User talk:Asjoseph

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Literary Accomplishments: Wikipedia

Joseph, A.S. Regression Analysis
On-line: [[1]]

Joseph, A.S. The Gershchenkron Effect
On-line: [[2]]

Joseph, A.S. Dawn of Car Culture: Driving, in its Infantcy
On-line: [[3]]

Joseph, A.S. Driving as a Pastime: Contemporary Performance Driving Archetypes.
On-line: [[4]]

Joseph, A.S. Driver Segmentation: Skill Level Archetypes.
On-line: [[5]]

[edit] ... my very first spat, at the Wikipedia

A. Samuel Joseph III, Geospatial Econometric Analyst 07:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC) wrote:

Re: Talk:Regression analysis#... Ph.Ds Run Amok ~
Subj: Regression analysis


Dear Colleagues,


~ Ever wonder to yourself: "...Gee, how come we got so many attorneys?"

~ Were Ph.Ds in charge of the world, you wouldn't be able to own car, unless you're an automotive engineer. You wouldn't be able to own a pocket calculator, without transcripts proving you passed Freshman Math Analysis I, with a "C" or better. You couldn't have toast with your bacon and eggs, because you lack prerequisite sholastic expertise in toaster engineering necessary, for which to purchase a toaster. And, never (NEVER) would you be able to count on booting your browser to the Wikipedia, for a better understanding, of regression analysis.

~ Answer to the question: Reason we do, is because of us... to protect honest people, from us.

~ You've failed. Epitome of too many chefs stinking up the soup, page on regression analysis you've devolved, into an abomination, take a step up, if you please, ascend to a macroperspective plateau sufficient, for this wisp in space and time, to see for yourself:

> "Besides of dependent and independent
> variables, the regression equations
> usually contain..." [SNIP]

~ Huh?

~ Any attempt we make to edit this grammatical insult upon the English language, the individual who wrote the aforementioned drivel promptly knee-jerks, by immediately reverting the article, to its current woefully defective glory.

~ A question for you: If the man upstairs tapped you on the shoulder, for a little chitchat, told you you have but one hour, to concisely elucidate framework for the "regression analysis" archetype for God to forever cast, in stone, and if you failed, L. Frank Baum's Wicked Witch of the West would be given Carte Blanche, to send her flying monkeys down, to dismember you, limb from limb? Then, what would you write?

~ No offense intended: Indicative of what you've written, here, you people would be bleeding out, on the gurney. Rightfully so. Were I to grade this page? You people would be on scholastic probation. Painfully evident, those making contributions to this page don't know beans, about regression analysis; can't see the forest through the trees.

~ Well, I most certainly do. For your erudition, the title of this page, says "regression analysis." Doesn't it? Does that ring any bells?

~ To wit, computational aspect of statistical regression is utterly irrelevant, and has nothing whatsoever to do, with "regression analysis." For your information, assumptions or model specification have nothing whatsoever to do, with "regression analysis."

~ This topic is not inherently complex. It's just involved. As it is, the page on regression analysis has little, if nothing to do with "regression analysis," per se.

~ A fortiori, there should be several distinct pages, on Statistical Regression, differentiated as follows:

1). THEORY: Model Specification (e.g., when to specify lin-lin; log-log), OLS Assumptions, null and alternative hypothesis
2). COMPUTATION: Computational Aspect of Statistical Regression (e.g., plugging 'n chugging)
3). ANALYSIS: "Regression Analysis" (e.g., how to interpret output from X-Stat, EViews, SPSS, Rats and SAS); relating significance of regression output, back to summary statistics of each data trail (e.g., skew; kurtosis; leptokurtosis; platokurtosis; mesokurtosis, et ceteris)

~ The first two pages could otherwise serve, as a playground for intellectual bullies to aggrandize themselves, to underline their importance, marginalizing and deleting each other's contributions, in favor of ever more arcane and unintelligible examples for which to confound and punish laymen who merit an honest intellectual curiosity... Lattermost component, however, "Regression Analysis," exclusively dedicated wholly to interpretation of regression output (e.g., what R^2, multicollinearity, serial correlation, heteroscedasitity, T-calc, F-Calc, P-Calc, and standard error means).

~ All components should be robust, a reflection of who we are, and what we do. As it is, we can't say that. Can we?

~ The page on "regression analysis" should be dedicated to regression analysis... devoid its computational aspect.

Acknowledged,
A. Samuel Joseph III, Geospatial Econometric Analyst 18:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||


Thomasmeeks (13:52, 16 March 2007) wrote:
> Re: ... Ph.Ds Run Amok ~

>
>Dear Mr. Joseph:

>#The formal style here is a response to the hostile tone of your section
>Talk:Regression analysis#... Ph.Ds Run Amok ~.

General Note: Mr. Meeks contends something is somehow missing from his first paragraph, with regard to Wikipedia Compliance? That I'm out of compliance?

> On that & other
>matters, please consider the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines , which I
>believe your comments there violate in multiple and obvious ways.
>#The last major Edit that I made of the lead for that article was on March
>6. It is listed at the top of Talk:Regression analysis#Proposed lead,
>which I stand by. It does not contain the phrase quoted in your section
>that you found so offensive.*

Active Reading: Perhaps that's because the Good Mr. Meeks was inspired by my contribution, to pluck it out, and save face.

>#You suggest that:
>: The person who did the lead Edit of Regression Analysis immediately
>preceding yours (which included the phrase that you objected to) also
>reverted your Edit. That is a false suggestion.
>: The person who reverted your Edit of the article (me) is the same person
>who did that major rewrite of the lead that you edited. That also is a
>false suggestion.

Active Reading: ...the Good Mr. Meeks, backpedalling.

>I sincerely thought that I was doing you a favor by reverting your
>Regression analysis Edit (which had many problems). I was trying to
>improve the article in any case. If I hadn't reverted, I believe any
>number of others would have reverted & with good reason. There was
>nothing [personal] in it.

General Observation: "Personal?" Oh, I believe the Good Mr. Meeks, when someone comes along, edits his stuff, takes it quite personally (e.g., emphasis on the word, "his").

> On the sections of the Talk page referenced in
>the Edit summary revert, I had been thinking about that subject for some
>time. One section was adapted from Talk:Derivative#Thanks to
>mathematicians, consolation to non-mathematicians, & a plea. Again, it
>was not personnel. I'd have done them irrespective of your Edit, and soon.

CORRECTION: "...I [will do] them [as per] your [suggestion], and soon, but I need everyone to know everything is always my idea."

> I'm a very slow writer.

INTERPRETATION: "... I write like a community college drop out."

> I certainly cannot address all of your concerns

General Observation: It's important to have goals

>nor, be assured, will I attempt to do so. Please take my remarks in way
>intended. >Sincere best wishes.
>
>That section by the way started from a revert of an effort by me,
>which I too was none to happy about. But the section laboriously worked
>through disagreement and resulted in a more concise & better Edit than I
>started with. That proposed lead, however, lasted less than 10 hrs. in
>the Regression analysis article. (I guarantee you I put in much, much
>time on that than did on yours. Sic transit gloria mundi Sic transit
>gloria, and c'est la vie. So, I know something about reverts first
>hand. I think I had a lot better reason to rant than you did. But I
>didn't rant.

General Observation: Rant? Indicative of what you're doing, here?

>Neither should you, amigo. Thet's my opinion. Neither this
>page nor any other Wiki pages should be a forum for anything except
>improving Wiki.

Personal Observation: ... You wantonly wrecked that page, on regression analysis. When I see people like you, pulling stunts like that? I get in their face.

>It is not a chat room or a blog or a forum for venting.

Subjective Observation: That's exactly what you're doing, pal. You're venting, in my personal space... Telling ME how you want me, to live MY life?

> I trust that we're agreed on that.

Point of disagreement: ... Naaaaa. I don't agree :)

> This might be a bad way to start out
>your Talk page. If you would prefer to delete my entry here, I would not
>object. --Thomasmeeks 13:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

~ ... just getting my feet wet, here at the Wikipedia. Sorry for stepping on toes. By all means, hate mail and death threats are never turned away, here. I totally understand your frustration. It's important to vent. Get it out of your system.

~ I'll go back, and make everything nice. Okay?


Acknowledged,
A. Samuel Joseph III, Geospatial Econometric Analyst 07:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||


>Message received, Mr. Joseph. Brief comment. I believe that my 2nd
>sentence above (from which the link was removed, very bad form if that was
>intentional -- see the link):
>:You have evidently not digested the relevant portions of [[Wikipedia:Talk
>page guidelines]], which I believe your comments there violate in multiple
>and obvious ways.

~ Sorry... I disagree. I did nothing wrong. I don't think I ought to have to kiss your ass. Or you, mine. Not only is the regression analysis page hopelessly defective. It's poorly written. It's poorly conceived. Objections, a mile long, posted to your regression analysis discussion page, by men across the age spectrum, from all walks of life, I never (NEVER) would have had to post my objection, if only you'd otherwise have listened, to them. I did not carry this stuff down, from the burning bush. I am not breaking new ground. I am not telling you anying you don't already know. I merely bringing the obvious to a conscious level, a summation of previous contributions to the regression analysis discussion page... I did nothing wrong.

~ It wasn't until we put Spitnik up, that the vast majority finally succumbed to the notion the world isn't flat.

~ I well know, people don't change. They believe what they believe. Period. And, that's that. I could never hope to affect their fundamental beliefs. Only thing I could ever hope to affect, albeit temporarily, is their behavior... You believe what you believe. Period. And, that's that. Time to move along... greener pastures.

>continues to apply. You are wrong that the this page is your "personal
>space". Above link applies here too.
>Minor point: You are not the only one to have noticed problems in the
>lead of RA. I had other priorities as to that article. Suggestion:
>Consider getting a third opinion as to how we each come across in written form.
>Sincerely, Thomasmeeks 11:59, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
>P.S. Only got a chance to look at [[Talk:Regression analysis#... Ph.Ds
>Run Amok ~]] now (running short today -your T p. my only priority). I was
>stunned at your Edit.§ I try to call 'em as I sees 'em, but your response
>is also something worth seeing & factoring into the total picture. BW to you.
>:§ Laced with irony to be sure, but no one who read your earlier effort
>would not be taken, probably with a smile at your style & good humor
>there. That took some guts. --Thomasmeeks 13:29, 17
>March 2007 (UTC)

~ ... I have no idea what a BW or a TP is.


Acknowledged,
A. Samuel Joseph III, Geospatial Econometric Analyst 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Gershchenkron.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Gershchenkron.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such unreasonable information or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, and will result in your account being blocked.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! SueHay 20:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gerschenkron effect

Here in Wikipedia, article and section headings generally have an initial capital letter, then lower-case letters for all other words. There is an existing article at Gerschenkron effect. Please check your spelling. You might want to consider expanding that article. Please try to write as clearly as possible, and also note which text is from which reference source. Please reconsider the information you've posted in Gershchenkron Effect (note spelling and caps). Hope this is helpful. SueHay 20:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/s/j/User_talk%7EAsjoseph_9810.html"