might have been expected to show signs of insubordination; and the danger was peculiarly great in a force composed of men differing widely from each other in extraction, colour, language, manners and religion. But the devotion of the little band to its chief surpassed anything that is related of the Tenth Legion of Caesar, or the Old Guard of Napoleon. The sepoys came to Clive, not to complain of their scanty fare, but to propose that all the grain should be given to the Europeans, who required more nourishment than the natives of Asia." as a piece of period 19th century writing it's great but the language is definitely a problem. --[[User:Rgclegg|Richard Clegg]] 23:21, 19 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Science Fiction Review== |
|||
You recently failed [[Science Fiction]] as a good article. I agree with your assessment. I was just wondering if you have had any communication with a user named Simonapro that would explain his comments on the [[Talk:Science_fiction|talk]] page? He believes your review is a condemnation of previous contributors and a mandate for a complete rewrite. |
|||
I don't want any hard feelings--especially my own--and Simonapro seems to be beating his chest. I'm inclined to let him have a go at a complete rewrite because my own attempt to rewrite failed. I would prefer to see him do on this [[Science_fiction/rewrite|rewrite]] page. Or perhaps we should copy the current version to this page for reference. How are massive rewrites usually handled? |
|||
If you have any advice to smooth things out, or can provide any leadership, could you post on the [[Talk:Science_fiction|SF talk]] page? I really should remain silent because I'm one of the bad guys. Thanks. [[User:Kennylucius|KennyLucius]] 01:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: Well, I think the history of the page did show a number of people getting into write/revert cycles and I don't think that is too helpful. I'm not sure what the solution is but I think, wherever possible, tweaking prose to remove the controversial bits or finding ways to write around the problem is better than a complete revert since wholly reverting edits gives people the idea that a page cannot be altered and their contributions weren't welcomed. --[[User:Rgclegg|Richard Clegg]] 12:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Re: Some of your edits. == |
|||
Remember to mark your edits as '''m'''inor only when they genuinely are (see [[Wikipedia:Minor edit]]). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." <!-- Template:Minor --> --[[User:JiFish|JiFish]](<sup>[[User_talk:JiFish|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/JiFish|Contrib]]</sub>) 14:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: Apologies -- I have changed my default setting so that I must explicitly mark changes as minor. --[[User:Rgclegg|Richard Clegg]] 12:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== More proper edit summaries desired == |
|||
I just notice now that on 16 December 2005, you deleted my previously added edits to [[Road-rule enforcement camera]] with the edit summary "Deleted the part about being robbed at red lights as it was nonsense". I have to say that I disagree your summary not because I insist to add back these sentences, but because your summary was misleading. When you have called it nonsense, I have to tell that my thoughs have been with '''valid reasons''', so I would consider calling "nonsense" an insulting disrespect while I have acted in '''good faith'''. |
|||
While I am not adding back what I wrote to the article per [[Wikipedia:No original research]], please watch your edit summaries carefully as wrong summaries can possibly be worse than no summaries. If I were you, I would moved it to [[Talk:Road-rule enforcement camera]] and explained the action based on [[Wikipedia:No original research]], not what you called as "nonsense" that could bite new comers.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] 15:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: Well, when you have any evidence whatsoever that people are being robbed at red-lights becuase of road rule enforcement cameras then feel free to reinstate it. I note that no other editors of my article objected to the characterisation. In retrospect however, I apologise for the characterisation. I honestly thought your claim was mischevious vandalism and/or POV pushing rather than a genuine edit. --[[User:Rgclegg|Richard Clegg]] 22:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::Even though there may not have evidence of robberies at red light cameras, I have heard of robberies at traffic lights in the Republic of South Africa with not only red light cameras but also VERY HIGH CRIME RATE, so I have reasonable speculation, though original research is to avoided in articles. Waiting for any real evidence of robberies WILL BE VERY COSTLY, possibly involving paying for funeral in case of murder. It is why in South Africa it is said better pay a fine rather than for funeral.--[[User:Jusjih|Jusjih]] 13:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
::: Well, I find it extremely hard to believe that the presence or absence of a red light camera would make the blindest bit of difference to whether or not the crime was committed. As I said above, if you find any evidence then add it back. --[[User:Rgclegg|Richard Clegg]] 05:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
== Please help on [[Mathematics]] == |
|||
<div style="text-align: center; margin: 0 10%;"> |
|||
{| class="notice noprint" id="{{{id}}}" style="background: #ffccFF; border: 1px solid #ff33FF; margin: 0 auto;" |
|||
|- |
|||
| [[Image:AIDlogo2.png|none|50px| ]] |
|||
| Thank you for your support of the '''[[Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive|Article Improvement Drive]]'''.<br>This week '''[[Mathematics]]''' was selected to be improved to [[Wikipedia:Featured articles|featured article]] [[Wikipedia:What is a featured article|status]].<br>Hope you can help… |
|||
|} |
|||
</div> |
|||
Posted by [[User:Pruneau|Pruneau]] 21:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC), on behalf of the AID Maintenance Team |
|||
== Science fiction == |
|||
Thanks for your input on the sf page. I appreciate what you've been trying to do--I haven't always agreed with your edits, but you're clearly committed to improving the page. I think that page is going to take a great deal of work and diplomacy to improve. Good luck elsewhere in Wikipedia. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] 16:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: No problem. It wasn't that my edits were often reverted that was frustrating. It seemed that everyone suffered that. I hope that you manage to make headway with the article. --[[User:Rgclegg|Richard Clegg]] 19:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC) |
|||
==Autocorrelation== |
|||
I like what you're trying to do there, but your estimators aren't really right yet. You need to change to finite integrals and sums, and divide by the integration length or number of terms, to get an estimate of the expected value. The limit as the integration length or N approaches infinitiy will be equal to the true value if the process is stationary and ergodic. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] 16:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: You are right -- I was working hastily, for which I apologise. I will try to make the changes now. --[[User:Rgclegg|Richard Clegg]] 18:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC) |
|||