User talk:Dryguy

/Archive 1

Template:Fact

Thanks for the nod. dryguy 23:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I do think some of the points you were making in that discussion were valid, but by going to TfD, the only thing that was heard was "Don't delete that template!". --DragonHawk 00:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of similarities between Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy (second nomination)

Your analysis at the AfD has been altogether sagacious and cogent; you are to be commended. Joe 20:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aw shucks, twerent nuthin'. (blush) dryguy 21:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Kennedy Rewrite

I thank you very much for that rewrite. It truly created an article worthy of Wikipedia. I would just ask that you had waited for the AfD discussion to close, so as to not confuse the admin who has to determine whether or not to delete it. Thank you again though, I believe the article does not need to be deleted anymore. --kralahome 19:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I believe that if you change your nom to a vote to keep, it will carry great weight with the admin who makes the final decision. dryguy 19:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good work on the rewrite. I'm always pleased when I get to change my "vote" to keep. I hope that you or others watchlist the article to prevent its reverting to a "didja know," but your changes were worthwhile and really did help. Geogre 20:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JFK, AL and MrDolomite thank you!

Thanks for the note on my talk page, that had almost fallen off my radar. And I was pleasantly suprised on the fabulous improvements. Certainly restored my WP:FAITH in the AfD process. — MrDolomite | Talk 23:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the very kind words. dryguy 23:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

L-K Markup

ach! sorry I missed that because I was in a rush. Thanks for fixing it!! --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 08:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tfd

Sure. thanks for bringing the missing day to my attention. Unfortunately, I am very busy right now, and I will need trchnical help to close some of the nominations, so it might be a few days until all of the debates are closed. RyanG e rbil10(Kick 'em in the dishpan!) 02:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recent change to WP:CITE

I personally, support your change. I don't think anyone ever asked for "every statement" to have an in-line cite, just enough to base WP:V meaning that important claims can be verified. For GA consideration, you just need enough to be considered well-referenced. Agne 00:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the claim that the poll was "unanimous"

Subject line says all. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics, in my opinion. A neutral and a non-vote aren't opposing votes. dryguy 01:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics, indeed. And the dictionary says: "u·nan·i·mous ADJECTIVE: 1. Sharing the same opinions or views; being in complete harmony or accord. 2. Based on or characterized by complete assent or agreement." That's not a fair description of the situation. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is fair enough. In any event, I can't change the comment line. dryguy 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHILL

Hey, I redirected WP:CHILL back to its original spot, both to preserve the integrity of debates where it was previously used (of which there are many) and because it is as relevant where it was as anywhere else. As the ... mastodon page already has 4 shortcuts (including WP:CHILLOUT), and shortcuts are available on a first-come basis, I think the WP wheels will keep on turning. Kylu and I discussed the need for complimentary articles a while back and I'm glad to see CHILLOUT has found an appropriate home. I've been contributing less often for a couple of months thanks to some interesting real-life stuff, hence the reason I haven't noticed this before. Cheers, Deizio talk 22:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Irascible Professor (second nomination)

Hey, I'm not gonna fuss about if you think its worth keeping but I hope you realise that the reslist was mainly due to the problems with the original nom. If the comments of users with potential conflicts of interest or odd voting patterns are removed, it leaves a 'score' of 2 for delete and no keep votes; to my mind, the sort of discussion that would be relisted for more input. --Robdurbar 10:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup template messages

Please stop putting the {{unreferenced}} template on the talk page of Inheritance semantics. Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup clearly states that ...should be added to the articles needing cleanup, not to their talk pages.... The OR template is a little more open to interpretation. But I think the fact that it directs readers to the talk page (implying they aren't there already) is a pretty good indication that it is intended to be placed in the article rather than the talk page. --Allan McInnes (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion

Many editors prefer to have cleanup tags placed on articles' talk pages. dryguy 19:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some users prefer to insert the tags in a manner that defies consensus doesn't mean that we should instruct them to. —David Levy 20:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus to have tags go on article pages. dryguy 21:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus != unanimity. It is a long-standing, well-established, discussion-backed convention to place these tags on article pages. They are not talk page templates. —David Levy 23:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somone removed the language about talk pages on December 10. I don't see how that constitutes longstanding consensus. If you are referring to a discussion in which consensus was reached that I somehow missed, I would be much obliged if you could point me to it. dryguy 23:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somone removed the language about talk pages on December 10. I don't see how that constitutes longstanding consensus.

You inserted the language in question on 12 November and 20 November, unilaterally overriding advice that had been in place since 20 March 2005.

If you are referring to a discussion in which consensus was reached that I somehow missed, I would be much obliged if you could point me to it.

I wasn't referring to one discussion in particular, but this issue has been discussed on various talk pages (such as those of some of the individual templates). I don't have any links handy, but these discussions should be findable.

The outcomes are evidenced by the cleanup templates themselves, most of which lack "CoffeeRoll" coloring (the standard talk page template scheme, as described at Wikipedia:Talk page templates) and feature links to the articles' talk pages (as noted above by Allan McInnes). The few that don't fit this description are the ones for which consensus dictated talk page placement (because they pertain to relatively unimportant concerns that are of less interest to most readers). —David Levy 00:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your input. I'm aware there have been various discussions about where tags should go. What seems to me to be missing is the consensus to require templates to go on talk pages. There have been a number of discussions in which no consensus has been reached regarding the placement of meta-tags on article pages (these discussions are also findable). This was the reason for my edit of March 20, 2006. As to the claim that I did so "unilaterally"; this edit has gone without change or comment until it was removed for consistency with Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. You are the first to object to my edit on the basis of its actual content. dryguy 00:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You performed these edits in November (last month), not in March. Your language remained in place for 20 days (because I, among others, didn't notice the changes) until Ceros reverted for consistency with another page's correct advice. (Notice that Ceros didn't edit the other page to match your advice). You're attempting to construe those 20 days as implicit acceptance, despite the fact that the previous advice (for which you claim consensus doesn't exist) had been in place for 20 months before you altered it. —David Levy 01:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for my dyslexic editing. You are correct that I made the change in November. You also mentioned the March edit which was still in my mind at the time I was writing above. In any event, there was no discussion for the March edit either, unless I missed it. Without discussion, there is no consensus. dryguy 01:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's patently false. If a convention is generally accepted by the community, that's consensus; no discussion is required. The edit in question reflected such consensus, and it remained unchallenged for 20 months. —David Levy 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of discussion could just as easily mean that few editors care about this issue. In that case it is up to those who do to discuss it and come to consensus, regardless of the timeframe. dryguy 02:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.

To my knowledge, we haven't held a formal community discussion to determine the coloring of our articles' text and backgrounds, but that doesn't mean that no consensus exists and "few editors [would] care" if some users were to begin authoring articles with orange text on purple backgrounds. It's simply understood (and can be regarded as policy) that black-on-white is the correct format. When this type of standard is deliberately followed by most editors, that's consensus. —David Levy 03:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't the sole arbiter of how Wikipedia does or does not work. Nor does this comment really touch on anything we have discussed. The examples you give are set as software defaults by Wikipedia sysops. That's really irrelevant to what we are currently discussing. dryguy 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You aren't the sole arbiter of how Wikipedia does or does not work.

Of course not. Feel free to ask some other experienced editors whether it's true that "without discussion, there is no consensus" (meaning that it's impossible for consensus to be established by observing the community's conventions) and that a lack of explicit discussion about a particular issue—even one for which a clear set of rules is applied by most users—means that "few editors care about this issue." —David Levy 04:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be one of those experienced editors. You don't speak for me or any other experienced Wikipedia editor. dryguy 04:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I just wrote. I acknowledged that I am not "the sole arbiter of how Wikipedia does or does not work" and invited you to solicit the opinions of other experienced editors. Are you actually reading my sentences, or are you picking out random phrases to criticize out-of-context? —David Levy 03:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does this comment really touch on anything we have discussed. The examples you give are set as software defaults by Wikipedia sysops.

Our software defaults are programmed by MediaWiki developers, not by Wikipedia sysops. (You can take my word on that one, given the fact that I am a Wikipedia sysop.) Of course, a MediaWiki developer can also be a Wikipedia sysop, but that has no bearing on the software defaults. —David Levy 04:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, utterly irrelevant to this discussion. dryguy 04:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Irrespective of the validity of my analogy, your incorrect believe that Wikipedia sysops set the software defaults demonstrated your relative unfamiliarity with how Wikipedia works. —David Levy 03:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki allows the sysops to change the default settings that were set by the developers. Even if the sysops leave the defaults in place, that is the sysops choice, not the developers. To the user, those appear to be the Wikipedia defaults. dryguy 14:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki allows the sysops to change the default settings that were set by the developers. Even if the sysops leave the defaults in place, that is the sysops choice, not the developers.

It is not a sysop right to determine Wikipedia's appearance. We possess the technical capability to make such changes, but it's our responsibility to do so as community consensus dictates. (We can be "bold" in areas where such opinions have not been expressed, but we must respond appropriately to whatever reaction occurs.)

To the user, those appear to be the Wikipedia defaults.

Perhaps so, but it's incorrect to state that these traits are "set as software defaults by Wikipedia sysops." —David Levy 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When changes are made, they are set by Wikipedia sysops, even if that is in response to community based consensus. dryguy 16:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. —David Levy 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is one of the discussions I was thinking of in which no consensus was reached. Again, I was not acting "unilaterally", but I was definitely removing a restriction to which I object, and for which there is no consensus. dryguy 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're pointing to a lack of consensus regarding a correct location for all article status templates. Again, discussions have occurred on the talk pages of individual templates, some of which do belong on talk pages (and are configured/documented accordingly). —David Levy 01:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tags are a subset of all meta tags. So far, you haven't cited any specific discussion that would convince me of your claim that there is consensus regarding the location of any cleanup tags, much less all of them. Anyway, if you are arguing that the discussion for all tags is not related to the discussion for a specific subset, then why do you also argue that if discussion for some cleanup tags indicates they belong on the article pages, then it follows that all cleanup tags belong on the article pages? dryguy 01:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no such claim! As I plainly stated above, some of these templates do belong on talk pages. The wording that you modified merely refers to the default location (if none is specified for a particular template).

As it stands, most of the cleanup templates are configured for placement within articles (with talk page links and non-talk page coloring, which render them inappropriate for use on talk pages). If you believe that a particular tag belongs on talk pages instead, you're welcome to propose such a change. —David Levy 02:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely going by your edit, which specifically says "Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article" and your comments above. You even put all in bold. dryguy 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm merely going by your edit, which specifically says "Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article" and your comments above.

Yes, unless otherwise noted. How does that contradict what I wrote above?

You even put all in bold.

Yes, I added extra emphasis to my acknowledgement that there is no consensus regarding a correct location for "all article status templates." I then noted in the following sentence that some of the templates "belong on talk pages." —David Levy 03:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that isn't what you meant, then would you accept the following changes to Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup:

Current: "The following tags should be added to the articles needing cleanup. Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article. Some tags have alternate versions that apply to situations of greater specificity."

Proposed: "The following tags should be added to the articles needing cleanup, as noted in the instructions for each specific tag. Some tags have alternate versions that apply to situations of greater specificity." dryguy 02:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would force us to add otherwise redundant instructions for dozens of tags. Most of them are configured for use at the tops of articles, so I don't understand your objection to the current wording. —David Levy 03:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is instruction creep. It prescribes a universal solution of putting a tag at the top of an article page as the default, when this is often not the best solution. Also, based on various discussions regarding meta tags, one of which I cited (there are others, but I don't have time for further discussion tonight, so I can't look them up now), there is significant opposition to certain uses of metatags on article pages. dryguy 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is instruction creep. It prescribes a universal solution of putting a tag at the top of an article page as the default, when this is often not the best solution.

It isn't instruction creep. It's practical wording that eliminates the need for us to include otherwise redundant instructions for dozens of tags. More importantly, it eliminates the need for people to read otherwise redundant instructions for dozens of tags. If no such notations are included, they can simply assume that the template is configured for use at the tops of articles (as most of them are). In cases where this is "not the best solution," we can include notations to the contrary.

Also, based on various discussions regarding meta tags, one of which I cited (there are others, but I don't have time for further discussion tonight, so I can't look them up now), there is significant opposition to certain uses of metatags on article pages.

Again, you've cited evidence of a lack of consensus for establishing one blanket location for all article status tags. That doesn't mean that there isn't consensus for the locations of any. As it stands, most of them are configured for placement at the tops of articles. They lack talk page template coloring (which was determined via formal voting, incidentally), and they contain links to the talk pages (which become nonfunctional when the templates are placed on the talk pages). Again, you're welcome to propose reconfiguring any specific template(s) that you believe should be moved from articles to talk pages, but the current pattern of use is overwhelming. That's consensus. —David Levy 04:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. I will try and look up that vote, but I'm not yet convinced. dryguy 04:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What aren't you convinced of? —David Levy 03:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly: they add clutter to articles which is minimized if they are put in talk space, they are often added and rarely removed (as evidenced by their growth rate, indicating they aren't often causing articles to comply with the tags' various requests), and they usually contribute to poor layout of articles in which they are used. Have a great evening (or morning, or whatever)! dryguy 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Your "clutter" and "layout" arguments are one and the same. It's frequently noted that matters of aesthetics are outweighed by the importance of bringing cleanup issues to readers' attention. Of course, less urgent issues typically receive smaller templates.

2. The template growth rate can be attributed to Wikipedia's growth rate. (More articles = more articles in need of cleanup.) But if an issue does remain unresolved, it remains important for readers to be made aware of it (whether it's a deficiency or the existence of a similar article with which a merger has been suggested).

3. Despite having written the above, I'm not really here to debate this. The point is that a clear consensus exists (as evidenced by the manner in which the tags typically are used). You're entitled to disagree with the consensus, you aren't entitled to disregard it. —David Levy 04:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you aren't open to debate, I don't know why you stay at Wikipedia, because debate is essential for forming consensus. You instead stick to the claim that consensus supprts you (even though you are unable to demonstrate it by citing a discussion where said consensus was achieved. Silence!=Assent). Since you really don't seem interested in working toward consensus (as evidenced by your comment about not wanting to debate), I may take this discussion to a broader forum than our talk pages at some point in the future when I have the time. I'm unlikely to reply further here, unless you express some desire to hash out a more inclusive solution. dryguy 04:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you aren't open to debate, I don't know why you stay at Wikipedia, because debate is essential for forming consensus.

I didn't say that I'm not open to debate, and I'll ask you kindly to please stop distorting my comments. I stated that "I'm not really here to debate this," meaning that my purpose for writing this is not to argue that a particular viewpoint is correct. I'm merely pointing out that a particular viewpoint (irrespective of its wisdom) is backed by consensus.

You instead stick to the claim that consensus supprts you (even though you are unable to demonstrate it by citing a discussion where said consensus was achieved. Silence!=Assent).

No matter how many times you claim that consensus cannot be achieved without explicit discussion, it still won't be true.

I've plainly stated that there is no consensus regarding a correct location for all of these templates, and I don't believe that there should be one. I don't understand, however, how you can dispute the fact that most (not all, but most) of them usually are placed in articles. This has been true for quite some time, and the advice in question remained on the page for 20 months until you altered it. I'd still like you to explain why you choose to ignore this time span while citing the 20 days that your version remained as evidence of acceptance.

If you want me to cite an example of a discussion that determined some of the templates' placement, see this page.

Since you really don't seem interested in working toward consensus (as evidenced by your comment about not wanting to debate), I may take this discussion to a broader forum than our talk pages at some point in the future when I have the time.

1. It's entirely unreasonable for one editor who objects to a widely accepted practice to demand that others "work toward consensus." There already is consensus, and the fact that a minority of users objects doesn't change that fact.

2. Having said that, it is possible for consensus to change. You absolutely are entitled to initiate a discussion in a broader forum, and you might succeed in forging a new consensus. Until then, please respect the existing one. Thank you. —David Levy 03:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ignore you when you pointed out the previous 20 month time span. I acknowledged the previous 20 month time span with my comment above: "You are correct that I made the change in November." And yes, I read your comments. Are you reading mine? I do respect consensus - I came to you to find out your opinion didn't I? I haven't changed the page since I began discussing this with you have I? (Even though I don't agree that you have demonstrated there was a "longstanding consensus" for your version, only longstanding inactivity.) I have no wish to distort your comments, only to understand your point of view. I thank you for your clarifications, but we may simply have to disagree on this issue of "longstanding consensus" for now. In any event, I have no plans to change the page since I am aware that you so strongly disagree, until such time as a broader discussion sheds light on what the true consensus may be. Thank you for pointing me to the discussion about template placement. dryguy 13:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You implicitly acknowledged that the 20-month time span existed, but you disregarded its relevance (despite citing the 20 days that your version remained as evidence of acceptance). In other words, you haven't explained how advice lacking consensus managed to remain in place for 20 months. Such text van be overlooked for 20 days (as I did with your changes), but 20 months is very long in wiki-time.

2. I'm not citing this as the sole evidence of consensus. I've directed you to some discussions, but the clearest proof is the simple fact that most of these templates are configured for placement in articles and used accordingly. That isn't a matter of opinion.

3. Thank you for discussing this matter and not reverting. I do appreciate that (and I certainly wouldn't accuse you of edit-warring). —David Levy 15:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't disregarded anything, I just don't agree with you. As you acknowledge, I am respecting your concerns despite our disagreements. dryguy 16:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't disregarded anything, I just don't agree with you.

You haven't provided your reasoning behind the disagreement in question. You cited the 20 days that your version remained as evidence of acceptance, and you haven't explained why it's unreasonable to draw the same conclusion from the fact that the previous advice remained for 20 months.

As you acknowledge, I am respecting your concerns despite our disagreements.

Thanks again for that. —David Levy 16:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have given your point by point rebuttals to my reasons several times. How can you say I haven't provided my reasoning? dryguy 16:27, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that. I said that that you haven't provided your reasoning behind one specific disagreement. —David Levy 16:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made this statement "Somone removed the language about talk pages on December 10. I don't see how that constitutes longstanding consensus," in reply to your comment "It is a long-standing, well-established, discussion-backed convention." I did not make the argument that 20 days is evidence of acceptance, I was only questioning why you said it was long-standing. You later clarified that a previous version existed for 20 months, which I have acknowledged. I have never made the argument that edit duration is an indicator of consensus. dryguy 16:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the following:

"This was the reason for my edit of [November] 20, 2006. As to the claim that I did so 'unilaterally'; this edit has gone without change or comment until it was removed for consistency with Wikipedia:Cleanup resources. You are the first to object to my edit on the basis of its actual content."

Also, my "long-standing" remark described the convention itself, not the documentation that appeared on that page. —David Levy 17:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point there was that I was not acting unilaterally. In other words, I was not somehow forcing my changes to remain for those 20 days; they remained because no one else made changes. When a change was made, the reason given was consistency. Until you came along, no one had explicitly voiced objection to the content. When you did so I approached you to find out why. None of this is "unilateral" on my part. I have not ever asserted that your changes overturned some form of "silent consensus" that was established in those 20 days. dryguy 17:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be applying an incorrect definition of the word "unilateral." It is not synonymous with the word "dictatorial." I only meant that you, alone, decided to alter long-standing instructions (without first discussing this with anyone else). —David Levy 17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the definition of unilateral, and I also know that it is commonly used in the context of dictatorial actions. If I inferred something you didn't intend, then disregard my arguments against the unjustified inference. I already pointed you to some of the discussions in which others have voiced objection to meta-tags on article pages. I am not alone in my opinion, which is another reason why I object to the term "unilateral." dryguy 17:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You've correctly demonstrated that there is no consensus regarding a single correct location for all article status templates. This, however, is not what the text in question prescribed.

2. Again, "consensus" does not mean "unanimous agreement." There certainly are people who agree with you, but there's a big difference between disagreeing with consensus and deciding to override it. It was the latter act that you undertook unilaterally. (I realize that you dispute the existence of said consensus.) —David Levy 20:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your relentless, aggressive, point-by-point attempts to refute even the tiniest detail of my efforts to explain my reasoning is really becoming very tiresome. I wished to explain my position to you and understand your own. I think both missions are accomplished, even if we continue to disagree. It is not necessary for you to continue - it isn't winning me over, and is really beginning to border on harrassment. dryguy 20:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and I have been responding to one another, and suddenly my posts "border on harassment"? This exchange has been as frustrating for me as it evidently has been for you (given your continual misunderstanding/misrepresentation of my comments, which forced me to reiterate and clarify them numerous times), but I've persisted as a courtesy (because ignoring your concerns would have been rude). I'm taken aback by your accusation of bad-faith, but I shall honor your request to end this discussion (provided that you act in kind). —David Levy 22:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orange and green marbles

Hi. Your orange and green marble question is best (IMO) opinion answered by appeal to likelihood. Suppose you observe $a$ green marbles and $b$ orange ones. The likelihood of $p$ , the probability of the machine producing an orange one, is $p^{a}(1-p)^{b}$ . Note that this formula applies to $a=b=0$ . If either a or b is greater than zero, one can then give a best estimate by reporting the maximum likelihood (this would be $a/(a+b)$ . This is superior to the Bayesian approach because it explicitly makes no assumptions about $p$ .

HTH, Robinh 20:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Captain Obvious

An article that you have been involved in editing, Captain Obvious, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Captain Obvious (3rd nomination). Thank you. lk (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of User page

I have nominated User page, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/User page. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Sandstein 11:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]