User talk:Comrade jo

Hello Comrade jo.

You have been invited to join WikiProject Java, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the Java-related articles on Wikipedia. You received this invitation due to your interest in, or edits relating to or within the scope of the project or the Java Portal. If you would like to join or just help out a bit, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members.

You may also wish to add to your userpage:
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Java/Userbox}}
and to the top of your talk page:
== WikiProject Java (announcements) ==
{{Wikipedia:WikiProject_Java/Announcements}}

Know someone who might be interested? Please pass the message to others by pasting the code in their talk page:
== WikiProject Java and Portal ==
{{Template:WikiProject_Java/Welcome|~~~~}}

Thanks,
AlainR345^{Techno-Wiki-Geek} 02:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠Tom @s Bat 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting comment on AIC and Bayes

Earlier on Talk:Model selection you posted a link that claimed AIC was not appropriate for bayesian models. I didn't understand it, but I was wondering if you have since come across more documentation on why AIC is not appropriate? EverGreg (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right - since then I've found out a bit more about it (didn't update, bad me..)
Once again, I must emphasise that I'm not a mathematician and this is based on my limited understanding of the literature as written by maths gurus for phylogeneticists.. Also, I should have clarified further by explaining that by 'Bayesian models' I meant 'Bayesian models of nucleic acid evolution (phylogenetics) as implemented in a Markov-chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) search strategy.
Basically it seems to stem from the different estimation goals of the two methods; while AIC is applied to ML methods that try to find a single best solution so the trade-off between likelihood and parametization is a simple one (the AIC curve is a power-2 one, right?), Bayesian MCMC methods instead estimate the posterior distribution of best models (model parametizations) and so the 'best' model in terms of the maximum likelihood solution may not represent the whole posterior distribution. In fact many posterior distributions are not normal so that intuitively makes sense. In model selection of Bayesian MCMC methods for phylogenetics (which is still a young field) it has become common to use the ratio of harmonic mean posterior likelihoods ('Bayes factor') for model selection.

More references on this:
Suchard et al. (2001) Bayesian selection of continuous-time Markov chain evolutionary models. MBE 18(6):1001-1013 PMID 11371589
Suchard et al. (2005) Models for Estimating Bayes Factors with Applications to Phylogeny and Tests of Monophyly. Biometrics 61(3):665-673 PMID 16135017
--Comrade jo (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. The AIC value ranks models relative to each other so in principle you can derive results like "out of these five models, number 2 and 4 are the best, while 1,3 and 5 are far worse" and not just "number 2 is the best". But the literature is very insistent on the AIC value only being a relative ranking and no indication whatsoever on how good a given model is in itself. I guess that might make for difficult inputs to a probabilistic-centric system.

mmm... I mean, you can always evaluate the likelihood of any proposed model as a measure of fit to the data and this is an absolute measure in the sense that it never changes, and that you can compare the likelihood of different data under the same model (in phylogenetics, this is basically what you do in a bootstrap approach to assign support to topologies create a null distribution of a phylogenetic measure)

but comparing models is always going to be a comparative process - - i think ?

Comrade jo (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An additional problem (and here I'm doing a wild guess) could be using AIC as a measure of goodness when searching in a fitness landscape. AIC is an estimate of the Kullback–Leibler divergence which is not a true distance metric. This may or may not mess up some search algorithms. EverGreg (talk) 10:30, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Between Scylla and Charybdis

You made a shrewd point about the idiom's use in The Cruel Sea. I feel, though, that describing the novel as 'classic' breaches WP neutrality rules. Would you consider deleting it?

I'd also make a second point about contemporary use. The phrase appears in lyrics from a couple of contemporary bands, which suggests either that it has made a comeback or else that it was old fashioned only in the opinion of Nicholas Montsarrat! Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very good point - glad to see it's been edited already! Joe Comrade jo (talk) 11:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification (for Comrade jo)

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Ben Griffin (British Army soldier) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Parachute Regiment, Afghanistan War, General Service Medal, Iraq Medal

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your excellent article on Viral quasispecies. Thank you for helping to increase the awesome and decrease the suck of the Internet. Rezarj (talk) 11:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Dulwich Hamlet F.C. Ladies

The article Dulwich Hamlet F.C. Ladies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Club fails to meet any notability guidelines.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]