User talk:Zvika/Archive6

Wikipedia:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll/Autoformatting_responses

Regarding your comments in opposition to date autoformatting, I'd like to point out that date autoformatting and date autolinking are two different issues. It's possible to have one without the other, both in the current software (with some admittedly complicated syntax) and in several proposed patches and demo systems produced by some developers working on the issue. --Sapphic (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, though I'm afraid it hasn't changed my mind. The alternative proposals for autoformatting would make the wikimarkup even more unfriendly than it is today. --Zvika (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine; I wasn't trying to change your mind (although I certainly wouldn't have been upset if you did, either!) You might want to make the same clarification to your comments on the poll page itself, since people have already started to question how we should interpret "oppose" votes that make reference to autolinking instead of autoformatting (or equivalently, markup, as you have here.) Cheers, --Sapphic (talk) 06:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already have. The original statement of the poll could have been clearer on this distinction, I suppose. Thanks for pointing this out. Zvika (talk) 07:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Linear regression

I was surprised by your edit comment in projection (linear algebra) that there is no link to that article from linear regression. Now there is. When one regresses a column vector Y onto a set of predictors, the columns of the design matrix X (typically having many more rows than columns), the "hat matrix"

H=X(X^{T}X)^{-1})X^{T}\,

is the matrix of the orthogonal projection onto the column space of X and HY is the vector of fitted values. The complementary orthogonal projection onto the orthogonal complement of the column space of X, whose matrix is I − H, applied to Y, gives the vector of residuals. The linearity of these operations makes it possible to find things like confidence intervals for regression coefficients without heavy reliance on numerical methods. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I guess I wasn't thinking clearly. I restored the anon's edit. --Zvika (talk) 16:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My user page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism. ^LeaveSleaves 14:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of knowledge project summary, and future direction

In response to a friend on Wikipedia who was wondering about how I've been and what I've been up to, I got to spewing about our little endeavor, and well, I got so carried away I pretty much told him everything. :) The message turned out to be a pretty good summary of what we've accomplished so far and the overall plan.

See User talk:The Rambling Man#What's up?

The Transhumanist 23:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not read this one - The Hunt - Outline of knowledge WikiProject - 04/17/2009

Here's a trivia question for you...

While surveying libraries, their outline-related resources, and our coverage of them, I came across something funny...

What subclass is the Bible in the Library of Congress Classification?

Do you think they'd like this one at WP:DYK?

(Nope. They didn't.) :)

Libraries

For months, I've been sitting at a terminal in one of the largest libraries in the country, and I haven't even looked around at the available resources.

Until a few days ago.

I'm overwhelmed.

When compared to libraries, Wikipedia is small. (See Digest of Education Statistics 2008, Chapter 7:Libraries and Educational Technology Libraries, and turn to page 617).

But is that a fair comparison?

Yes.

Why?

Because we have growth potential. :)

And we cover everything, including libraries!

Guess what else I found?

Hunting for outlines

I began to study libraries and librarians, since they are experts in organizing knowledge. And of course I turned to Wikipedia to see what we had on the things I came across...

And while doing so I kept running into outlines on Wikipedia that are not (yet) part of the Outline of knowledge.

When I come across non-OOK outlines, generally I rename them, and reformat them to our standard outline format. But there is the occasional exception.

Here are some outlines I just added:

List of energy topics --> Outline of energy (it converted great)
List of Dewey Decimal classes --> Outline of Dewey Decimal classes (no conversion)
Library of Congress Classification --> ??? (no rename, no conversion)

The last 2 are outlines by their very nature, and so our standard outline subheadings didn't seem to fit. So I left them as is.

I renamed the first 2, but the last one is the name of the outline, that is, the topic itself is an outline, and that outline is presented as the article's content, so I left the name as is. For now. This needs more thought.

Of course, that's not all. Concerning those last 2 outlines above...

Alternate outlines of knowledge

...not only are they outlines, but they are outlines of knowledge! Well, the top few levels, at least.

Uh, so?

What happens if we linkify them? :)

That is, what happens if we linkify their classifications to Wikipedia's outlines? :) :) :)

They become alternate top ends to the OOK

Yep.

What can you find?

I challenge you to find some "hidden" outlines.

I dare you to take a look around Wikipedia for hidden outlines (that is, outlines not yet hooked into the OOK), and add your kills to WP:WPOOK#The hunt for hidden outlines.

My trophies are already there.

May the hunt begin!

The Transhumanist 20:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews for the Signpost

Sorry I didn't follow up with you earlier regarding the Signpost reviews; I think I only noticed you signed up for the book that isn't published yet. Anyway, if you still want to review Jonathan Zittrain's book, you're welcome to do so; it seems like a pretty widely-discussed book, and I think Signpost readers would appreciate a review from a Wikipedian perspective.--ragesoss (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(replied via email) Zvika (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please explain

I understand why my post was reverted. The only problem I have with the situation is that I updated the entire Hunter Bell wiki with information on myself and my father (both named 'Hunter Bell') and those changes are now absent from the page. Why does the individual whose changes are currently reflected on the 'Hunter Bell' page have full control? The information on this page is not reflective of me and I don't want to be associated with it. Should a 'redirect' page not be created to disambiguate the Hunter Bell whose information is being displayed? Please explain this to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellhc (talk • contribs) 14:08, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand from your comment above and from your edit history that you are named Hunter Bell and that you are not the Hunter Bell about whom the article Hunter Bell is written. If you would like information about yourself to appear in Wikipedia, the first thing to do is to check whether you satisfy our notability criteria. Take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (people). Even if you think you qualify for an article in Wikipedia, we strongly discourage you from writing it yourself (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). Therefore, if after reading the above guidelines you still believe that there should be an article about yourself, please give me some more details about yourself (some secondary sources discussing your work would be a good start), and we can think about how to move on from here. Otherwise, I'm afraid there is not much to be done—quite a few people have the same name as a celebrity. Best, --Zvika (talk) 18:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple questions for you...

What are the benefits of a tree structure?

The article doesn't say.

I'm interested, because I need to explain the benefits in the guideline on outlines I'm writing. (Outlines are a type of tree structure).

I've also asked the question at various reference desks, and these threads may help to jump start your brain on this question. :)

What are the benefits of outlines, over and above regular articles?

What benefits have you noticed?

How are Wikipedia's outlines useful to you?

I look forward to your answers on my talk page.

The Transhumanist 04:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of convicted computer criminals

Not sure if this is your cup of tea but I need a skilled hand to fix this page. It almost made FAL but was held back because of bad grammar, inconsistency, etc. Needs a good copyedit to whip it into shape! I'd do it but most of the problems on the page are caused by me. Me no good at english -- Esemono (talk) 06:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh, sorry, this really isn't my cup of tea. --Zvika (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice dog

Thank you for reverting my vandalism to Advice dog. It is very much appreciated, seeing as I had redirected a PRODed stub to Internet meme. † Drasek Riven 17:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize: I didn't realize you were not a vandal. However, I still think the redirect was uncalled for, at least as long as the PROD hasn't expired. --Zvika (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The PROD expiring means that the article is deleted. I was redirecting it ahead of time because it is obvious that it will be deleted anyway. † Drasek Riven 18:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it will be deleted anyway, you can tag it for CSD. If not, then what you're doing is removing material which was only placed on WP a few hours ago, which, it seems to me, goes against the spirit of the deletion process. --Zvika (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing it again. Do you usually blindly revert, or is this just a bad day? † Drasek Riven 18:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man. Sorry again.. I will go to bed now :) --Zvika (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user subpage - it is much appreciated :-) --bonadea contributions talk 11:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Cheers, --Zvika (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

...for your vigilence on the myasthenia article. I admire both your vigilence and patience. Pizzaman79 (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.. It is really not very difficult with Huggle, it's just something I do when I'm too tired to do anything else, kinda like watching television. --Zvika (talk) 04:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do not be so quick to revert

It's correct to write such notice, but I would use Google before. If you will answer me, do it on my talk page. I hope you'll find my advice leading you to work better, not as allowing vandals more freedom. Regards. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied here. --Zvika (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try with "Dalibor Brozović died", you'll get www.hrt.hr - news of Croatian television in English. Google is best search engine in the World, but Google News? I wouldn't rely so much on it if I were you. And look better, user Aradic-es put 6 references, obviously to him your revert were pretty nonsensical. SpeedyGonsales (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. The fact remains that I saw an unsourced edit by an unregistered user to a BLP page, made a quick search for sources myself, couldn't find any, and reverted with a friendly notice asking him to source his statement. I don't think I was out of line, or nonsensical. --Zvika (talk) 04:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispelling the BLUEs

Thanks for redirecting BLUE to Gauss–Markov theorem some months ago. I restored your redirection just now. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider visiting the template Template: Least squares and regression analysis, which may be of interest to you. I added some topics, some of which have been now removed, that may interest you and which you may judge to be worth restoring, e.g. MDL, MML, etc.

Also, I see that we share some interest between statistics, optimization, and functional analysis. Please think of alerting me when you write or update an article. Best regards Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks for fixing that, for some reason it wasn't on my watchlist. Definitely, let's keep in touch. --Zvika (talk) 06:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]