User talk:Bohunk

Welcome!

Hello, Bohunk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! RJFJR 16:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geostatistics

I'd like to get involved, but I don't have the time right now to edit it properly (or fight an ongoing war with a crank). Sorry. You might try asking all the people who have made comments on User_talk:JanWMerks. You could also look through his article edits to see what other articles he's been going at. Doubtless he has annoyed editors of other articles. You might try contacting them too. Best of luck. Lunch 19:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it about time to contact a prominent geostatistical scholar engaged as an Associate Editor with the Journal for Mathematial Geology such as Armstrong, Journel, or Krige, and complete the text for Geostatistics? What else do they have to lose? They lost the variance of the distance-weighted average already! JWM. --Iconoclast 15:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy Bohunk & Lunch, You need not make time to edit geostatistics because the junk science of assuming spatial dependence and interpolation without justification is beyond salvation. The war is over, IAMG's brass and JMG's brains are wrong, and the crank is right. My questions are simple and the geostatocracy is silent. What happened to the variance of the single distance-weighted average? Where have all the degrees of freedom gone? Why assume rather than verify spatial dependence? Why not talk to Journel and find out what's wrong with "classical Fischerian (sic!) statistics"? JWM. --Iconoclast 23:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will read up on your arguments/references when I have time, but these will not be presented in the form to which you gravitate. Note the fact that most people do not argue directly with your statements, their POV (of which you ought to be familiar) is primarily adverse to the antagonistic context of your entries, surely you recognize their unencyclopedic nature. In any case, you must also recognize that I have not spent my time recklessly deleting your entries, I have simply attempted to approach the issue from an objective perspective, and believe that most of my edits reflect this. Most people who read this article probably dont have your level of understanding of the topic, but anyone can recognize your distaste; perhaps you should collaborate elsewhere, as those of us who desire to create an intelligent article do not need the assistance of someone who believes that the topic lacks all intelligence.

As of now, there are a few more people who have contributed to the article, these things take time though. I have been approaching people with math backgrounds as well as professors, however they are not able to commit always, and this topic is not the most interesting. I do believe that geostatistics presents some problems, however I feel that it is a viable and accurate method, used for the analysis of many environmental, economic, urban, and logistical problems. SCmurky 01:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time I asked a famous professor emeritus of mathematicics how he would feel about a variant of mathematical statistics where degrees of freedom are no longer relevant. His response was, "But without degrees of freedom statistical inferences are impossible." Please peruse what Stanford's Journel wrote to JMG's Editor, when he wrote, and what the latter wrote to me. I've a profound distaste for scholars such as Armstrong, Clark, Journel, Krige, and scores of others who cannot concede that each distance-weighted average has its own variance. JWM.--Iconoclast 16:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Topology Rules Poster.pdf

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Fair use rationale for Image:Topology Rules Poster copy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Topology Rules Poster copy.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geography Wikiproject

I thought you might be interested in helping Wikipedia:WikiProject_Geography If so, just add your name to the page. Thanks AlexD 11:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geography is now the COTF

You showed support for Amazon rainforest at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.

Talk:Canadian current events

WARING: Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Mkdw ^talk 10:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics Lab

I saw your name listed on Wikiproject Illustration or the list of graphic artists, and I thought I'd let you know that a Graphics Lab has been created on EN. Based on the highly successful French and German graphics labs, it seeks to better organise and coordinate our graphic design and photo-editing efforts. Up until now, there has been no common space on EN where users could ask for maps, charts and other SVG files to be created. What's more, the Graphics Lab has discussion boards, tips, tools and links; in sum, a good common workspace. Come help us out! The infrastucture is already in place, and now we need participants. :) --Zantastik talk 01:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Della Falls/Hunlen Falls

reply on my talk page.Skookum1 03:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice requested

I've been attempting to overview and tidy up the geography cats which involve the places where people live. From the top level down to local neighbourhoods. There has been some overlapping and various mis-routings. It's been interesting looking at it all. However, there appear to be two useful ways of doing it - by region, and by size. And these can operate side by side quite usefully. The by region isn't a problem. But the by size has become difficult because User:Hmains wishes to use the term settlements to cover all sizes of communities, and has altered dictionary definitions [1] to fit his own understanding of the term - [2]. Community appears to be the term used most often to describe the places where people live, regardless of size. This is the definition of community - [3]. I did some sorting, placing the cat Human communities under Human geography. Human communities splitting into Urban geography and Rural geography. And those splitting into appropriate sized communities - cities, districts, neighbourhoods, villages, settlements, etc. Hmains has reverted much of my work, and insists on settlements being the term we should use - basing it on this decision, which was a declined proposal to rename Settlements by region to Populated places by region. What do you think? Is settlement an acceptable term for covering human communities ranging from well established cities down to refuge camps. Is Human community a viable alternative? Are there other choices (apart from populated places of course!)? I have started a discussion here and here, with the above wording, but no response as yet. Am I doing the right thing? SilkTork 19:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion taking place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (settlements)#Settlements SilkTork 11:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kriging

Hello!

I've originally visited the kriging page several months ago, looking for useful information (Specifically, I wanted to implement kriging in a Fortran program to interpolate unordered elevation data). The page struck me as being chaotic and going off at a tangent; little specific information on the kriging technique was provided, but there was a lot of vituperative wrangling against geostatistics.

I complained on the talk page and waited a long time for the article to improve. I revisited the article periodically, read the talk page and related user talk pages closely (JanWMerks and Merksmatrix in particular), and came to the conclusion that the reason the article is so wretched is because it is under continuous attack by a father-and-son team of cranks, who disrupt any constructive work with their own unsubstantiated agenda.

In order to give bona-fide editors like you more breathing space, I recommend that this matter be given due process under Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Specifically, I propose that a request for help be filed under AMA Requests for Assistance, as a first step. Perhaps the Advocate will be able to guide us in the steps that need to be taken to stop the disruptive behavior. My ultimate goal is Article probation. I am fed up with the cranks. Aren't you?

Please let me know what you think at my talk page. I sent this message to Hike395, Michael Hardy, Vsmith, SCmurky, Antro5, Nvj and Berland, as these names appear a number of times in the discussions. Freederick 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been pretty active with the geostats article, not so much lately however. The geostats article is constantly being revised by these guys, but the issues they raise are repeated over and over. Kriging is an aspect of geostats which is simply a type of interpolation, the only difference from the distance-weighted algorithm is in the presence of statistical measures for standard deviation (standard distance), variance, and potential error; variance is presented as semi-variance due to the geographical aspects of spatial information. My view is that this argument is dead, no further attention needs to be paid to the issues that JanWMerks raises, as this logic may be applied to all statistics, in that they may be abused. We do not need dispute resolution, I've already spent loads of time attempting to find consensus... Instead, I propose you do what I've done with the geostats article, and add so much relevant material, that the controversy section provided by Jan is relegated to an insignificant portion of the end of the article. I still need to do lots of work on the geostats article though... SCmurky 02:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“I've already spent loads of time attempting to find consensus...” That's my point exactly: you're wasting time in futile discussion and reverting, rather than doing constructive edits. In view of this statement (and many others in similar vein), further discussion is IMHO pointless. That's why I'm pushing towards Article probation, so that constructive work may be done instead. But in order to obtain article probation for the Merkses, due process must be followed, as I suggested above.

“I propose you do what I've done with the geostats article, and add so much relevant material...” I cannot, for the simple reason that I know very little about kriging. As a matter of fact, I was hoping to learn the basics of kriging from this very article, which is why this sordid stalemate infuriates me so much. Freederick 08:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Topology Rules Poster copy.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Topology Rules Poster copy.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Addhoc 23:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Uvic crest.jpg

Hello, Bohunk. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Uvic crest.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Bohunk. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 10:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Me me.jpg

Hi. When you uploaded Image:Me me.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 07:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics Lab Announcement

Attention All Wikigraphists!

A new Wikigraphist Abilities Page has been created within the Graphics Lab so graphists can specify their graphics skills. To add your entry to the page, simply go the template documentation page and follow the instructions there. If you have any trouble please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Have Fun !

> Rugby471 ^talk ⚔

Help?:)

Hello I am working on a ethnic wiki and I am writing on race and human body so I wonder if you can draw those breasts separately every each size you see on the picture I posted, very appreciate it and thanks in advance. Nick10000 02:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics Lab Announcement

Attention All Wikigraphists!

As you may or may have not noticed, the Graphics Lab pages have gone under a massive cleanup by User:DTR, User:Rugby471 and various others (sorry if I missed you out). Some of the things that have happened are.

All pages in the Graphics Lab have had, where sensible, templates, substituting elements. For example, the main Lab page was a large chunk of around 100 lines of pure code. It was not very easy to edit the main page, so the various sections of it (eg links, welcome) have been separated. Therefore the main page is now only around 20 lines of user friendly text. If you wish to edit the main page, you must look on the main page for the correct template to edit. (Fore example if I wanted to edit the links section, I would go to Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/links and edit the text there). This has been done to all of the pages, in an attempt to make them more user-friendly.

As you were notified of early, the Wikigraphist Abilities page has been set up and has been beginning to get populated. If you haven't already setup your own entry, you are advised to go and do so now.

Due to a comment from User:DTR. A template for Graphics Lab announcements has been created. It is at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/announcement. If you ever need to issue a message to Wikigraphists, please use this template in the form

{{Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/announcement|message ~~~~}}

Where message is the announcement you wish to issue.

On the Images to Improve Page, an issue was noticed where that when requests were completed, people were adding {{Did}} but forgetting to add <!--werdnabot-archive--&gt so that the request would be archived. Therefore a template has been created (yes another one!) to help with this. When a user creates a new request instead of putting the usual code, they shall put

{{Request Title|title=Lorem Ipsum|done=false}}. Now when a request is completed, all you will have to do is change done to true

done=true

and the template will add the {{did}} template and also  to the title, so it will get archived.

As always, if you experience any issues with the new changes, or are just a bit confused, please don't hesitate to contact me or DTR on our talk pages.

> Rugby471 ^talk ⚔ 11:30, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Justin Katch/233stats

A tag has been placed on Justin Katch/233stats requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. скоморохъ 04:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is, however, another Wikimedia Foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading your media there instead. That way, all of the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!--O s a m a K 01:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability - Places

As a member of WP:GEOGRAPHY, I would appreciate your views on the discussion I've started at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(Geographic_locations)#Using_an_Atlas_as_a_source_for_notability Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 13:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need your help...

...at the Geography WikiProject, cuz we're working on something BIG...

For the past several months, work has been underway to develop a set of country outlines, and now they are getting close to being ready to move to article space. There's over two hundred of them, so when the move takes place it will be a pretty big event.

I and a few others have been working on 3 fronts:

On the 28 country outlines that have already been moved to article space to complete them so they will be the best examples that they can be for editors working on the rest of the set.
Adding or correcting other data (fixing redlinks, filling in blanks, etc.) in the overall set. This is the main type of work participants in our upcoming contest will be doing (Penubag is hard at work creating awards for this, and they look great!). The reason we're doing some of this work now is to get a feel for it, to develop the fastest methods for each type of task so as to best direct contestants on what to do.
Improving the overall design and implenting changes on all 247 pages, whether in article space or not.

The main thing that needs to be done to the outlines so that they can be moved to article space is correct and complete the government branches sections, many of which include incorrect information that was placed there as temporary data by a template when these pages were created (in order to match the most countries and cut down on the work load). But there are plenty of other tasks too.

We're looking for editors who love to work on lots of pages fast, and who use or would like to use advanced tools like AWB and Linky. Most of the tasks entail working on a specific item on all of the pages in the set.

We're having a blast, but we're spread pretty thin and could sure use your help.

If you'd like to get more involved in Wikipedia than you are now (this is a rigorous project) and join in on the fun, drop me a note.

The Transhumanist 01:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:ICIS Logo Scalable.svg

Thanks for uploading File:ICIS Logo Scalable.svg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

prod warning

Proposed deletion of Geospatial topology

The article Geospatial topology has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No meaningful content to say what "Geospatial topology" is and to distinguish it from "topology". Mostly a set of disconnected non-sentences. No attempt to clean-up for substantial period.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Melcombe (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 10

The Interior cordially invites you to the Vancouver Wikipedia 10th Anniversary Meetup! It is being held at Benny's Bagels at 2505 W Broadway. Meetup will start at 6:30pm. Drop by for some Wikipedia-style conviviality and free gear! Feel free to forward this invitation to any Wikipedians who might be able to attend, and visit the discussion page to suggest activities. Hope to see you there and have a Happy 2011!

hello and introduction

i sincerely hope i am doing the right thing.. the help page said to leave you a message here, but this feels more like scribbling on your walls... is there a message button i missed?

i created an account on wikip expressly for the purpose of contacting you, after finding this paper by accident.

it grabbed my attention from the start, in the sense that i am still trying to work out why i cannot (apparently, legally, but to date nobody has been able to quote actual legislation) be permitted to recreate at least the modern equivalent of a lifestyle within the original aboriginal rules, somewhere in coastal bc, somehow.

my approach is highly disorganized, a behaviour i defend as organic, and the only introduction i can think to offer is the following - http://rewindustry.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/a-letter-in-reply-to-my-mla/ - which is far too much to expect anyone to read through in it's entirety, but comprises the last of a whole series of essays, short and long, i have placed before everyone i can reach, here on the sunshine coast, where i live, in an attempt to discover an opportunity to practice what i know, and believe i can prove, is true, appropriate, and should be a fundamental human right.

my approach does not work. i am still living in a trailer park, afraid to commit myself to the option of becoming an outlaw.

the advice i get, on the ground, is "just go do it".

in reality i need some kind of permission, but i have the impression nobody can give it, and this is one of those places where the legislature sort of vanishes up it's own rhetoric - all i ever seem to get from government is bluster.

would you happen to have any advice to offer?

edited to add that having read further into your paper, and having re-appraised my own ramble, i realise it argues for what might seem to be an agrarian approach, whereas my intention is rather more that of an opportunistic permaculturalist (we already live in a forest, but it would be nice if it were a little more fruitful) and the livestock i am talking about are creatures of benefit to permaculture, in that appropriate livestock, properly managed, are better at improving the soil than man was ever designed to be. hunter/gatherer man is, and always will be, THE keystone species - there can be no denying this.

i also note that this page has not been edited since 2008, and i wonder if i am perhaps talking to myself here. if no response in a month or so, i will attempt to delete this message, otherwise am desperate for an opportunity to overturn all six of the objections listed in the paper, and may be tempted to do so here, in the near future.

rewindustry - renewable energy works 04:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]