User talk:Flying fish

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives:

User talk:Flying_fish/Archive_1 (archived on March 24, 2007)

Contents

[edit] Voltage divider

'You wrote: I was thinking of moving Voltage divider rule to Voltage divider, and then I noticed that you had moved the page in the other direction. I was thinking of adding information about the use of voltage dividers, and with that it makes more sense to have the page be "Voltage Divider". Do you have any objection to me moving it back in the other direction?Flying fish 23:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember for sure, but I think I was merging the two pages then. I'm not oriented in the subject, so I can't advise you or object to anything. Karol 19:19, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 'Prediction market failure' removal

I removed the "Evidence of prediction market failure" section you added to the Prediction market article in accordance with the Wikipedia:No original research policy. Moreover, I think your analysis confuses accuracy and precision. Benstrider 19:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


Please allow me to apologize for my rudeness. My actions were brash, and I thank you for reminding me of my manners with far more courtesy than I extended to you.

Also, you did indeed addressed the issue of uncertainty. I suggested otherwise far too flippantly and without taking the time to carefully read what you had written.

As for the content of your text, I agree that two markets predicting the same event should, under ideal circumstances, reach the same prediction. I also agree that both this reasoning and the numbers you provide from Intrade and IEM are plain enough not to need citations. Indeed, you raise a valid point and I would support including this information in the "Theoretical challenges" section. Where I feel your analysis went too far is the way in which it seemed to suggest that discrepancies between two specific markets demonstrate a flaw in the underlying theory. Although you identified other sources of error such as insufficient liquidity and market manipulation, your analysis seemed to reach this conclusion, especially considering the section title: "Evidence of prediction market failure". I feel this conclusion is not sufficiently supported by the data provided and ventures into argument, which is why I identified it as original research.

Again, I apologize for my rudeness and recognize that you were acting in good faith. If you still feel I have misjudged the text or have other concerns, I politely suggest we continue this discussion on the article Talk page. Benstrider 03:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of Philly Sound Clash

A tag has been placed on Philly Sound Clash requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Carados (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear fusion

Hi, Flying fish. I understand that you rated the Nuclear fusion articleas an A-class article. I think that it is worth to be nominated to be FAC, if it will be better referenced. However, without additional references it should be downgraded to the B-class. Maybe you could add the missing references? Beagel (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)