Template:Archive box collapsible

I just proposed Binomial regression for deletion and noticed that you were the only other editor with a significant contribution, so I thought I would warn you. (The contribution is in this series of edits.) My concern is that it is not well written (and has been that way for more than a year), and the material is better covered at the well edited Generalized_linear_model#Binomial_data. I guess that if that section became too cumbersome for that page, we could move it to its own page. Cheers, PDBailey (talk) 22:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I'll take a look. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to our discussion on the NPOV policy talk page, I have posted a draft revision for the Undue section and would value your feedback. Cheers, Jayen466 23:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to be bold and rewrite Calculus on the Simple English wikipedia (which I note at one stage you'd considered doing), but due to offline factors have had to put it on hold for a couple of weeks until I have more time. If you have a spare moment could you have a look at the section on differential calculus in the article and see if it could be better summarised (as a separate article exists for it)? If you have any other suggestions or improvements that would be great. Thanks. Orderinchaos 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look, and I'd say it seems a little not so simple, but I like the structure. There is a stand-alone differential calculus article there, but it is basically a copy of the section, with additional computational sections. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood (said otherwise, your judgement was too rash): these were the vandalism reversions I referred to: [1] - [2] - [3]. Plain vandalism - which is something different than the sockpuppet abuse accusation made by Jmcc150 on the talk page (which was inappropriate there and was reverted by me, indicating that the 196.205.143.209 edits on the project page had been treated as plain vandalism, but that it is inappropriate to jump to a sockpuppet abuse accusation from there without a CU report). --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see -- the topic of Jmcc's post was about vandalism, but the post itself was misplaced, or something like that. My sincere apologies for the misunderstanding :) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 20:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Baccyak4H, We are looking for help on the Pope John Paul II article in order to improve it and raise it to ‘Good Article’ and eventually ‘Featured Article’ status. So, I though I would invite you to take a look. Any help would be much appreciated. Kind Regards Marek.69 ^talk 02:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look if I have a few spare minutes, but alas these days I cannot guarantee too much attention. But regardless, thanks for the heads-up. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 05:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral. Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board. Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better. Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denbot (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I have given the Judaism section a big expansion, included a lot more stuff like the Synagogue visits, Auschwitz, Good Friday Prayer, Pius XII's canonisation and hopefully made the section more encyclopaedic. (I think the section still gives to much weight to Williamson...the real issue between Jews and the Vatican is Pius XII) Tell me what you think! Gavin (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I agree with your analysis about those topics and that the main issue now is the prose is so disjointed: it looks like it was written by many different writers :-) I'll be in and out for a while and I'll keep my eyes on it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from [[:{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Says on deletion page to notify you as original objector of this.

"Lives" is a genuine card game that may not be as well known outside of the country but noetheless is important to its players. Other such card games are referenced already in Wikipedia (e.g. Irish Snap) and article is rewritten from its initial version which was admittedly poor and amateur. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.129.64.244 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the note. I know nothing of the topic, but the style of the article was similar to many that people write when they really aren't being serious. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not very democratic in my opinion. How can you comment on a card game when you know absolutely nothing about it. Do you live in Dublin? Do you know that this game does not exist? I would guess No to both. How can I get this back online?Cardsclub (talk) 14:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were about the article, and only that. Feel free to improve the article -- it is pretty evident what is needed to do that (third party reliable sources demonstrating its notability). Let my know if you do, as well as the discussants at the AfD. People's opinions can change with the article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articel has since been deleted thanks to you. I did improve it and it was still deleted. Can you re-post it back up. Do you want me to name articles on wikipedia without reference. Are you going to delete all these as well? Should keep you busy for a while I would guess. Let me know if you will put the article back up. 212.129.64.244 (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it, nor could I by myself, merely brought it to others' attention, and I do not have the authority to undelete it. If you find any article without references, you can put "{{references}}" at the top; Lives was deleted not only because it had no references, but also because neither I nor at least one other editor could find any mention of it online. This strongly suggests that no references exist, at least online, to use at all. If you believe that to be the case about an unreferenced article, than deletion is indeed a plausible suggestion.

But here is what you can do. Start writing the page User:Cardsclub/Lives, and include references to good sources. Newspaper articles about local Lives clubs, books about card games, "According to Hoyle" or similar which have chapters on the game, or similar, are good examples. Once you have that, drop me a line and I'll provide some feedback. (Don't think you need to ask only me. You can solicit any editor you want; not all may respond but most know what a decently sourced article looks like.)

I apologize that your first experience has been as rocky as it has been, just please understand that writing about a card game where people "die" and whose rules are made up by what sounded to be descriptions of one's nonnotable friends does not endear you to those trying to write a respectable reference work. So take a few moments to get aquainted with how the project works; you'll find your experiences here much more rewarding. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed your recent edits to Yanni-related articles and just wondered if you had an opinion as to the inclusion of this article for deletion? ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, just on a gnomish whim there, so no big interest, but I'll have a look. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and appreciate your expertise, one way or the other. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 01:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		I hereby present you with this barnstar in appreciation of your efforts to improve the Greenwich Village article. Keep up the good work! JBC3 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned this up and down graded to a PROD, but only because of the extensive filmography at IMDB. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. You actually ECed with me trying to do almost exactly what you did, per the creator's statement on the talk page. The online scavenger hunt thing got me going, but clearly there may be a salvageable bio here. Good job. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on adding references to the page.THD3 (talk) 13:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, saw it patrolling Newpages, clearly not speedily nonnotable but that type of content needs to be impeccably sourced. Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

A new editor has unilaterally made many drastic changes to the article Introduction_to_quantum_mechanics to which you have made contributions. I do not think that the changes are desirable. I do not want to start an edit war. Could you please have a look at it? Thanks. P0M (talk)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll have a look over the next few days. I will disclaim that I view "Introduction to..." type articles as editorial platypuses, as they seem in principle superfluous to the project (cf., Simple wikipedia). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. P0M (talk) 23:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a rewrite I have started.[[4]] It only concerns the material to be explained up to and including Heisenberg. It's still a little rough, and I would fix a couple of things except that I have to deliver somebody to an airport 45 minutes away and the lady wants me on her doorstep within the next two hours. (It's now 2:15 a.m.)

I would like to add one graphic element for each of the mysteries, starting with a helium light tube delivering (what appears to be) red light, a prism, and the bright line spectrum.

I wrote this all from memory, so I need to do some fact checking. When I wrote it a couple days ago I thought it looked pretty flat. Maybe it is not quite as leaden as I thought. Anyway, that is a question of style and editing for "snap." It is the ideas that were driving people like Heisenberg nuts in the early 1920s that we have to get across.

Thanks.

P0M (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pope Benedict XVI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could have a look what I've written after you added a comment to the area I started on RCC discussion, I would appreciate it. I think the change I'm proposing is a very important one. The page should read properly and not over-reach. It is less of a change than I think is warranted but at a minimum, it is a necessary change ... i.e., I propose simply changing the line from "the continuation" to "a continuation" ... the quotes given clearly do not comment on the Church being the only Church descended from that line. I would argue more strongly that no historian, secular or otherwise could have a historical opinion on whether there is one true descendant Church as this is a matter of belief, textual interpretation and tradition, not of verifiable historic facts. The page should not be suggesting in any way, that historians or scientists or whomever, have verified that the RCC has some primacy over other Catholic Churches. As I have said repeatedly, there is nothing wrong with stating in as strong a way as members of the church want to, that they believe in the primacy of the Church and if they like, their evidence for it, but it must be stated as a belief. Stating or implying that this is a view verified by those with no ties to the Church should be avoided at all times. I do not believe that most editors wish to say this by the way, perhaps none do and it is an accidental construct. I do understand that this page attracts a lot of antagonists and it can be difficult to see when new people to the discussion are trying to be helpful not antagonistic so I am trying to work through that phase of my relationship to the page. BobKawanaka (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads-up Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed my listing of QuatView from the list of quaternion software programs on June 5, 2009 and that the reasons for your removal were "possible conflict of interest" and "rv promotional content". Could you please elaborate more on these reasons for removel. After reading the wikipedia pillars I see no conflict of interest or promotional content as compared to the other pieces of softare on the list, one of which promotes matlab and another (Euler Quaternion Pro) takes you to an advertisment-filled website asking for "donations" as payment for the program.

Please note the following:

1) QuatView includes no advertising or endorsement of any company or product 2) QuatView is purely a mathematical tool for education 3) QuatView does not promote anything and has no interest in anything other than viewing and converting quaternions. 4) QuatView is completely free and makes no request for any donations of any kind

I would be most appreciatieve if you could be so kind as to inform me of the basis for your determination that QuatView is not suitable for inclusion on the quaternion software list. In addition, if applicable, could you please provide me with any modifications or corrections to QuatView or its documentation that you feel would make QuatView suitable for inclusing on the software list.

Thanks,

TobyNorris (talk) 21:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toby. Sure, my reaction actually was quite simple. The link to the site had the same name as that of the editor who added the link, I believe yourself. While not an ironclad rule, most often in situations like that historically, that type of addition is a case of an editor trying to help, saying "I just made this, let me mention it in the appropriate wikipedia article so people can find out about it", but missing the fact that most such products are not notable, and thus allowing any such products would overwhelm the article on account of there being so many.

The relevant criteria I used to delete the link was this one about links to sites one owns, as well as (to a lesser extent) this one which would apply if the project accepted all such links to such products. The conflict of interest comment was meant merely to show editors looking at my edit that it was the common name in the link and of the editor which influenced my edit.

I admit that is the extent of my reasons, and that my actions may have not been ideal. Here is a suggestion. Bring up the same stuff you told me on its talk page. If what you say is true about the other links, there should be little objection to removing them. It would really help if you could provide mentions of your product or site in other sources such as textbooks, training manuals, and the like, to demonstrate that that product/site is somewhat widely known and used by people with an interest in quaternions. But an important point, please be sure to describe your affiliation/relation with the site/product up front on the talk page. Then, if you have a point, other editors will agree and someone else can make the desired change. That type of discussion is the way such cases should be handled as it prevents a conflict of interest, or even the appearance of it (if the product is free, etc.). See its page for further details. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sum of two uniforms should not be included as a special case of the Irwin–Hall distribution, but clearly it only makes sense when we sum two distributions with the same support size (b - a) - otherwise it's a distribution whose pdf is piecewise linear, and there's no name (AFAIK) for it. I tried to rewrite it, but I don't think it's a good text: The sum of two indepedent, equally distributed, uniform distributions yields a symmetric triangular distribution (it sounds like a generalization, but it comes short of it, because what's the point of adding two uniforms if we can't add different uniforms?). Albmont (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am OK either way. The Irwin-Hall is the sum of uniforms with the same support (apparently; I have never heard of the moniker until seeing the article), so we could write something. But I have no objection to removing the ref to the triangular, or to making it a separate note. I think I missed that subtlety when I was cleaning up. Let's have any further discussion of it at the talk page. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a courtesy note that I've mentioned your name at Talk:Clarence Thomas, in a discussion over the WP:BLP/N thread to which you contributed. Please let me know, or correct me, if I've incorrectly represented your input. Happy editing. MastCell ^Talk 00:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Yes, these [5] [6] represented my position accurately. If I had known then what I know now, I would have reworded things differently, although from reading that discussion, I wonder if it would have mattered. Aside: thanks for the plug about lacking axes. I am sure deep down that is not strictly the case, but feedback that I am keeping them to myself is both gratifying and useful. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. It occurred to me that we were arguing over what you meant without actually asking you. I've had similar experiences, where I find that people have spent 80 kb arguing over the meaning of an opinion I provided somewhere without ever asking me to clarify, so I thought I'd let you know. Although as a result, WP:CANVASSing has been added to the laundry list of charges on which I'm being indicted. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. I can't see how the canvassing charge will stick, but I'll keep an eye on things and chime in on that issue if necessary. Ironically, I wasn't even planning on following up on the article other than to clarify your mention (experience with contentious BLPs have made me once bitten, twice shy). Doubly ironically, SD's concern is not totally devoid of merit, but their behavior, which is fast approaching, if not attaining, unacceptable, might be making moving the argument in that direction even harder. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much how I feel. I think we can write a high-quality, thorough biography of Clarence Thomas without using the words "far right", and without citing Oyez.org. In my ideal article, we'd probably do neither. But it seems to me that this is not about improving the article, but about excising a source that one editor doesn't like by any means necessary. Given the erroneous and occasionally misleading nature of the arguments being employed, I'm a bit concerned that validating them will lead to additional problems further down the line. And finally, given the way things have been represented so far, I suspect that any concession I make will later be presented as: "MastCell confessed his error and agreed to stop violating BLP" rather than "MastCell and I hammered out a compromise." But such is life.

In any case, there seems to be an ongoing edit war there which I have no desire to be a part of. I'll probably wait and see what direction the editing environment takes. I thought Noroton had some good suggestions; I think that improving the article may be possible if outside editors get involved, but I strongly suspect it's a poor use of my time to engage in a lengthy one-on-one in this particular situation. MastCell ^Talk 20:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your July 13, 2009 edit of the above article where you removed the words "very nuanced" that I used to describe a Holy See document referred to in the article. Your reason you gave was "subtle OR/POV." I then looked for and found the meaning of those acronyms in Wikipedia and learned something of the relevant editing and reverting protocols. Wikipedia recommends that discussion precede reversion, so here goes.

The article originally established a very stark dichotomy between what it said the Holy See document instructed and what it said was Archbishop Dolan's position. My edit, based on a reading of the Holy See document and of the article cited in support of its description of Archbishop Dolan's position, was an attempt to reflect accurately what each of those two sources had to say about the matter. To eliminate the descriptive "very nuanced" from the referenced Holy See document does not, in my view, do justice to the thoughtful handling of a very complex subject that is evident from a reading of the full document, as opposed to the what might be inferred from a reading of only the quoted passage. Likewise, the original Wikipedia text attributed to Archbishop Dolan words not justified by the supporting citation.

As I understand the Wikipedia definitions of OR and POV, and based on a simple reading of the referenced Holy See document, the term "very nuanced" is factual and point-of-view neutral and is moreover, rather than being "OR" within the Wikipedia definition, the same term (either exactly or substantially) applied to it by most commentators. Citations in support of this last sentence are available, but since the description comes naturally to mind when reading the document, I would think they would be supererogatory rather than obligatory.

The point of my edit was to fairly attenuate the dichotomy that the original editor had, I'm sure inadvertently, through inaccurate quoting, set up between Archbishop Dolan's view and the import of the Holy See document. Your edit, in my view, had the effect of at least partially reversing that (in my view) necesary attenuation by removing from the reader the possibility of realising that the document dealt with the complexity of the issue more thoroughly that the simple quoted passed would lead one to believe.

For that reason I would think it appropriate for your edit to be reverted, or (perhaps even better) for you to propose language that you feel adequately addresses what I was attempting to convey.

Thanks very much.

Jmcrowley (talk) 08:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC) JMCrowley[reply]