Talk:Semivariance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can you please tell my what the POV issue is? It will never be fixed if the tag is left unexplained; & if the issue is the controversy section, well, then its no longer POV....Bridesmill 16:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I slapped a POV on, as 3 of the 4 source cited are not actually the articles they say they are, but ratehr unpublished criticisms. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but that is patently WP:OR, and either needs to be quickly fixed or removed. In addition, the way these cites are mis-attributed is dishonest to the max; curious, considering the user in question is slamming geostats and semivariance on the grounds of it being inherently dishonest....Bridesmill 00:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I goofed!! Just copied the references to these textbooks linked to my retro-reviews but have made corrections. Don't read what I wrote. Or try to forget if you did! Please peek at Clark's Practical Geostatistics, which is posted on her website. I wouldn't even throw out an ugly baby with the bathwater. What I do want is reunite each distance-weighted average with its variance and get rid of an ugly science. Surely, you're not the only Wikipedian who wants to bring sound knowledge and scientific integrity to the world. JWM. --Iconoclast 16:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, wrong, or otherwise it is not your job here to get rid of anything or create anything; just to deal with what is known. WP:NOR and all that. If your work is published in a peer-reviewed work, then it's admissible. Until then, nobody cares how much you dislike the field or what you think is wrong with it. Again, you seem to be taken in by very passionate beliefs, not least influenced by various scandals and heinous abuses. Sometimes, though, it works - as in applications to criminology. So until your work is 'published', it has no place here. Sorry.Bridesmill 16:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Howdy Bridesmill, I decided to post some peer-reviewed work. "Abuse of statistics" was reviewed by IAMG's present President himself.In contrast, Stanford's Journel thrashed "Precision Estimates for Ore Reserves" because we applied "classical Fischerian [sic!] statistics" whereas Erzmetall praised and published it. Do you want to know what Journel wrote about our paper? Visit spatial dependence and click on Journel's letter! Do you agree or disagree with the junk science of interpolation without justification? Do you want to know what JMG's Editor wrote to me? Visit my website and look under Correspondence! Surely, you'll have more suggestions on how to become a good Wikipedian. JWM. --Iconoclast 22:41, 6 July 2006