User talk:Baccyak4H

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Baccyak4H.



Contents

[edit] Spoiling the spoiler

To repeat what I said on WP:ANI:

Well, I knew it was inevitable someone would leak the book onto the Internet, probably just as inevitable that someone created an article about it. Good for you in putting it up for speedy delete, & good for whatever admin acted on it so quickly. Good job! -- Yksin 19:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad the admin agreed with my call. I didn't see that discussion, so didn't know if they would. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enda Kenny

He is notable for having the same name as the Irish Opposition Leader, if nothing else. He has a website and has issued CDs, so he must have some standing as a musician. Intelligent Mr Toad 13:49, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. The article in the state I saw it did not assert notability. Having the same name won't cut it by itself. But if he has been coverered by reliable sources, one can reference them in the article. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome to WP:CHESS

Welcome to WP:CHESS. I see you've jumped in and are already improving chess articles. Thanks for your help—there's certainly plenty to improve on the chess pages. Quale 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. A lot less stress levels than when editing about some other topics. :-) Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I just want to say that I think you are doing good work, and welcome to the chess project. Bubba73 (talk), 18:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I see you have a great deal of experience on the articles yourselves, so I am glad you think such. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Image:Bstar 500+.jpg The Chain Barnstar of Recognition
For making a difference! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3-5 others with 500+ edits but no barnstar. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Barnstar created by Pseudoanonymous, awarded by Bubba73 (talk), 23:38, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
(Duplicated from User talk:Bubba73) Thanks. I guess I am considered "Diligence". :-) Not that it matters... Onward... Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bstardil1.jpg The First Chain Barnstar of Diligence
For shaping WikipediA! This Barnstar isn't free, this is a chain barnstar, as payment please give this star to at least 3 others with 2500+ edits but no barnstar or has few barnstars. So that everyone who deserves one will get one. Barnstar created by Pseudoanonymous, awarded by Pseudoanonymous 15:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Here you go then; please feel free to replace it with this Star; or you could keep them both. But thats kind of redundant. Congratulations this is the first Chain Diligence star ever awarded; and you have it Pseudoanonymous 15:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moment of inertia example

You recently added a remark about radii being equal to an example on Moment of Inertia. That's unnecessary: if you perform the usual calculation (using conservation of energy) and solve for velocity, the radius variable disappears (it always appears paired with an omega), though the shape-dependent factor in I doesn't. So the rate of descent depends on shape, but not radius. I'm content to leave the change, though, since "rate of descent" might be taken by some to refer to angular velocity, which does depend on radius, and because some would insist on further complications like air resistance. The other edit was good; thanks. Anarchic Fox 03:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see your point; I actually didn't check that it was necessary. Rather my motivation was to be simple, comparing apples to apples (but for shape), so the reader can see it is indeed only the shape that matters. Thanks for the feedback. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Trice

Hello. I just created the article about Ed Trice, the inventor of Gothic Chess. As a member of WikiProject Chess, how would you assess it? --Boricuaeddie 16:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look, and comment on its Talk. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Bishop and knight checkmate

Came across your comment there - I completely agree. I replied with suggestions on how to fix up the article, and I'd like to hear your thoughts on them. There are quite a number of articles in Category:Chess endgames like that one, so maybe if we can get one fixed up, we can work on the other ones in the same way. Thanks! youngvalter 21:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. I'll have a look and chime in some more. I will not be around that much for about three weeks or so to do a lot of work, but a little gnoming might be possible. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --Elonka 06:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I do think there are some things you can learn from your RfA, even if I didn't personally think they precluded your mop. Mostly, just don't let the splinters of bad faith shown to you discourage you. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I'm remaining optimistic. Though I'm a bit concerned for Wikipedia's image. Evidently some professional peers of mine were watching the RfA, and when my nom didn't pass, that reflected very very badly on Wikipedia. My peers already had a negative opinion about the culture here, and the nom just reinforced their views. It also is having the unfortunate effect of making it even less likely that some people who actually know things are going to want to participate here.  :( They say things like, "Why should I submit myself to that kind of abuse?" I'm doing what I can to stay positive and tell my peers about all the good that Wikipedia can and does do, but it's hard to argue with the behavior that was shown in the nom.  :/ Anyway, thanks for the encouraging words, and yes, I'll be back!. :) --Elonka 17:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit] Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Awarded to Baccyak for your excellent contributions. Thanks for all you do. ♫ Cricket02 21:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Mahalo! Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chess Review

Hi, I have noticed you have done great work on some chess articles in the past weeks on grammar and style. Could I invite you to participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chess/Review? This is a new page which aims at reviewing chess related articles for A-class. Keep up the good work! Voorlandt 10:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. While I am not overly familiar with FA criteria and the like, I will stop in from time to time there to provide feedback. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do Not Open Until Christmas...

...or until the THF-DavidShankbone ArbCom dustup is concluded. Just a note to let you know that I appreciate your commentary in that forum. Aside from making my comments more understandable and concise, your logic in approaching some of the issues in that debate is admirable. Thanks for your valuable contributions! Ossified 14:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome! I am glad to be able to help, and only hope that the arbitrators agree, and that none of the (other) parties there get peeved at me, as they all can be very productive contributors. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sufficient statistic example

FYI, I just commented on your recent changes at sufficency at Talk:Sufficiency_(statistics)#example Pdbailey 03:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I replied there; I agree the regular english language treatment of these things can be tricky to do well, but I think the overall jist of my edits (except perhaps about const variance) was correct. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll read the articles soon. They are the ones listed in the Stigler article Pdbailey 01:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The copyright would be out of date for the both, do you have access? It's going to take me a few days to get the 1920 article. Pdbailey 01:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I could check; it might take me a few days though. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
This may go without saying, but no need. I'm thinking more before responding to your comment back at the talk page. Pdbailey 23:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
OK. See you there. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit] Best of luck

...with that scientist who cannot spell or type over at Roman Catholic Church. If I can be of anymore help, let me know, but I am off to my main projects. Always glad to help. -- SECisek 18:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, fortunately that article has a lot of eyes on it (that is not always a good thing...). And to think I only got involved because I saw a bad pun opportunity when endorsing your no-brainer comment! Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I had never heard the archbishop's name before this morning and now I am the editor who created the stub for him! Strange, indeed. -- SECisek 20:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit] Plane on a Conveyor Take 47.

A plane on a conveyor belt

Based on the last discussion page, I believe we can now establish Notariety for this topic. Mythbusters has produced and scheduled an episode on this subject to Air in late January 08. I would appreciate any help you could provide, since we have been through this before. The original article was deleted and purged from the archives, so its contents are gone, and I have to start over from scratch. However writing a proper article which will stand the test of time is my main goal at this point. It would probably be best to continue this discussion on my talk page, or the discussion page for the new article. Sao123 (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I see that the new article did not survive long. With that in mind, and per your request, I replied on your Talkpage with a suggestion. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Biography of Pope John Paul II

An article that you have been involved in editing, Biography of Pope John Paul II, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biography of Pope John Paul II. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate, that landed on WP:100! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm taking things slowly for now, partially because of the holidays and all the off-wiki distractions. :) I'm also working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! Thanks again, and have a great new year, --Elonka 17:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, (belated) congrats and best of luck with the tools. Knowing that you know your actions will be scrutinized very closely, I have faith you will be prudent in doing them. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit] Opus Dei controversy section

If the main problem is a structure prone to being interpreted as a "set em up and knock em down", may I propose that we invert the order of the critical and supporting views. Please check this private fork = Opus Dei controversy section where I propose a new ordering. I hope this satisfies all parties. :) Thanks for your help. Marax (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. To be honest, my pointing out that interpretation of the structure wasn't so much a complaint about POV issues, but rather that that part of the article was just poorly written. I think the POV issue is indeed real, but minor compared to the editorial one. I would much rather, in the section on (say) membership, also add in the (balanced) outside impressions on recruiting; etc. But I'll comment on your proposal soon. Thanks in advance for the effort. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
If I may butt in, I think that you're right; there are some places where the criticism could reasonably be integrated within the article itself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Baccyak4H, :) Thanks so much for your comment and support. Much appreciated indeed. I just saw it for I didn't check till now the discussion page of the fork I made. I was just alerted by Geometry guy of the said page. I've posted the new controversy section and added new criticism. Will continue to work on this, and yes, add more criticism. Thanks again. Marax (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman Catholic Church

Hi! Thanks for your feedback on this article. I would like to know what you think should be eliminated to make the article shorter. I think it is long but I don't know what to remove without eliminating important things. NancyHeise (talk) 19:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I replied on your Talkpage. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "unbiased" is not redundant

In an edit summary you wrote:

rm redundant "unbiased" as it is by definition if it is an estimate of its expected value ;-)

But the best unbiased estimator is not in general the best estimator. "Best" in this context means in the mean-squared-error sense. In some cases a biased estimator has a smaller mean squared error than the best unbiased estimator. Notably, the maximum likelihood estimate of the variance of a normal population is biased, and has a smaller mean squared error than does the best unbiased estimator. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your illustration, but point out my edit was made in the context of the language of the article: anything which is an estimate of its own expected value is by definition unbiased. However, your concern suggests perhaps that that wording, in particular the "of its own expected value" part, should be reworked altogether. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Update Upon reading the article again, I see what you are getting at and agree the "unbiased" is necessary there. The "expected value" is held fixed, and the estimator evaluated; the theorem applies to only those estimators with that same expectation. I still believe, if anything more strongly now, that the wording is in need of improvement. And mea culpa, I think I had a hand in the wording the way it stands now. Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] math vs. html rendering

Hi, I noticed you changed the math rendering to html rendering in Exponential family#Role in statistics. Any reason for this? The rest of the article is written in <math> syntax. --Zvika (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Zvika. I actually do have a particular reason for these edits, which I make quite frequently. It has to do with the fact that using <math> syntax can give very large and visually unbalancing rendering when used inline, that is, within a body of plain text. In this case, and if there is html markup which expresses the same thing, I convert to html.
For example, compare X1, X2, ..., Xn to X_{1}, X_{2}, \ldots, X_{n} \,\!. Note how the former matches the font height, width, etc., much better than the latter (which also has a different color background, a visual distraction).
If the TeX markup is on its own line (usually but not necessarily indented), I don't bother.
So it's really just a style issue, for appearance and readability. Hope this helps. Here is the help page for TeX formula as well as some html help; it also has some discussion on the pros and cons of both. I suspect you may already be familiar with that page, but just in case. Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I tend to disagree. For one, I hope (naively?) that one day the TeX renderer will be able to display all HTML-friendly formulas in HTML; and then someone will have to go back and turn all such examples back into TeX. The difference is that while the direction you are performing can be done automatically, the reverse is no longer possible since italics and <sub> tags are also used for other things.
Anyway, it's an old argument that has been going on for years, and I don't expect to convince you :-) but please consider at least maintaining consistency within the article, if only to maintain a consistent visual appearance. Note that different fonts are used when the <math> tags are rendered as HTML. --Zvika (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] H V and JP II

I thought we finally had agreed. Sorry, that you took out my text and my quote. It showed that Cardinal Wojtyla was not in Rome, because he choose not to be there, although he was appointed to the commission. He did not go, because of reverence for the other guy, who was denied a visa. This is quite different, from what you write now.

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It seemed like it was saying the same thing twice, about his attendence, albeit in two totally different ways. So having access to Weigel, I cleaned up that material but only presented it once. Also, it seemed pretty clear that the other source seemed more tangental to HV, as it read more as personal sarcasm directed at Karol. So it seemed clear to me to use the more historical one. That is not to say that other citation doesn't have a proper use somewhere else, though.
But I will make an effort to reread Weigel again, to make sure I got it right. I do not have access to the other source, so feel free to bring up material on the Talk page. Having reread what I wrote, I do note that Weigel's commentary regarding reception would be better placed in the Reception section than where I left it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 14:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Probability and statistics sub-project?

Dear Baccyak4H,

I recently proposed starting a "probability and statistics" sub-project (aka task force or work group) of WikiProject Maths and was wondering if you'd be interested in participating. If so, please add your name and any comments at WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Probability and statistics. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Good idea. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Seems to have attained critical mass now. I'll probably launch it officially at the weekend by creating its page as a sub-page of WPM. At the moment there's a draft in my sandbox — additions, improvements or comments welcome there. Qwfp (talk) 08:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit] Christianity

Well, I've cited 6 Bible passages, referred to 2 alternative Bible translations and 3 published sources. What more do you suggest?

Thanks, Christianw7 (talk) 13:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The only source that might qualify was the tentmaker one, as the verses are primary, and the others were just to verify some linguistic points (as far as I could see). So only the last sentence was sourced adequately. The crux as I saw it, of the three prongs if you will, was synthesized. If you could get a reliable source which describes scholarship on those and their followup, then that would be different.
But in the meantime other editors mentioned that the level of inclusion itself was undue weight. So I would recommend not returning the material and rather make sure that that content is well fleshed out in the Universal Reconciliation article, as I would agree with the undue weight argument, even if well sourced.
Feel free to bring it up on the Talk page of the article if you'd like further opinions. Happy editing. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

[edit] Chelation therapy expert radio interview show

I have outlined my reasons for thinking these things. You've just collapsed my contributions?Are you Adam? Oldspammer (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood. You are free to think them. But the talk page of an article is for discussion on improving the article. What you were discussing was not about improving the article, that's all.
I collapsed it as a gentler alternative to removing it altogether. This way the talk page is less cluttered, but the discussion is still there if anyone wants to have a look anyway, without having to resort to the page history.
Also, you may wish to note that the reasoning implicit there is perilously close to being circular. If absence of evidence in support of something is taken as evidence in support of it, you have a tautology. Those types of logical black holes must be avoided like the plague. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 18:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I tried to reply in the chelation therapy talk section below the collapsed one, and all the added stuff in the previews that I ran on it showed that all additional sections even, were also collapsed somehow.
Unless someone comes to my door, halls me out to my own lynching, I'm pretty sure that the thought police have not been enacted as lawful in my neighborhood yet!
The entire wikipedia site outlines / specifies theories, beliefs, facts, and conjecture. All that I did that seems to be offending the SOAPBOX accusation is to explain how I came to believe in some of the things that I might believe in (with limited confidence).
In the 1970s or 1980s I saw a TV show where a guest appearing with others related to medicine, health, wellbeing, and longevity explained about chelation therapy and its alternate use for treatment of vascular disease. This guy was in his 50s or so then.
For whatever reasons, the chelating agent used was immediately accepted for metal poisoning, but not considered for anything else by the USA. I am pretty sure that there are political and greed reasons for this having been done--not anything truly scientific at all.
People on wikipedia seem to argue with one another needlessly rather than helping one another out. The smart ones prey on the less intelligent. The wise use their wisdom for seemingly ill-purposes. They adopt harmful editing styles that discourage the legitimate contributions of others.
I do not know where it was that I am arguing using flawed reasoning. Perhaps you could quote to me something that appears goofy? All I've done is said that some have claimed nice things about numerous medical treatments. And that some money interests have swayed science and laws of the land away from honesty so that the results are profitable for the money interests. Oldspammer (talk) 20:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thank you too Baccyak4H for your comments. It's been great to receive all your feedback and support! BTW, sorry too for the much delayed response; I've been on a long wiki-break that corresponds to our vacation time here in my country. :) Marax (talk) 07:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Early Christianity
The Wanderer (newspaper)
Location-scale family
1K ZX Chess
Quantum flavordynamics
Juan María Fernández y Krohn
Chess (application)
Alexander Khalifman
Anthony Saidy
Caro-Kann Defence
Matrix normal distribution
Faithful (baptized Catholic)
National Catholic Reporter
Nothing comes from nothing
Fading distribution
Gregory Kaidanov
Altar bell
Joseph Gallagher
Creator deity
Cleanup
Gothic Chess
Origins of chess
Charles Weldon
Merge
Lent
Chess as mental training
Primacy of the Roman Pontiff
Add Sources
Chess or the King's game
Middlegame
Wade Defense
Wikify
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
Raymond Keene
John Bosco
Expand
Chess Life
Wilhelm Steinitz
Type-2 Gumbel distribution

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)