User talk:Gpeilon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Gpeilon, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! — Chris53516 (Talk) 17:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Kerneldensityestimation.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Kerneldensityestimation.gif. 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. 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parzen window

Hi. You moved Parzen window to Kernel density estimation by cut&paste, which is not a good idea since it destroys the page history. For now, I undid your move. I wonder if you could comment at talk:Parzen window as to why Kernel density estimation is a better name for that article. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sig

Just a note. When writing comments on talk, it is good to sign them with four tildas, like this: ~~~~. Small thing, but makes a difference. :)

I replied at Talk:Parzen window. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summary

One more note. It is nice if you could use edit summaries when you contribute. It helps others to understand what you changed. Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regression analysis: proposed lead

Dear Gpeilon: I see that you are a recent contributor to Regression analysis. Would you consider giving an opinion for or against the following Talk:Regression analysis#Proposed lead? The reasons are listed there. My thanks. --Thomasmeeks 03:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your responding, Gpeilon. With continuing improvements in Regression analysis, those with a deep knowledge and understanding of statistics like yourself are taking a sustained interest in the article -- all to the good. I didn't comment on that Talk, b/c I think discussion there is effectively closed as to the immediate use of that section (with the posting of the new Edits in the article lead), but of course discussion can continue in the Talk section there.
Please indulge these thoughts. My hope is that the WP:LEAD guidelines would be rigorously respected, including providing necessary context. The lead would be "as simple as possible (but no simpler)." An expanded Introduction (section 1) could take exposition to the next level. Your comment agrees in general with that of User:Ioannes Pragensis expressed in the top half of that section ("Proposed lead"), 2nd to last paragraph, and with my own thinking, as reflected in the the beautiful treatment of D.V. Lindley, "Regression and correlation analysis," New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 4, p. 120, 2nd para. (of pp. 120-23). If most prospective readers of "Regression analysis" had the same background as most readers of Lindley's entry, your suggestion would certainly belong in the lead. But Wiki readers are, I believe, a much more diverse group. I believe that many of them may know only a little or, yes, less than a little. Still, they want and deserve to learn more (for example, by being enticed by a beautiful, simple lead into reading further into a beautifully written Introduction). That's an argument for including your suggestion in section 1 "Introduction," which clearly needs to be significantly expanded for readability anyhow.
One suggestion might be this:
Someone (you?) writes an additional paragraph (or 2 or ...) for consideration on the Talk page along the lines you suggest.
Depending on length and complexity, that makes it easier to see where that fits better in the lead or section 1. Welcome (back). Many happy returns of the day. --Thomasmeeks 15:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Change in the Mosconi Page

Responded to your post on my talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 00:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC).