![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Just an FYI. I made several changes to the Oriented Matroid article. Considering your numerous edits on that article, I thought you might want to know. Best Wishes, Jwesley 78 02:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
This is widespread throughout and seems unhelpful. As I'm sure you're aware, one need not start from point hypotheses in order to build up inference, and in particular inference about real-valued parameters confuses people in this way. Saying we start from 'assumptions' avoids this —Preceding unsigned comment added by McPastry ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on F-test of the hypothesis that two populations have the same variance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
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 that has been nominated for deletion (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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
NerdyScienceDude :) (
✉ click to talk •
my edits •
sign)
00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on F-test of the hypothesis that two populations have the same variance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
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 that has been nominated for deletion (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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
NerdyScienceDude :) (
✉ click to talk •
my edits •
sign)
00:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The speedy-delete notice was removed. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 08:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Melcombe, you purged the category of procedures whose text already named them as obsolete. I don't understand your comment that categories shouldn't have just one item, given your purging behavior of Box-Pierce (whose text described it as obsolete) and the F-test. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
responded on my talk page. -- SasiSasi ( talk) 19:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this article please? Somebody posted at WP:COIN with concerns about it, I started to tidy it up and then an IP seems to have become offended at me questioning the notability of the subject and hacked the article to pieces. I'm not going to start edit warring with them but it would be useful if you could take a look, particularly at Talk:Shlomo Sawilowsky#Notability tag. Thanks a lot Smartse ( talk) 17:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
In appreciation of your work on Shlomo Sawilowsky, I hereby award you this barnstar.-- Iulus Ascanius ( talk) 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
Dear Kiefer.Wolfowitz,
Thank You for Your message. I have made the following change, please tell me if it is not approriate. The article now looks like this: User:Physis/Imre Ruzsa.
The cause why I stuck in failing to accomplish the article can be read here.
Thank You very much for Your help and attention,
Best wishes,
Physis ( talk) 13:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Some of the allegations and comments you made (and most made by Smartse and Lulus) were incorrect or apparently deliberately taken out of context. I chose not to defend myself, because it is petty. The fact that an Admin can be persuaded to block without checking is just another nail in the coffin of what Wikipedia describes itself as: nonprofessional.
As for your editing on Shlomo Sawilowksy, almost all of it was well done. Your comments on the discussion page, however, were frequently, imho, inflamatory and biased (regarding applied statistics v. math, not anti-Semitism). Many of your remarks on the disucssion page were statistically ignorant, but you have a rarely found ability to educate yourself and change your point of view. I wish others in math had your ability.
As for my editing of Enflo, please see the Shlomo Sawilowsky discussion page, where I outlined what I did and why. There is nothing new there - I previously explained what I did on the Enflo discussion page as I did it, as well as the Edit summary page, so it isn't like you have no idea why I made edits that improved the entry - you seem to want to just OWN. Instead, I suggest you assume good faith on edits. Edstat ( talk) 16:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, it has been decided there that doctoral students must have their own articles to be included in the info box. Although I would not insult Enflo's or Kempthorne doctoral students as you have repeatedly and viciously attacked and denigrated Shlomo Sawilowsky's doctoral students, apparently the jury is not still out on this and Enflo's students should remain out of the infobox. Edstat ( talk) 23:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Edstat's behavior seems like prototypical trolling. The recent editing is bizarre: Edstat spends hours on articles associated with me, then reverses everything the next day, without explanation. I leave it to others to infer what the obvious motivation is. Edstat's behavior seems to violate the guideline Wikipedia:Harrassment#Harassment_and_disruption, particularly "Wikihounding" and (Wikipedia but not "real world") "Threats". Complaints about trolling behavior may be made pursuant to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: Edstat's declaration of intention essentially is a Game of Chicken strategy of intimidating the editors of the Shlomo Sawilowsky page either to agree to his demands in one week, or witness his destructive editing in a wide range of articles, which begin with the articles on which I've worked. I would welcome another editor to consider whether Edstat's behavior warrants a complaint.
Edstat has twice suggested that other editors are motivated by anti-semitism, without any evidence, and without any apology; to me, this is itself grounds for sanction, perhaps informally by the community. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the tone of my recent replies to Edstat, and of course I would welcome the community's sanction(s) on me. But please stop Edstat's harrassment. Thanks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Kiefer.Wolfowitz,
Thank You very much for Your kind reassuring words and good wishes. I have read Your first answer too, just I had to attend a series of job interviews meanwhile, that's why I had to wait with my answer till today.
I like the contrast between natural sciences versus the belief systems of pre-agriculture folks, I like both fields, together with both the contrasts and the analogies. My PTSD seems to step back year by year. (Maybe Bruno Bettelheim was right, and pre-tribal cultures indeed had some efficient techniques to treat PTSD.) I wish much success to Your friend too.
Nowadays I contribute less on Wikipedia, because mathematics turned out to be larger, deeper, and more sophisticated than I thought previously (balance and context is more important in writing articles than I thought before). Thus I try to learn more, and delay writing for future.
Best wishes, and much luck also to Your friend living with PTSD,
Physis ( talk) 22:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
These comments are at your request from another page: I have been told not to respond to inflammatory remarks, and indeed, inflammatory remarks by others and my responses have been edited out. (I characterize it this way because almost always the material that was edited out started with another’s comment, followed by my response). I apologize in advance for being long winded – but here is my final attempt at asking for civility in editing.
You are entitled to an explanation as to why I reverted the Per Enflo and Oscar Kempthorne pages back to how you had them originally. I clearly stated my reasons for editing them when I did so, and summarized the reasons as well on the respective talk pages. I rely on any interested editor reading this to read what I wrote instead of how you have characterized what I wrote. Hence, I won’t repeat any of that here or respond to it further.
However, a senior editor said he/she didn’t think I was trying to disrupt, but it may have appeared that way to others. I truly intend on editing consistently on any article I choose to edit based on your comments, and comments of others, from the Shlomo Sawilowsky page. It is my learning laboratory. However, it was suggested that I first experiment and ask for comments (despite, a very irritated editor on that talk page who insisted wiki is not for talk pages but for editing, and another stating he/she would WP:Boldly edit. Apparently, those rules don’t apply always or to everyone.)
I took that senior editor’s concern seriously, and thus, I reverted all my edits back to the way you had those two articles completely. Although I knew you had a made a few minor changes based on my comments, you indicated on those talk pages you did so, generally, argumentatively, so I was trying to take the page back to the point where you wouldn’t have to compromise. I got hammered again – let no good deed go unpunished! I’m impressed that you proceeded to put a few (albeit minor) edits that I had called for back in, and I do apologize that it required extra effort on your part – but honestly you would be in the best position to do so because they were your edits.
As to some of your other questions, you are correct that I wasn’t clear by lumping together the three editors who spent a lot of time hammering the Shlomo Sawilowsky page. I mentioned a number of issues lumped together and then referred them in toto to the three of you. The other two (one apparently who was warned rather ominously) were primarily personal attacks; in your case it was primarily, in my view, inconsistency in applying how you interpret wiki policies on the Shlomo Sawilowsky page and the Per Enflo and Oscar Kempthorne page and, imo, your bias favoring mathematicians/mathematics.
I have given laundry lists detailing those inconsistencies, but to what purpose? In my opinion, there is an endless debate with you because you insist on judging the Shlomo Sawilowsky page on mathematics criteria when neither he nor the article states he is a mathematician, and you constantly denigrate any other related field, such as applied statistics (not mathematical statistics), data analysis, quantitative methods, evaluation and research; as well as their faculty and doctoral students; and their journals.
It is a LOT of hate – how could they all be “weak”, etc., and is there any field that is not superior to it in your view? You have even cited an, imho, minor mathematician
to bring the father of statistics
(who was actually a biologist and is on record as agreeing with Fisher that he was ignorant of modern mathematics
– but just spend a little time reading Biometrika from 1901 – 1936 and we will talk again!) to task because of what he wrote in a book to the layman!
You refuse to take the gentle hint, or the bombast, that this is biased, so I give up. When was the last time you got a call from a cancer patient participating in a clinical trial with a question on C* algebras or your beloved Banach spaces?
(BTW, I have a first edition Banach in my collection, and I consider it top shelf material, along with my first editions of Leibniz, Bernoulli, Eulor, Lagrange, and almost complete set of Liouville’s journal. But on top of the shelves I keep the best stuff (i.e., first edition Wilcoxon, etc.)
This is especially troubling in applied statistics/data analysis. Almost all that was thought to be true from mathematicians, mathematical statisticians, and their mathematics about small samples properties of statistics (e.g., Type I errors, Type II errors, comparative power) – real data analysis - was completely wrong.
Almost all that is known to be correct today is based on methods that you have denigrated on more than once occasion. We get it – you tolerate simulation methods only if buttressed by squiggles, and even then only under protest. But that was yesteryear when older mathematicians were unsure of resampling methods. Review the past quarter century of JASA (my collection goes to the 1920s) - there has clearly been a shift by younger folks to put the simulations up front and relegate the (typically incomplete) proofs to the appendices.
Your bias on another talk page about the best this and the best that (including superiority of someone’s coffee table to, in my words, the work of people at 75 Carnegie Research I Doctoral Extensive institutions in the US and similar across the globe) is rubbish to the real world of real data analysis. Hence, your bias comes out frequently, and it leads to many inconsistencies. Do you really want to count how many AuMS B and C rated journals are indexed by MathSciNet?~
So, to conclude, I get it – no one is notable or has done anything notable other than those whose articles you primarily edit. ~
Here we have an article ( Shlomo Sawilowsky) on someone who has authored over 100 articles in top social and behavioral sciences journals (based on Google Scholar), and is cited by at least 50 current textbooks in use around the world in a dozen languages (based on Google books), and the sum total that is worthy of detail is “Many of his publications are related to rank-based nonparametric statistics.” Let someone even try to put in secondary sources describing his work and lets see what you do.
There is only one solution. Lets both stick to independent, secondary, and reliable sources, and let the editing chips fall where they may. That is what I intend on continuing to do when I return to editing that and other pages.
And that is all I have to say about that. I simply won't respond anymore to inflamatory remarks, deliberate misunderstandings, deliberate restatments out of contexts, etc., including to what you may respond to here. I will, however, respond to reason and civility. Now, lets get to work and improve all three of these pages, and those that follow, including the Math Genealogy and JMASM articles if you so desire.
By the way, in glancing at your page just now, I happened to see the speedy deletion recommendation of the F test on variances. It has been known, via Monte Carlo studies, for over 40 years, and published in many social/behavioral science journals, that this test is terribly non-robust with respect to Type I errors for departures from population normality. I haven't read your wiki article, but I sure hope your aren't supporting its use! Edstat ( talk) 22:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Just an FYI. I made several changes to the Oriented Matroid article. Considering your numerous edits on that article, I thought you might want to know. Best Wishes, Jwesley 78 02:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
This is widespread throughout and seems unhelpful. As I'm sure you're aware, one need not start from point hypotheses in order to build up inference, and in particular inference about real-valued parameters confuses people in this way. Saying we start from 'assumptions' avoids this —Preceding unsigned comment added by McPastry ( talk • contribs) 20:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on F-test of the hypothesis that two populations have the same variance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
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 that has been nominated for deletion (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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
NerdyScienceDude :) (
✉ click to talk •
my edits •
sign)
00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
A tag has been placed on F-test of the hypothesis that two populations have the same variance requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.
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 that has been nominated for deletion (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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact
one of these admins to request that they
userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.
NerdyScienceDude :) (
✉ click to talk •
my edits •
sign)
00:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The speedy-delete notice was removed. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 08:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Melcombe, you purged the category of procedures whose text already named them as obsolete. I don't understand your comment that categories shouldn't have just one item, given your purging behavior of Box-Pierce (whose text described it as obsolete) and the F-test. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
responded on my talk page. -- SasiSasi ( talk) 19:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this article please? Somebody posted at WP:COIN with concerns about it, I started to tidy it up and then an IP seems to have become offended at me questioning the notability of the subject and hacked the article to pieces. I'm not going to start edit warring with them but it would be useful if you could take a look, particularly at Talk:Shlomo Sawilowsky#Notability tag. Thanks a lot Smartse ( talk) 17:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Man's Barnstar | |
In appreciation of your work on Shlomo Sawilowsky, I hereby award you this barnstar.-- Iulus Ascanius ( talk) 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC) |
Dear Kiefer.Wolfowitz,
Thank You for Your message. I have made the following change, please tell me if it is not approriate. The article now looks like this: User:Physis/Imre Ruzsa.
The cause why I stuck in failing to accomplish the article can be read here.
Thank You very much for Your help and attention,
Best wishes,
Physis ( talk) 13:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Some of the allegations and comments you made (and most made by Smartse and Lulus) were incorrect or apparently deliberately taken out of context. I chose not to defend myself, because it is petty. The fact that an Admin can be persuaded to block without checking is just another nail in the coffin of what Wikipedia describes itself as: nonprofessional.
As for your editing on Shlomo Sawilowksy, almost all of it was well done. Your comments on the discussion page, however, were frequently, imho, inflamatory and biased (regarding applied statistics v. math, not anti-Semitism). Many of your remarks on the disucssion page were statistically ignorant, but you have a rarely found ability to educate yourself and change your point of view. I wish others in math had your ability.
As for my editing of Enflo, please see the Shlomo Sawilowsky discussion page, where I outlined what I did and why. There is nothing new there - I previously explained what I did on the Enflo discussion page as I did it, as well as the Edit summary page, so it isn't like you have no idea why I made edits that improved the entry - you seem to want to just OWN. Instead, I suggest you assume good faith on edits. Edstat ( talk) 16:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, it has been decided there that doctoral students must have their own articles to be included in the info box. Although I would not insult Enflo's or Kempthorne doctoral students as you have repeatedly and viciously attacked and denigrated Shlomo Sawilowsky's doctoral students, apparently the jury is not still out on this and Enflo's students should remain out of the infobox. Edstat ( talk) 23:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Edstat's behavior seems like prototypical trolling. The recent editing is bizarre: Edstat spends hours on articles associated with me, then reverses everything the next day, without explanation. I leave it to others to infer what the obvious motivation is. Edstat's behavior seems to violate the guideline Wikipedia:Harrassment#Harassment_and_disruption, particularly "Wikihounding" and (Wikipedia but not "real world") "Threats". Complaints about trolling behavior may be made pursuant to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point: Edstat's declaration of intention essentially is a Game of Chicken strategy of intimidating the editors of the Shlomo Sawilowsky page either to agree to his demands in one week, or witness his destructive editing in a wide range of articles, which begin with the articles on which I've worked. I would welcome another editor to consider whether Edstat's behavior warrants a complaint.
Edstat has twice suggested that other editors are motivated by anti-semitism, without any evidence, and without any apology; to me, this is itself grounds for sanction, perhaps informally by the community. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for the tone of my recent replies to Edstat, and of course I would welcome the community's sanction(s) on me. But please stop Edstat's harrassment. Thanks. Kiefer.Wolfowitz ( talk) 23:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear Kiefer.Wolfowitz,
Thank You very much for Your kind reassuring words and good wishes. I have read Your first answer too, just I had to attend a series of job interviews meanwhile, that's why I had to wait with my answer till today.
I like the contrast between natural sciences versus the belief systems of pre-agriculture folks, I like both fields, together with both the contrasts and the analogies. My PTSD seems to step back year by year. (Maybe Bruno Bettelheim was right, and pre-tribal cultures indeed had some efficient techniques to treat PTSD.) I wish much success to Your friend too.
Nowadays I contribute less on Wikipedia, because mathematics turned out to be larger, deeper, and more sophisticated than I thought previously (balance and context is more important in writing articles than I thought before). Thus I try to learn more, and delay writing for future.
Best wishes, and much luck also to Your friend living with PTSD,
Physis ( talk) 22:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
These comments are at your request from another page: I have been told not to respond to inflammatory remarks, and indeed, inflammatory remarks by others and my responses have been edited out. (I characterize it this way because almost always the material that was edited out started with another’s comment, followed by my response). I apologize in advance for being long winded – but here is my final attempt at asking for civility in editing.
You are entitled to an explanation as to why I reverted the Per Enflo and Oscar Kempthorne pages back to how you had them originally. I clearly stated my reasons for editing them when I did so, and summarized the reasons as well on the respective talk pages. I rely on any interested editor reading this to read what I wrote instead of how you have characterized what I wrote. Hence, I won’t repeat any of that here or respond to it further.
However, a senior editor said he/she didn’t think I was trying to disrupt, but it may have appeared that way to others. I truly intend on editing consistently on any article I choose to edit based on your comments, and comments of others, from the Shlomo Sawilowsky page. It is my learning laboratory. However, it was suggested that I first experiment and ask for comments (despite, a very irritated editor on that talk page who insisted wiki is not for talk pages but for editing, and another stating he/she would WP:Boldly edit. Apparently, those rules don’t apply always or to everyone.)
I took that senior editor’s concern seriously, and thus, I reverted all my edits back to the way you had those two articles completely. Although I knew you had a made a few minor changes based on my comments, you indicated on those talk pages you did so, generally, argumentatively, so I was trying to take the page back to the point where you wouldn’t have to compromise. I got hammered again – let no good deed go unpunished! I’m impressed that you proceeded to put a few (albeit minor) edits that I had called for back in, and I do apologize that it required extra effort on your part – but honestly you would be in the best position to do so because they were your edits.
As to some of your other questions, you are correct that I wasn’t clear by lumping together the three editors who spent a lot of time hammering the Shlomo Sawilowsky page. I mentioned a number of issues lumped together and then referred them in toto to the three of you. The other two (one apparently who was warned rather ominously) were primarily personal attacks; in your case it was primarily, in my view, inconsistency in applying how you interpret wiki policies on the Shlomo Sawilowsky page and the Per Enflo and Oscar Kempthorne page and, imo, your bias favoring mathematicians/mathematics.
I have given laundry lists detailing those inconsistencies, but to what purpose? In my opinion, there is an endless debate with you because you insist on judging the Shlomo Sawilowsky page on mathematics criteria when neither he nor the article states he is a mathematician, and you constantly denigrate any other related field, such as applied statistics (not mathematical statistics), data analysis, quantitative methods, evaluation and research; as well as their faculty and doctoral students; and their journals.
It is a LOT of hate – how could they all be “weak”, etc., and is there any field that is not superior to it in your view? You have even cited an, imho, minor mathematician
to bring the father of statistics
(who was actually a biologist and is on record as agreeing with Fisher that he was ignorant of modern mathematics
– but just spend a little time reading Biometrika from 1901 – 1936 and we will talk again!) to task because of what he wrote in a book to the layman!
You refuse to take the gentle hint, or the bombast, that this is biased, so I give up. When was the last time you got a call from a cancer patient participating in a clinical trial with a question on C* algebras or your beloved Banach spaces?
(BTW, I have a first edition Banach in my collection, and I consider it top shelf material, along with my first editions of Leibniz, Bernoulli, Eulor, Lagrange, and almost complete set of Liouville’s journal. But on top of the shelves I keep the best stuff (i.e., first edition Wilcoxon, etc.)
This is especially troubling in applied statistics/data analysis. Almost all that was thought to be true from mathematicians, mathematical statisticians, and their mathematics about small samples properties of statistics (e.g., Type I errors, Type II errors, comparative power) – real data analysis - was completely wrong.
Almost all that is known to be correct today is based on methods that you have denigrated on more than once occasion. We get it – you tolerate simulation methods only if buttressed by squiggles, and even then only under protest. But that was yesteryear when older mathematicians were unsure of resampling methods. Review the past quarter century of JASA (my collection goes to the 1920s) - there has clearly been a shift by younger folks to put the simulations up front and relegate the (typically incomplete) proofs to the appendices.
Your bias on another talk page about the best this and the best that (including superiority of someone’s coffee table to, in my words, the work of people at 75 Carnegie Research I Doctoral Extensive institutions in the US and similar across the globe) is rubbish to the real world of real data analysis. Hence, your bias comes out frequently, and it leads to many inconsistencies. Do you really want to count how many AuMS B and C rated journals are indexed by MathSciNet?~
So, to conclude, I get it – no one is notable or has done anything notable other than those whose articles you primarily edit. ~
Here we have an article ( Shlomo Sawilowsky) on someone who has authored over 100 articles in top social and behavioral sciences journals (based on Google Scholar), and is cited by at least 50 current textbooks in use around the world in a dozen languages (based on Google books), and the sum total that is worthy of detail is “Many of his publications are related to rank-based nonparametric statistics.” Let someone even try to put in secondary sources describing his work and lets see what you do.
There is only one solution. Lets both stick to independent, secondary, and reliable sources, and let the editing chips fall where they may. That is what I intend on continuing to do when I return to editing that and other pages.
And that is all I have to say about that. I simply won't respond anymore to inflamatory remarks, deliberate misunderstandings, deliberate restatments out of contexts, etc., including to what you may respond to here. I will, however, respond to reason and civility. Now, lets get to work and improve all three of these pages, and those that follow, including the Math Genealogy and JMASM articles if you so desire.
By the way, in glancing at your page just now, I happened to see the speedy deletion recommendation of the F test on variances. It has been known, via Monte Carlo studies, for over 40 years, and published in many social/behavioral science journals, that this test is terribly non-robust with respect to Type I errors for departures from population normality. I haven't read your wiki article, but I sure hope your aren't supporting its use! Edstat ( talk) 22:40, 18 April 2010 (UTC)