User talk:Bohunk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Topology Rules Poster.pdf

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Geography is now the COTF

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

[edit] 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. Mkdwtalk 10:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Della Falls/Hunlen Falls

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

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

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)
“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)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/o/h/User_talk%7EBohunk_386b.html"