User talk:DanielPenfield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] CACI changes

Nice job on the CACI page! I made the edit just before yours yesterday (forgot to sign in first) but it looks much better now. Wubb 20:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, My name is Nick Mokey, and I’m currently writing an article on Wikipedia for the Daily Orange in Syracuse, NY. The article will focus on how Wikipedia is being used in academic environments, specifically college. I wanted to know if you, as a Wikipedia contributor, would be interested in a brief interview for the story. It will take 15 minutes tops, and it would be an enormous help to me. If you are interested, please contact me at ntmokey@gmail.com, my deadline is midnight on Friday (4/28) but I can work you in any time during the day, it will just be a quick discussion over the phone. Thanks, Nick Mokey

[edit] RIT Userbox

Just to let you know, there's now a userbox for RIT students, {{User_RIT}}. Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 15:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)--Kari Hazzard (talk | contrib) 15:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia New York Meet-Up

Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 22:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

See my talk. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MSE

About the changes on mean squared error, I totally agree with your goal of keeping pages as accessible to a general audience as possible. I think that we should also strive to be precise and concise, though. Omitting technical terminology does not necessarily make a page more accessible. I agree that what I had put there was not ideal, but what is there now is still not ideal; it introduces other problems. I also think that your comment about why MSE is used (differentiability) is a bit problematic. The real justification for MSE is its natural link to the mean, like the characteristic property mentioned on the variance page. But how to explain that in common english? I'm not sure but I think it could be done.

About the "criticism", however, the Berger book I cited as a source for that paragraph very heavily criticizes the use of MSE. I thought it was pretty clear from context that that source refers to the entire paragraph...it seems clumsy to put a citation to the same source at the end of every sentence. Do you have a suggestion as to how to better handle this? Cazort (talk) 20:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I was thinking more about your changes to the definition. Couldn't we put the explanations that you added somewhere else in the article? This way we could keep the definition itself concise. The discussion you added about differentiability is certainly relevant in the article, but I think it belongs as an explanation of why MSE is used in certain contexts, not in the definition itself. Cazort (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! I am going to think about how to make the article more accessible before I edit more, go ahead and edit more if you think you can improve it. I'm a bit reluctant to include the justification you gave about why MSE is a "good" measure of performance. I have heard that argument many times--it is in many textbooks. But that doesn't mean it's correct. I think that the reasons you gave are generally the reasons it is used, but these are not the same as the reasons it is a good or natural measurement. Convenience is an argument but it's not the same as correctness. The J.O. Berger book I cited really gets into this argument in depth. Based on what I know (and I'm just a student of statistics, no expert I know), the real argument for MSE is that it is the unique "natural" measurement of error when you are trying to use means...much in the way Variance is the unique measurement of deviation for which the minimum is achieved at the mean, for any random variable. I think we should talk on the page about why people use it (the reasons you gave), but also on why people should use it, which are two different arguments--the second clarifies when its use is not appropriate (for example, when you are estimating something other than means, or when some sort of decision-theoretic structure necessitates using a different loss function). I think it's dangerous to say that the reasons it is used are the reasons it should be used...I think this leads to a very poor understanding of MSE...a poor understanding that is perpetuated by most textbooks and teachers in statistics. Does this make any sense? Cazort (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what is wrong about a normative statement here. If anything, I think it is an error of omission not to make one! There are certain circumstances where the loss function does matter, and where choice of MSE can be either good or bad in some objective sense. The Berger book I referenced in the criticisms section explains this in great deal and I would recommend reading it if you don't buy my argument. There are also situations in which the loss function is rather arbitrary...but even then, MSE can still be justified as more or less natural. For example, in practice people typically do not use MSE when estimating medians--this is because absolute deviation is a more natural measure of the distance from medians. I think this argument is stronger and deeper than the arguments about mathematical convenience, which only hold in situations where there is no compelling reason to use any loss function. Cazort (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, I want to note that I think the rest of the article (besides the definition) is actually much more inaccessible than the definition! Maybe we should work on that. Cazort (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's continue this discussion on the talk page. I think this discussion belongs there. Cazort (talk) 00:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James Barker

You moved James Barker to James Barker (disambiguation). This is against Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming conventions unless there is a primary topic at James Barker. Are you planning an article about a well-known James Barker there? PrimeHunter (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

  • As is usual, there is no link to the policy you cite from the relevant template page and the "guidance" under "where to put it" is word-for-word the same for {{otherpersons}} and {{otherpersons2}}. Is it any surprise that I used it in a way that is inconsistent with Wikipedia policy? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That's okay, I know Wikipedia has a lot of policies and guidelines which can be hard to keep track of. I see you restored the disambiguation at James Barker with updated content. Another time, please first move the old page with the move button to preserve the edit history for GFDL compliance. There wasn't much to preserve here and you made significant changes without doing a copy-and-paste so I don't think a history merge is needed now. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six Sigma

Regarding your comment, I'll try to get by there and add some more specific templates. *I* understand Six Sigma (worked at a former GE subsidiary that got split off the company - never got any belts though), but it's not accessible to a wide audience as a whole. Triona (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] User Hanvanloon

I agree with you that this user was spamming in articles and that should be carefully monitored. But I'd urge you to take the high road and just stay vigilant on the spam without entering into an edit war with the person. Some of the content looked okay from my first quick glance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helixweb (talk • contribs) 11:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, and agreed that he has been spamming, I was just writing to make sure you kept your zeal for blunting his efforts in check.Helixweb (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

For example, keep in mind he's allowed to make any edits he wants to his own talk page. Helixweb (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Continued Vandalism and Blanking

  • I urge Daniel Penfield to read the following Wikipedia policies regarding his editing of the Quality Management and PDCA pages:
  • WP:VANDAL: Blanking is prohibited - you are engaging in blanking and page deletion without raising a discussion as required by Wikipedia policy.
  • WP:Edit_war: you are engaging in edits from a personal perspective regardless of the validity of content.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanvanloon (talk • contribs) 11:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


1. Removing your continued attempts to promote your books and your consulting business is not blanking—see Wikipedia:VANDAL#Types of vandalism. Per WP:SPAM, articles containing spam should either be deleted or edited so that they no longer contain spam.
To wit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quality_management&diff=prev&oldid=198457181 . Note the reason for the edit is explicitly given in the edit history and is consistent with WP:SPAM.
2. As for the accusation of partiality, note that I have left your legitimate content untouched:
To wit, compare your additions...:
...to my removal of your content promoting your books, methodology, and consulting business:
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 16:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Spinning around and around in circles

Yes, but I also added a {{nofootnotes}} tag. I'm sure that will make all the difference in the world! ;) Seriously, though, maybe I as an uninvolved editor can have better results. One other thing I did was add a "Verifiability, not truth" section on the talk pages. (Plural, because there are the same problem with the other editor's contributions on other pages.) Sbowers3 (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Some of the content looked okay from my first quick glance."

You never directly answered the question posed in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHelixweb&diff=198819168&oldid=198645301 . Am I to assume you're sweeping it under the carpet?

Yes, I am. I let your undo on that edit stand, which I believes speaks for itself. You were definitely correct in that instance and correct in undoing it. However I've seen other instances where you were undoing constructive edits and those were the ones I was commenting on.Helixweb (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


What's the point in having a WP:SPAM policy if you're just going to roll over when a spammer complains that vigilant editors have removed his website/publications for sale from articles after repeated warnings? What's the point in having a WP:NOR policy if you're just going to give in when a crackpot complains when his pet theory is challenged? What's the point in having a WP:COI policy if you're going to look the other way when a spammer complains when sham articles set up by his crony/sockpuppet/shill account are deleted per Wikipedia policy (viz., Wikipedia:Proposed deletion).

It appears you're misinterpreting my comments. I never said not to remove his website, his NOR or his created articles. I said you need to calm down a bit, which I think given your tone towards me, is an entirely warranted criticism. Remember to be CIVIL at all times. This scorched-earth policy of yours to undo every single one of his edits is proof that you are NOT taking the high ground, and will likely antagonize him further. You would be a much better editor if you read WP:Civil a couple more times. Helixweb (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "I was just writing to make sure you kept your zeal for blunting his efforts in check."

Help me understand this. This guy has been promoting his consulting business, anonymously deleting legitimate content, and flaunting multiple Wikipedia policies for two and a half months as demonstrated (only partially) by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHelixweb&diff=198819168&oldid=198645301. The high ground has already been taken: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PDCA&diff=prev&oldid=188690618 and thwarted, repeatedly: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PDCA&diff=189460958&oldid=188784629

Then you should be contacting an admin, not undoing every single one of his edits regardless of whether they violate policy or not. Helixweb (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "keep in mind he's allowed to make any edits he wants to his own talk page"

What exactly have I written that indicates that I don't understand this?

From what I've seen you've undid many of his edits to his own talk page, which I believe is bad form. Helixweb (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I think you're too emotionally involved in this situation and it's making you less of an objective editor. I'll try to help out whenever I can to keep his spam and his unconstructive edits in check, hopefully that will help you settle down a little bit. After all, we're on the same side here.Helixweb (talk) 16:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Hanvanloon

I initiated that ANI request and I will be mentoring and monitoring Hanvanloon. If you see any problems please let me know. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you are so upset at his unblock. Please seem my response at [1]. I will carefully monitor every one of his edits - and I won't be a bit surprised if you also do. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Six Sigma

Hi Daniel, I have had a go at restructuring the Six Sigma article as per Greg's suggestion (Permalink of revised version here). Please have a look over it and comment on the Talk:Six Sigma page. It is nowhere near a good article yet, but I hope it is an acceptable baseline from which we can make further improvements. Jayen466 19:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] City-Link Express

Unfortunately, the author doesn't have to address the issues of the prod template to invalidate it. You should bring it to AfD. For now, I can't accept the deletion. -- lucasbfr talk 20:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmm, I think you are confusing WP:PROD with WP:CSD :) In fact, if I deleted the article with prod any user (the author included) could have gone to DRV (or on my talk page) and the page would have been restored without discussion. The idea behind prod is to take out the trash with minimum overhead when articles have virtually no chance to survive an AfD. But we need to really have 0 objections to the deletion in that case (or a minimum debate is necessary). -- lucasbfr talk 13:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)