User talk:I am not a dog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hello, I am not a dog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users - please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Speedy deletion of I am not a dog/sex ratio

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, 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 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. PeterSymonds | talk 15:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but the article has to be reasonably prepared before it goes live. Make a draft in your sandbox (create it by going to User:I am not a dog/Sandbox) and then upload. Make sure you back up claims with reliable sources. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I have moved the page to your userspace, since drafts of articles don't belong in the mainspace. It can now be found at User:I am not a dog/sex ratio --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 15:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] invitation

I'm impressed by your recent edits to Variance. Would you perhaps be interested in joining WikiProject Statistics? Doesn't stop you also joining other WikiProjects of interest to you. WikiProjects are neither exclusive nor exhaustive! Regards, Qwfp (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding your edit to Kin selection article

Hi. Originally, the text of this article read:

From the time of antiquity field biologists have observed that some organisms tend to exhibit strategies that favor the reproductive success of their relatives, even at a cost to their own survival and/or reproduction. The classic example is a eusocial insect colony, with sterile females acting as workers to assist their mother in the production of additional offspring. Many evolutionary biologists explain this by the theory of kin selection.
The concept was formalized by JBS Haldane (1955)[1] and W. D. Hamilton (1963)[2], while the actual term "kin selection" may first have been coined by John Maynard Smith (1964)[3] when he wrote "These processes I will call kin selection and group selection respectively. Kin selection has been discussed by Haldane and by Hamilton. ... By kin selection I mean the evolution of characteristics which favour the survival of close relatives of the affected individual, by processes which do not require any discontinuities in the population breeding structure."

And you deleted the 1955 Haldane reference AND the 1963 Hamilton reference, and replaced them with a link to Hamilton 1964, which post-dated both of these. On what basis do you claim that neither Haldane's 1955 nor Hamilton's 1963 works formalized kin selection? Just because Hamilton's 1964 paper is more well-known does NOT mean that it was the first paper on the topic. Please don't make edits like this without some sort of detailed explanation. Dyanega (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not say that Hamilton's 1964 was not the most THOROUGH or most IMPORTANT discussion of kin selection. What the original text stated - and this is correct, as far as I can see - is that Haldane was the FIRST to delineate the concept explicitly, and Hamilon 1963 was Hamilton's FIRST paper on the topic. "First" and "most important" are not the same thing, and there is nothing preventing you from stating that the 1964 paper was the most important. The point remains that Hamilton did not invent the concept, as much as people might want to believe he did - Maynard Smith, you will note, gave due credit to Haldane's work, so why don't you? Just because it does not include all of the math does not mean it was not the first formal expression (I don't think the term "formalized" means "expressed as mathematical formulae"). Furthermore, you are evidently confusing "kin selection" and "inclusive fitness", as pointed out by your use of Grafen's quote. By all means, if you wish to cover these points in the inclusive fitness article, please do so. Just be warned that the editor who "owns" that article will probably jealously prevent you or anyone else from editing it into anything even marginally objective or scientific. If you did manage to edit it, that would be a significant accomplishment, for certain - and it would be a true boon to Wikipedia, where right now, that article is a complete embarrassment. Dyanega (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The Maynaard Smith quote is in the text of the article already. Note that it is from 1964. Dyanega (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
If the Fisher article was truly the first, then go ahead and add it. I think you will agree that it is a disservice to Haldane to ignore his contribution, as well as ignoring Hamilton's 1963 paper; they DO merit inclusion, they DO pre-date the 1964 work, and all we really need to do is find wording that is agreeable as to giving them credit where it is due. My "tone" is from dismay that you would simply delete these works from the article, as if no one prior to Hamilton 1964 ever made a worthwhile contribution. That does not seem in keeping with NPOV. Dyanega (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, including the Grafen quote (or a detailed summary thereof) itself may be the best approach to this. It at least recognizes Fisher and Haldane, and expresses what (at least in Grafen's opinion) their contributions amounted to. My basic point is that there is a history to the concept that pre-dates 1964, and simply deleting it does not seem to me an acceptable approach. Dyanega (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully, the last edit I performed is acceptable? Again, if you would like to quote or paraphrase Grafen, that would be fine; I'm just asking that the citations to Fisher, Haldane, and Hamilton 1963 be left in the article, even if you feel they must be placed into context better. I would also be interested in your opinion on the inclusive fitness article and what might be done with it. Dyanega (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] parental expenditure

I left you some suggestions on my talk page, as a continuation of our previous discussion. Fred Hsu (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sorry

Oh, I had reverted my edit on human sex ratio before you left the massage to me. And thanks for your information about J. Arthur Thomson. I am sorry. And I encourage you to use edit summary when you edit. It will avoid misunderstanding and confusion. Thank you. Best wishes. --Neo-Jay (talk) 10:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Charnov

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the {{hangon}} template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion. Thank you. Erechtheus (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Read WP:PROF. If he meets a criteria, say so in the article, add the hangon template, and back it up with a source. Don't remove the db template again or you'll be well on your way to a time out. Erechtheus (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Read WP:RS and WP:NOTE. When you write an article, you need to tell us why the subject is important and include reliable sources to back up what you say. The issue here is that you essentially originally wrote "X is a professor". That's not enough per WP:PROF. There are professors who are clearly notable, but not every professor is notable. You have to show us which type somebody is. Erechtheus (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
      • You can use his CV as a source. You have established notability. The template now applied just shows how the article can be improved. Is there a news article about his fellowship? That would be a great source that wouldn't be a primary source (something he created). That's what the article needs to be better. You can also improve it by adding additional content, of course. Erechtheus (talk) 21:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beating one's head against the floor

Hi !dog, on the off chance that you were planning on wasting your time beating your head against the floor, the following might be useful MULTICOMPONENT RANK SELECTION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO HALDANE DILEMMA A MODEL FOR THE EVOLUTION OF THE GENOME - THE EFFECT OF STOCHASTICITY ON GENETIC LOADS and & model for the evolution of the genome: The effect of stochasticity on genetic loads. Cheers, Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, clearly written by a creationist, scientists have long since moved on to investigating the question of which assumptions were violated by the model, while the creationists remain stuck at "model makes odd predictions, ergo evolution must be false". Not worth my time to fix... Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)