User talk:Baccyak4H/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

"unbiased" is not redundant

In an edit summary you wrote:

rm redundant "unbiased" as it is by definition if it is an estimate of its expected value ;-)

But the best unbiased estimator is not in general the best estimator. "Best" in this context means in the mean-squared-error sense. In some cases a biased estimator has a smaller mean squared error than the best unbiased estimator. Notably, the maximum likelihood estimate of the variance of a normal population is biased, and has a smaller mean squared error than does the best unbiased estimator. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your illustration, but point out my edit was made in the context of the language of the article: anything which is an estimate of its own expected value is by definition unbiased. However, your concern suggests perhaps that that wording, in particular the "of its own expected value" part, should be reworked altogether. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Update Upon reading the article again, I see what you are getting at and agree the "unbiased" is necessary there. The "expected value" is held fixed, and the estimator evaluated; the theorem applies to only those estimators with that same expectation. I still believe, if anything more strongly now, that the wording is in need of improvement. And mea culpa, I think I had a hand in the wording the way it stands now. Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

math vs. html rendering

Hi, I noticed you changed the math rendering to html rendering in Exponential family#Role in statistics. Any reason for this? The rest of the article is written in <math> syntax. --Zvika (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zvika. I actually do have a particular reason for these edits, which I make quite frequently. It has to do with the fact that using <math> syntax can give very large and visually unbalancing rendering when used inline, that is, within a body of plain text. In this case, and if there is html markup which expresses the same thing, I convert to html.

For example, compare X₁, X₂, ..., X_n to $X_{1},X_{2},\ldots ,X_{n}\,\!.$ Note how the former matches the font height, width, etc., much better than the latter (which also has a different color background, a visual distraction).

If the TeX markup is on its own line (usually but not necessarily indented), I don't bother.

So it's really just a style issue, for appearance and readability. Hope this helps. Here is the help page for TeX formula as well as some html help; it also has some discussion on the pros and cons of both. I suspect you may already be familiar with that page, but just in case. Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to disagree. For one, I hope (naively?) that one day the TeX renderer will be able to display all HTML-friendly formulas in HTML; and then someone will have to go back and turn all such examples back into TeX. The difference is that while the direction you are performing can be done automatically, the reverse is no longer possible since italics and <sub> tags are also used for other things.

Anyway, it's an old argument that has been going on for years, and I don't expect to convince you :-) but please consider at least maintaining consistency within the article, if only to maintain a consistent visual appearance. Note that different fonts are used when the <math> tags are rendered as HTML. --Zvika (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

H V and JP II

I thought we finally had agreed. Sorry, that you took out my text and my quote. It showed that Cardinal Wojtyla was not in Rome, because he choose not to be there, although he was appointed to the commission. He did not go, because of reverence for the other guy, who was denied a visa. This is quite different, from what you write now.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It seemed like it was saying the same thing twice, about his attendence, albeit in two totally different ways. So having access to Weigel, I cleaned up that material but only presented it once. Also, it seemed pretty clear that the other source seemed more tangental to HV, as it read more as personal sarcasm directed at Karol. So it seemed clear to me to use the more historical one. That is not to say that other citation doesn't have a proper use somewhere else, though.

But I will make an effort to reread Weigel again, to make sure I got it right. I do not have access to the other source, so feel free to bring up material on the Talk page. Having reread what I wrote, I do note that Weigel's commentary regarding reception would be better placed in the Reception section than where I left it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Probability and statistics sub-project?

Dear Baccyak4H,

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) 22:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Good idea. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Seems to have attained critical mass now. I'll probably launch it officially at the weekend by creating its page as a sub-page of WPM. At the moment there's a draft in my sandbox — additions, improvements or comments welcome there. Qwfp (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Christianity

Well, I've cited 6 Bible passages, referred to 2 alternative Bible translations and 3 published sources. What more do you suggest?

Thanks, Christianw7 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The only source that might qualify was the tentmaker one, as the verses are primary, and the others were just to verify some linguistic points (as far as I could see). So only the last sentence was sourced adequately. The crux as I saw it, of the three prongs if you will, was synthesized. If you could get a reliable source which describes scholarship on those and their followup, then that would be different.

But in the meantime other editors mentioned that the level of inclusion itself was undue weight. So I would recommend not returning the material and rather make sure that that content is well fleshed out in the Universal Reconciliation article, as I would agree with the undue weight argument, even if well sourced.

Feel free to bring it up on the Talk page of the article if you'd like further opinions. Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Chelation therapy expert radio interview show

I have outlined my reasons for thinking these things. You've just collapsed my contributions?Are you Adam? Oldspammer (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. You are free to think them. But the talk page of an article is for discussion on improving the article. What you were discussing was not about improving the article, that's all.

I collapsed it as a gentler alternative to removing it altogether. This way the talk page is less cluttered, but the discussion is still there if anyone wants to have a look anyway, without having to resort to the page history.

Also, you may wish to note that the reasoning implicit there is perilously close to being circular. If absence of evidence in support of something is taken as evidence in support of it, you have a tautology. Those types of logical black holes must be avoided like the plague. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I tried to reply in the chelation therapy talk section below the collapsed one, and all the added stuff in the previews that I ran on it showed that all additional sections even, were also collapsed somehow.

Unless someone comes to my door, halls me out to my own lynching, I'm pretty sure that the thought police have not been enacted as lawful in my neighborhood yet!

The entire wikipedia site outlines / specifies theories, beliefs, facts, and conjecture. All that I did that seems to be offending the SOAPBOX accusation is to explain how I came to believe in some of the things that I might believe in (with limited confidence).

In the 1970s or 1980s I saw a TV show where a guest appearing with others related to medicine, health, wellbeing, and longevity explained about chelation therapy and its alternate use for treatment of vascular disease. This guy was in his 50s or so then.

For whatever reasons, the chelating agent used was immediately accepted for metal poisoning, but not considered for anything else by the USA. I am pretty sure that there are political and greed reasons for this having been done--not anything truly scientific at all.

People on wikipedia seem to argue with one another needlessly rather than helping one another out. The smart ones prey on the less intelligent. The wise use their wisdom for seemingly ill-purposes. They adopt harmful editing styles that discourage the legitimate contributions of others.

I do not know where it was that I am arguing using flawed reasoning. Perhaps you could quote to me something that appears goofy? All I've done is said that some have claimed nice things about numerous medical treatments. And that some money interests have swayed science and laws of the land away from honesty so that the results are profitable for the money interests. Oldspammer (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you too Baccyak4H for your comments. It's been great to receive all your feedback and support! BTW, sorry too for the much delayed response; I've been on a long wiki-break that corresponds to our vacation time here in my country. :) Marax (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		Thanks for helping me on the Mathematics Reference Desk! --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(Belated) you're welcome. Even though I admit others did more, I appreciate the acknowledgement. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And I yours. You were the only one who actually thanked me for the barnstar, and that puts you a notch above them all in my book. --Ye Olde Luke (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Responding to your point at the John Edwards AN/I thread

disagree strongly with your assessment of Edwards' power to stop this Well, I said he could stop it in its tracks if it's false: All he has to do is take a paternity test, and the mother getting money from Edwards' friend could be persuaded to have the baby tested. So, really, if there's no truth to it, there's no reason for Edwards to let this go on and hurt his career. But if it's true, I agree that there isn't much he can do at all. The sad thing is really how this hurts family members. Noroton (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I see your point about the test. Never thought about that step in that situation, but rather assumed you were describing the properties of the blogosphere. "You know what you do when you assume...". Although I would still not be surprised if even in that case, some would still cry coverup, payoff, etc. Not unlike the 9/11 controversies (among others) whose rabid enablers to this day keep the fires of insanity burning, even though the evidence soundly refutes them.

Nonetheless, my language was too strong and I understand what you were getting at. Fortunately I take it was just a passing thought and not really relevant to the issues of writing articles here. Although ironically, there is good reason not to take a paternity test even if it would exonerate him: it would encourage other rumormongers to invent something, so as to create a distraction for him. Then, if he gets fed up with it, says to hell with it and ignores it, they say "Ah! he is not clearing himself so he must have done it.

Glad I am not running for a public office.Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Blog sources

Just a sidebar discussion - some of the blog sources I used were to bring balance to arguments from the "other side" in this dispute. A couple of examples that come to mind...the woman in question, and the claimed father, issued their denials to MyDD, not normally considered a reliable source. But I don't want to simply mention the allegations (which were reported by mainstream sources) without also mentioning the denials. Another instance is the LA Times blog "gag order" which was covered in the mainstream press - the LA Times editor in question responded and defended himself in a blog interview. What's your opinion on those particular situations? Drafting this article has been a lesson to me on how the line is fraying between print and online journalism. In friendship - Kelly ^hi! 20:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the overall tone and balance of the article is decent, it was not that the blog sources were piling on. That said, this part of the living persons biography policy informs my viewpoint here: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." So the rebuttals are also subject to the stringent sourcing, as positive material is so subject, so long as the issue is contentious. I agree that that feels a little strange to have to worry about, so conceivably others might differ in their interpretation, but I for one fail to see how it can be interpreted otherwise. My guess is that the policy consensus assumes if sources are deemed reliable by our standards, that some of would report the existence of such material on the blogs, as they would always (in theory!) be looking for balance themselves.

The editor's interview might be considered less sensitive, so I wouldn't state it should categorically not be used. But it makes me really uncomfortable that this and so many other of the threads of this story cannot be impeccably sourced, and what can is an only slightly more developed than what is already available in the main article. That motivates my opinion to prudently elaborate the blurb there as things develop (or not) and avoid keeping around this one which would be a troll magnet.

That said, it does seem like the article is getting more "!support" than I had predicted, either from my own assessment or from extrapolating the ANI discussion of its speedying. So certainly if it sticks around I hope to help improve it (trim unreliables, summarize quotes in third person voice, etc). I haven't taken an ax to it yet because, frankly, the narrative flow which you developed quite well would be disrupted. But certainly do not take this as a request to not improve it yourself—if you wish to. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Your advice, as always, is well-received. I am kind of holding off on doing any substantial editing to the article during the AfD discussion so I don't waste effort. If the article survives, I will likely do some extensive work on the sourcing this weekend, probably...for example, I think that McClatchy reported on the MyDD press releases. On a related topic, today I heard by e-mail from this blog which has been following the story, passing me some links, and someone else e-mailed me a link to this story. Pretty wild, especially in the comments. Anyway, I will be looking for your help to keep me honest on the article. :) Thanks again! Kelly ^hi! 02:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're wlecome. And thanks for the links. Made my morning, but also great examples of why we frown upon blogs as sources :-) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reentering information

Hi,

at the risk of your wrath I have reentered some of the information deleted from Turin Shroud.

I did this on the assumption that you deleted it because it was not on the topic. I've been careful to put the comments into appropriate sections.

Steve Notpayingthepsychiatrist (talk) 12:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I had a hard time figuring out exactly what information you were talking about, as you have done several edits there recently. But after a perusal of the article, I didn't see any obvious objectionable thing, other than a bit of disjointedness which is common for an article such as that. So no wrath ;-). And I tend not to be the flappable type anyway. But I appreciate your notification nonetheless. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank 's

Thank you for your friendly and helpful suggestions. Important was between the lines, not to get carried away with this. Especially since the requested neutral contributors so far all share my verification view. Which two articles are you referring to? always appreciate improvements, in part because I work too fast, in part because my computer is giving up the ghost, creating numerous unintended mistakes. Cheers--Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I found Inculturation, then Post Vatican II history of the Roman Catholic Church‎ (formerly Vatican II and beyond; hope you like the new name). Anyway, happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Editor Bias

I am not sure why attempting a discussion about an editor's admitted loss of objectively and bias is counterproductive. It is counterproductive to have that bias affecting an article genuinely neutral editors are working hard to improve. When the top 3 editors (statistically) on the Palin article openly hold right wing political views, that article is going to have a right wing POV and polish.

That being said, it is absolutely ironic that a given editor would be praised for being wholly biased. Not only does this editor have WP:COI issues but the editor has been warned to read WP:CIVIL by multiple wikipedians. I am astounded that there is a reward system in place for taking ownership of an article and skewing it to meet a political agenda. zredsox (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

While I disagree with you on some points, so long as you edit constructively and within the project's policies and mores (as I alluded to on your talkpage), we can afford to do so. I hope we can agree on that. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rumors from Reliable Sources

Thanks for the tweak on WP:RS. patsw (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome.  :) Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Good work

... at Political positions of Sarah Palin ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I really appreciate you acknowledging that, especially as we clearly have different ideas as to how to write. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for posting the note on Kelly's page. My connection is slow and kludgy today. :-( I appreciate your taking the task upon yourself to ensure s/he was informed. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I sympathize with you both, for different reasons... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The Mismeasure of Man

Thanks for your comments on the book The Mismeasure of Man. I'm glad that someone besides me found it noncontroversial. I was beginning to think I was all alone.Aletheia (talk) 16:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, although I did follow up there with why I can understand it can be controversial. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I read your comments and agree almost entirely on the issue of tone--contempt is always an inappropriate way to counter an argument. However, the basic facts about the mathematical aspects were correct. And, I think Gould's historical analysis was also valid. Thanks again for your time and comments.Aletheia (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hello, you are receiving this message because you voted in the last FAC for this article. Currently, it is undergoing a peer review and I invite you to come view the page and offer any suggestions for improvement here [1]. Over the past three months, the page has been improved with additional scholarly works, trims, two new sections suggested in and attention to concerns raised during the last FAC. Thanks in advance for your time, attention and help to bring this important article to FA. NancyHeise ^talk 00:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)