Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:03, 6 March 2012

Kiefer.Wolfowitz is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon.

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Labor donated

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47

This page has archives. Sections older than 11 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Interesting, perhaps

Hey, K-Wolf-- If you don't mind outting your identity to participate there is a fairly interesting Facebook discussion group emerging at CORPORATE REPRESENTATIVES FOR ETHICAL WIKIPEDIA ENGAGEMENT. Cullen and I are there and its always good to add a couple more grumpy old content creators to the mix... Okay, I'm grumpy and Cullen's not. Anyway they're starting to grasp that WP decision-making isn't a top-down fiat process and are looking for more voices to help them suss things out. I'd encourage you to chime in. Ditto for the dozens of lurkers reading this message. Cya. —Tim //// Carrite (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That's a really interesting discussion; I'd love to be able to contribute but the Facebook account is strictly for family interactions only! What a shame .... I'm over 50, as well, with 5 grandchildren. I think there are more of us about than many people realise. Pesky (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tim,

It was interesting, but I think that I've run into Rklwtn enough to last me a lifetime, already. Let me know if I can ever help out there by email, to protect my privacy. Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

On second thought, since WP is turning into FB, why not create a KW account?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, Robert seems much better than he did before, thoughtful and willing to change his mind, and he seems to write with Carrite-like clarity. (I do think that he should apologize for the statements regarding SG and She Who Does Not Want To Be Named, and I think that that I'm not over-reacting because of some sexist chivalry, on that score.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Bayesian inference

Dear Kiefer, I notice that in some of your recent edits you have complained that edits to Bayesian inference are "ignorant nonsense" by a "wrecking crew" and perhaps suggesting that other editors are incompetent... I would just like to mention, as somebody who has been editing that article for a while, that if you think the article is wrong, then please just say so. If you have more knowledge of the subject than somebody like myself, and you put forward the reasons that the article is misleading, then I for one would be more than happy to agree. However, the edits are in good faith. Where material has been simplified or is incomplete (such as, for example, an abridged explanation of the philosophy), it has been to provide an explanation appropriate to the article. Gnathan87 (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You removed the material that explained your errors, that I am now correcting. You should read and understand what you are removing from articles, particularly when it has in-line citations to the highest quality most reliable sources.

I tell you what, let's take this to the (frisky) mathematics and the (not so vivacious) statistics projects, and ask them to look at the errors you put into the article and the correct material you removed, without informing me (the author of the material). The claims you had in the lede were directly contradicted by material you removed, and this doesn't seem to bother you.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Kiefer - I do not want this to become hostile. I have brought this here in slight indignation as to your comments on the authors, rather than the content. The decision theory section was originally removed by somebody else, at 04:48, 15 September 2011. My subsequent removal of that section was partly motivated by this earlier removal, and also notes Removed section on Decision Theory - a justification of Bayesian inference more suitable to Bayesian probability, and now mentioned in "Philosophical background". I do not question that the sources were reliable or high quality and, mea culpa, I did not think to look up and notify the original author. However, I simply felt that in the process of finding a better focus for the article (that is, a more general article focussing on the mechanics, uses and properties of Bayesian inference, rather than the philosophical justification, which could be covered at greater length in Bayesian probability). I have no doubt that there are improvements to be made. But, I state again, the edits were made in the process of improving the article groundwork and - if I may say so - I think it does now have better foundations to build upon. Gnathan87 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

In what sense, if any, can you continue to insist that a discussion of frequentist statistics (decision theory, in your terms) belongs in Bayesian probability rather than Bayesian statistics---particularly when you include other applications of Bayesian updating?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I gave up hope on trying to edit Bayesian probability long ago, particularly when the article is about personalist probability rather than Bayesian probability---and the page rolls happily along as though they were identical. Another editor would have to read a book on the philosophy of belief rather than relying on coffee-room asides about Bayesian inference, and you can see how much interest people at that page displayed in such topics....  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

At the time, I just came to the conclusion that the article should focus, as I say, on the mechanics, properties and applications of the Bayesian inference procedure itself, rather than more general relationship Bayesian procedures have to statistics, which could be discussed elsewhere. (Maybe, yes, in Bayesian statistics instead of Bayesian probability). On reflection though, I think maybe you are right that there is a place to mention this in Bayesian inference. Gnathan87 (talk) 19:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing I would mention, and again I do so here to is that I feel the article must be made more accessible. Part of the reason for trying to simplify things (although introducing errors, as you rightly pointed out), was for this purpose. I can't help but feel that a sentence such as "Bayesian inference derives a "posterior" probability distribution as a consequence of two antecedents, a "prior" probability and a "likelihood", probability model for the data to be observed." as an introduction to the concept will be absolutely unintelligible to the layman, or even the mathematically inclined newcomer. Indeed, the purpose of that sectionw as first to introduce the conept in terms of a single hypothesis, before extending it to distributions in the next section. Even the lead as it now stands may, I fear, be much too inaccessible. What is apparent I think is that work is required on explaining the concepts while still retaining accuracy. Gnathan87 (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gnathan87!

Sorry that I was irritated. Dealing with a Ukrainian troll :( kept me up past my bedtime and so delayed my Ukrainian breakfast. :) I have been running late today.... No excuse for rudeness, of course, and I'm glad that you weren't too upset.

A second thing to do is to move the article, replacing the Cambridge/fancy-pants "inference" with "statistics". "Inference" has been corrupted by the Fisherian "method" of playing pretend with a "statistical model", a "stupid fiction" according to Ramsey.

A related change is to stop the focus on Bayesian stats as a religion or philosophy, slightly better than Dianetics but on a par with Objectivism. Bayesian stats is not the answer to all decision problems.

Bayesian stats is used when somebody has an important problem that is so important that it is worth describing by a probability model---and this involves time by an educated statistician, so it is expensive: They want to make predictions about some important event that is exchangeable with some data and they have some information about the both (e.g. expert knowledge, or simulations of mathematical models, or prior experiments or surveys, etc.).

Let me quote from John W. Pratt:

"Howard Raiffa and Robert Schlaifer ... 25 years ago, and our joint paper of 1964 said:

'... we consider the problem faced by a person who on most occasions makes decisions intuitively and more or less inconsistently, like all other mortals, but who on some one, particular occasion wishes to make some one, particular decision in a reasoned, deliberate manner.... avoided any reference to the behavior of idealized decision makers all of whose acts are perfectly self-consistent; instead, we have taken a strictly "constructive" approach to the problem of analyzing a single problem of decision under uncertainty, hoping thereby to dispel such apparently common misconceptions as that a utility function and a system of judgmental probabilities necessarily exist without conscious effort, or that they can be discovered only by learning how the decision maker would make a very large number of decision'

I am sorry to sound so nasty. For some reason, statisticians who work in the foundations of the field often seem nicer in person than in writing. Shafer does, and I hope I do too."

Pratt, John W. (1986). "Comment ". Statistical Science. 1 (4). Institute of Mathematical Statistics: 498–499. doi:10.1214/ss/1177013523. JSTOR 2245799. MR 0874479. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

I agree with Pratt's remarks, especially the last.

Furthermore, Bayesian inference is a small part of inductive inference, which is a small part of inference, much of which is covered by Charles Sanders Peirce's pragmaticism (c.f. mode of inquiry). Peirce noted that thinking starts when there is a recognition of a problem, and then there is work to be done. Thinking is not easy. Gelman is right to have been allergic against the snake oil that everybody must use Bayesian updating all the time to think, if they are rational, imho.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Well, I'm glad you settled down there! And there I was, about to pin you down on the floor and lay about you with the eight-foot plaited leather bullwhip, whilst wearing the leather gear and thigh-length boots ... except that you might have enjoyed it ;P Pesky (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bayesian inference (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Consequence and Antecedent

The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Specialist

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2012

• News and notes: Finance meeting fallout, Gardner recommendations forthcoming

• Recent research: Gender gap and conflict aversion; collaboration on breaking news; effects of leadership on participation; legacy of Public Policy Initiative

• Discussion report: Focus on admin conduct and editor retention

• WikiProject report: Just don't call it "sci-fi": WikiProject Science Fiction

• Featured content: By plane, by ship, and by stagecoach: Featured content goes trekking this week

• Arbitration report: Final decision in TimidGuy ban appeal, one case remains open

• Technology report: 1.19 deployment stress, Meta debates whether to enforce SUL

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

WMF's "rate this page"

I opened a discussion of the WMF's "rate this page" initiative to recruit editors from readers. Such recruitment "surveys" are prohibited by the ethical code of public-opinion researchers.

FYIly,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Civility

Keifer, please consider redacting this comment in the discussion about the AFT. Implying that someone who argues against you may have brain damage (and the "momentary lapse" bit doesn't change that that's what you've implied) isn't an acceptable rhetorical technique - it's simply an insult, and is not likely to enhance the discussion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi fluffernutter!

Ironholds responded to my comment, more accurately than you, and so I cannot redact it. I don't believe that you are adding anything to Ironholds's comment, which I have already read and, per policy, implicitly acknowledged.

Please review the civility policy about feigning incomprehension and Arbcom's civility enforcement case's statement about baiting, along with the pattern of the user's contributions on that page.

Have you redacted your insults and BS allegations against BadgerDrink? Stay away at least until after you have.

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you're still able to redact it - a strikethrough would work, for example, to indicate that you've reconsidered your words. But if you've taken Ironholds's and/or my comments on board and, while not redacting, don't intend to pursue the line of argument that other editors may be brain damaged, I'll settle for that. As for your commentary about me, "insults and BS allegations", "baiting", etc aren't my style and are something I do my best to avoid, but if you feel that there are issues in that regard, please feel free to pursue dispute resolution through the usual channels. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is the channel. You signed numerous personal attacks against BD, and you are an administrator or sysop (whatever that is). You need to remove your signature from them, or otherwise make amends.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:07, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi again!

I struck through the brain-damaged comment on brain-damage, per your and Ironholds's wisdom.

I did not say that you were baiting. You are straightforward, I am happy to write. However, you did sign some statements that including discussions of BD's psychology, etc., which were inappropriate. I wrote that somebody at the WMF-survey discussion seemed to be writing especially obtusely!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Mathematical shop talk

Confessions of non-sober categorizations

I resisted not the temptation to include category-theorist Colin McLarty in "Category:Category-theoretic categories, which is my favorite Misplaced Pages category.

A sober mathematician, not necessarily Dana Scott, removed McLarty with only silent remonstration.

1. Author: Johnstone, Peter Editor: Banaschewski, Bernhard Editor: Hoffmann, Rudolf-Eberhard Primary Title: Scott is not always sober Book Title: Continuous Lattices Book Series Title: Lecture Notes in Mathematics Copyright: 1981 Publisher: Springer Berlin / Heidelberg Isbn: 978-3-540-10848-1 Subject: Mathematics and Statistics Start Page: 282 End Page: 283 Volume: 871 Url: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BFb0089911 Doi: 10.1007/BFb0089911

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Categories: de Finetti's theorem, Choquet simplices, and (measure) convexity

Hi K.,

Brad7777 and me probably did not quite understand your remark at User_talk:Brad7777#de_Finetti. Could you please comment?

Thanks, Sasha (talk) 00:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, my friend! I was even more cryptic than usual, perhaps because I have lost most disagreements with Brad, and so feared to offer more than token resistance! ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw the edit summary for this thread and of course rushed here, but needlessly it seemed. Posting here nonetheless in Brad Cabal solidarity. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I am flattered, Brad₂, that you noticed! :)

Bradleys of the world should stick together. An injury to one Bradley is an injury to all Bradleys. ;)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hilbert Space

Your version of the article states that Hilbert spaces are vector spaces. This is a (minor) mistake that is commonly made. Perhaps their intuitions are mutually applicable; however, factually speaking, based on definitions, Hilbert spaces are not necessarily vector spaces. Please review basic definitions: note that "linear combinations" in the vector space sense are must be combinations of a finite number of basis vectors. The finite restriction is lifted when speaking about hilbert bases for hilbert spaces. --Liuyipei (talk) 08:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I replied at the Hilbert space article. Briefly, in the definition of a vector space, finite linear-combinations appear in the algebraic-closure axioms (linear combinations of elements in a vector space remain in the vector space). There is no negation of the existence of infinite linear-combinations. Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Discipline Global Mobile DYK nomination seeks reviewer

• Thanks for thinking of me Kiefer; however, I no longer get involved in DYK. My memory of it, though, was that it was fairly easy to get an article listed. You nominate it, and then leave it. Provided you have met the criteria, it gets listed, and there are rarely any questions or extra work to do. Good luck! SilkTork 16:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right, of course.

I thought with 10 KC edits, you might find it fun. :)

Now that I think of it, I probably didn't need to write Santa Claus either, because I met the criteria then too!

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

(Re MF talk) The second part of my suggestion is better than my proposed clause in the middle. I didn't like "insist" but my rewording went too far in the other direction... Geometry guy 22:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Geometry guy!

"Insist" is too strong, I agree. The article's "eschew" sounds like the writing of a student who has been preparing for SATs. We can do better!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• ... that the music company Discipline Global Mobile prefers has the policy that copyrights belong to artists and consequently does not own even its corporate logo (pictured)?

The latest nomination benefits from the felicitous phrasing of Geometry guy.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Discipline Global Mobile

Hello! Your submission of Discipline Global Mobile at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Ishtar456 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ishtar456!

Thanks for the notification and for your attention to the responses of Geometry guy and Silver seren. who were the champions of DGM during my slumber.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Discipline Global Mobile logo.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Discipline Global Mobile logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Misplaced Pages (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, Skier Dude.

Steve Ball has generously donated a finer image, with a CC 3.0 BY SA license, so this coarser fair-use image may be deleted.

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. When you recently edited Progressive rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Wave (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Your input would be really appreciated

... over at the Civility, clear, plain and simple sandbox. Pesky (talk) 09:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

A civility policy needs to be written to empower administrative action. This is not a priority for me.

A statement of purpose would be more my style. We are here to write an encyclopedia. All our actions are to be judged in so far as they contribute to that goal.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Our rules need be no more complicated than the rules at summer camp. There are two kinds of people, nice ones and mean ones; if you want to stay, you have to be or work on becoming a nice one. We have activities as part of our program. Campers can ask their cabin-leaders for advice at almost any time. However, campers should respect that counselors and the camp directors have a lot of work to do, and respect them, in particular not by thinking before speaking---in particular, to avoid speaking to disrupt the group from its activity or draw attention to themselves rather than the group's activities.

The contentious applications of civility have to do with a camper overhearing the camp director chastise another camper for coming into their office and disrupting their work, and the camper exclaiming, "But you have to be nice!". At summer camp, the second camper would be quickly told the facts of life; at WP, the second camper causes a headache at ANI, too often---at least, the explanations of adults at ANI that there is work to be done and that the camp director has the authority to chastise a camper who is disrupting his work and wasting his time seems to be forgotten at RfCs and ArbCom evidence.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:03, 6 March 2012 (UTC)