Welcome!
Hello, Likelihoodist, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called
Your first article. 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 {{
help me}}
on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!-- Mishae ( talk) 22:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Likelihoodist! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Welcome to the Teahouse Badge | |
Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the
Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to
learn how to edit Wikipedia. | |
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at
my talk page. Happy Editing!
|
Anastasia
Thanks for the badge.
Suppose that a non-Wikipedia web page is not copyrighted and is written under a Creative Commons license. In addition, suppose that a submitted Wikipedia page describes some software that is also described in this non-Wikipedia page. Is it acceptable for the Wikipedia page to use text obtained from this non-Wikipedia page in describing this software?
Likelihoodist ( talk) 21:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anastasia
The website is http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/wiki/Main/PowerSampleSize, which I created to distribute our PS power and sample size calculation program. I have submitted a page for publication on Wikipedia that describes this page (see /info/en/?search=User:Likelihoodist/sandbox). I would be most interested in your thoughts about the suitability of this page and any suggestions that you may have as to how it can be improved.
Likelihoodist ( talk) 01:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anastasia
For your information I have edited my submitted web page to avoid any copying of material from anywhere. Thank you for your advice.
Likelihoodist ( talk) 01:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anastasia
Many thanks for your kind and reassuring words. (I hope you are correct.) I do indeed understand the transfer of ownership upon acceptance by Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a bran new world for me. I am familiar with academic publishing where one looses ownership in the sense that copyright is transferred to the publisher. However, in these publications the final wording, after the usual battles with editors and referees, is locked in stone. I realize that Wikipedia pages are much more fluid. Clearly, however, the process works. I am amazed at the quality and breadth of Wikipedia articles, and use them extensively in my day-to-day work. One of the challenges of being a biostatistician is that I am continually thrust into new areas of biology and medicine about which I have limited knowledge. Wikipedia has become my first choice in obtaining an introduction to these topics. I am most grateful to you and the thousands of other Wikipedia editors for making Wikipedia such an incredibly valuable resource.
One final question, I would like my page refereed by someone who is knowledgeable about power calculations. I have indicated this preference in the talk page that is linked to my sandbox. Is there some sort of Wikipedia tag or other device that I should use in my page to indicate this preference?
Best wishes,
Bill Likelihoodist ( talk) 15:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Editors:
This talk section is linked to a Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation web page describing the PS program, which I submit for publication on Wikipedia. I request that this page be refereed by a biostatistician or statistician.
The notability of this program is documented in this page [4] . I hope that you will also consider three additional pieces of evidence, which I have not included in this submission as either you instructions advise against it or I was unable to find similar evidence used in other Wikipedia pages.
1. The PS webpage has been at or near the top of Goggle searches in response to "Power and Sample Size" for the past decade. On August 29, 2013 it was the first hit in response to this search. In contrast, the PASS sample size software, which is sufficiently notable to merit its own Wikipedia page, was the 18th hit in response to this search on this date. I would argue that the standing of the PS program given by the Page-rank algorithm is evidence of its notability.
2. Google Analytics reports that there were 74,367 visits to our web page between September 6, 2012 and September 6, 3013. (See copy of the Google Analytics web page. Please let me know if you would like to see the original page and I will try to figure out a way for you to do this.) I am unable to document the number of program downloads during this time, but the primary purpose of visiting the page is to download the software. In any event, this volume of visits is an indicator of notability.
3. The original peer-reviewed paper that describes the PS program is Dupont and Plummer: Controlled Clinical Trials 1990; 11:116-28. The program's documentation lists this paper as a suggested citation. According to the Web of Science ( see also), this paper has been cited 722 times in the literature. I would submit that this is evidence that the program is being extensively used and hence is notable.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Sincerely,
Likelihoodist ( talk) 16:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello DrMicro
I am contacting you in the hopes that you can give me feedback and advice on a page, PS Power and Sample Size, that I submitted for publication on Wikipedia. I am writing to you because of your contributions to the sample size determination page.
My PS page was rejected a few weeks ago by Hasteur. The only feedback that he gave me for this rejection was the comment "Cluster of 9 references all together does not inspire confidence. Fix it." My response to Hasteur is given below. To date, I have received no reply. I would be most grateful if you could look briefly at the PS page and my response to Hasteur below and let me know if you think my submission met the Wikipedia criteria for notability, and if so whether there is any way that I can either fix this page or appeal this decision.
Best wishes,
Likelihoodist ( talk) 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Likelihoodist ( talk) 14:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Hasteur:
I would be most grateful if you could provide me with more guidance as to how I can fix my PS submission.
First, is the only issue notability or do you have other concerns? With regard to notability, I would hope that the following points are relevant.
In any event, I would deeply appreciate any further explanation that you can give me as to why the PS submission is not acceptable for publication on Wikipedia at this time. I would also be most grateful for any advice as to what I need to do to increase your confidence in the references that I provided with my submission.
Sincerely,
Likelihoodist ( talk) 20:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello DragonflySixtyseven:
Yesterday I received an email saying that "User:Likelihoodist was reviewed by DragonflySixtyseven." but I could not find any input from you.
I would be most grateful if you could give me some feedback on a page that I recently submitted to Wikipedia. This page, PS Power and Sample Size was rejected by Hasteur on October 1, 2013. He/she wrote "Cluster of 9 references all together does not inspire confidence. Fix it." I left him the message given immediately above this one asking him for additional guidance and summarizing the evidence concerning the notability of this page. Unfortunately, he has not responded to date. Would you be willing to look briefly at this submission, and my response to Hasteur? Power calculations are of great interest to an admittedly specialized audience. However, Wikipedia does publish a great deal on information on topics that are only of critical interest to specialized experts. I would be deeply indebted to you if you could provide me with some insight into the degree of notability required of such pages for publication in your encyclopedia.
Sincerely
Likelihoodist ( talk) 22:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS ( talk) 23:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Hasteur:
I have edited and resubmitted the PS Power and Sample Size in response to your directions "Cluster of 9 references all together does not inspire confidence. Fix it." I would be most grateful if you would let me know whether these edits satisfactorily address your concerns.
Best wishes,
Likelihoodist ( talk) 23:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
— Tom Morris ( talk) 17:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Hello Tom:
Many thanks. The delay was largely my fault. I initially interpreted Hasteur's rejection sentence "Cluster of 9 references all together does not inspire confidence. Fix it." as meaning that he was not confident that my references documented sufficient notability for the PS program. It was unclear to me how I could fix this so I put my page aside and went on to other labors. It was only months later when I reread his sentence that I realized that he might be only asking for a minor edit related to my having cited nine references at one time. This was trivial to fix, but by this time, Hasteur was working on other pages. He, like yourself and the thousands of other Wikipedia editors donate extraordinary amounts of time to Wikipedia and it is not surprising that his response was terse. But I guess what he intended as a conditional acceptance, I interpreted as a flat rejection.
Currently, Wikipedia has a page on statistical power and a page on sample size calculations. Neither of these pages say anything about software for making these calculations. The PS and PASS pages describe such software but are orphans. Would it make sense for me to add a new page on power and sample size calculation software? This page would link to the PASS and PS pages and would also briefly describe the other most popular commercial and free programs that are available. The sample size and power calculation pages would both be linked to this new software page. Do you think that such an addition might be well received by the Wikipedia editors? Would you recommend that I just go ahead and do this or should I submit same as another contribution for review by the Wikipedia editors?
With best wishes for 2014
Bill Dupont Likelihoodist ( talk) 22:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Likelihoodist ( talk) 23:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Tom
Please take a look at my edits to the Statistical power and Sample size determination pages. My intent in writing this paragraph for the Statistical Power page was to remove the orphan status of the PASS and PS pages and to provide a brief description of software that is highly ranked by Google searches for "power and sample size." Since I last looked, there are now external software links that have been added to these pages. Some of these links are not included in my paragraph, as I wanted to get some feed back from you and other editors before making further edits. Any edits that you would care to make to my paragraph would be much appreciated. I would certainly be willing to make this paragraph much shorter (giving little except links to the PS and PASS pages) if you think that that would improve the overall value of these Wikipedia pages.
Best wishes,
Likelihoodist ( talk) 19:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Likelihoodist. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Odds ratio for a matched case-control study, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Likelihoodist, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called
Your first article. 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 {{
help me}}
on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!-- Mishae ( talk) 22:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi Likelihoodist! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Welcome to the Teahouse Badge | |
Awarded to editors who have introduced themselves at the
Wikipedia Teahouse. Guest editors with this badge show initiative and a great drive to
learn how to edit Wikipedia. | |
Thank you for introducing yourself and contributing to Wikipedia! If you have any questions feel free to drop me a line at
my talk page. Happy Editing!
|
Anastasia
Thanks for the badge.
Suppose that a non-Wikipedia web page is not copyrighted and is written under a Creative Commons license. In addition, suppose that a submitted Wikipedia page describes some software that is also described in this non-Wikipedia page. Is it acceptable for the Wikipedia page to use text obtained from this non-Wikipedia page in describing this software?
Likelihoodist ( talk) 21:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anastasia
The website is http://biostat.mc.vanderbilt.edu/wiki/Main/PowerSampleSize, which I created to distribute our PS power and sample size calculation program. I have submitted a page for publication on Wikipedia that describes this page (see /info/en/?search=User:Likelihoodist/sandbox). I would be most interested in your thoughts about the suitability of this page and any suggestions that you may have as to how it can be improved.
Likelihoodist ( talk) 01:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anastasia
For your information I have edited my submitted web page to avoid any copying of material from anywhere. Thank you for your advice.
Likelihoodist ( talk) 01:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Anastasia
Many thanks for your kind and reassuring words. (I hope you are correct.) I do indeed understand the transfer of ownership upon acceptance by Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a bran new world for me. I am familiar with academic publishing where one looses ownership in the sense that copyright is transferred to the publisher. However, in these publications the final wording, after the usual battles with editors and referees, is locked in stone. I realize that Wikipedia pages are much more fluid. Clearly, however, the process works. I am amazed at the quality and breadth of Wikipedia articles, and use them extensively in my day-to-day work. One of the challenges of being a biostatistician is that I am continually thrust into new areas of biology and medicine about which I have limited knowledge. Wikipedia has become my first choice in obtaining an introduction to these topics. I am most grateful to you and the thousands of other Wikipedia editors for making Wikipedia such an incredibly valuable resource.
One final question, I would like my page refereed by someone who is knowledgeable about power calculations. I have indicated this preference in the talk page that is linked to my sandbox. Is there some sort of Wikipedia tag or other device that I should use in my page to indicate this preference?
Best wishes,
Bill Likelihoodist ( talk) 15:24, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear Wikipedia Editors:
This talk section is linked to a Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation web page describing the PS program, which I submit for publication on Wikipedia. I request that this page be refereed by a biostatistician or statistician.
The notability of this program is documented in this page [4] . I hope that you will also consider three additional pieces of evidence, which I have not included in this submission as either you instructions advise against it or I was unable to find similar evidence used in other Wikipedia pages.
1. The PS webpage has been at or near the top of Goggle searches in response to "Power and Sample Size" for the past decade. On August 29, 2013 it was the first hit in response to this search. In contrast, the PASS sample size software, which is sufficiently notable to merit its own Wikipedia page, was the 18th hit in response to this search on this date. I would argue that the standing of the PS program given by the Page-rank algorithm is evidence of its notability.
2. Google Analytics reports that there were 74,367 visits to our web page between September 6, 2012 and September 6, 3013. (See copy of the Google Analytics web page. Please let me know if you would like to see the original page and I will try to figure out a way for you to do this.) I am unable to document the number of program downloads during this time, but the primary purpose of visiting the page is to download the software. In any event, this volume of visits is an indicator of notability.
3. The original peer-reviewed paper that describes the PS program is Dupont and Plummer: Controlled Clinical Trials 1990; 11:116-28. The program's documentation lists this paper as a suggested citation. According to the Web of Science ( see also), this paper has been cited 722 times in the literature. I would submit that this is evidence that the program is being extensively used and hence is notable.
Thank you for considering this submission.
Sincerely,
Likelihoodist ( talk) 16:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello DrMicro
I am contacting you in the hopes that you can give me feedback and advice on a page, PS Power and Sample Size, that I submitted for publication on Wikipedia. I am writing to you because of your contributions to the sample size determination page.
My PS page was rejected a few weeks ago by Hasteur. The only feedback that he gave me for this rejection was the comment "Cluster of 9 references all together does not inspire confidence. Fix it." My response to Hasteur is given below. To date, I have received no reply. I would be most grateful if you could look briefly at the PS page and my response to Hasteur below and let me know if you think my submission met the Wikipedia criteria for notability, and if so whether there is any way that I can either fix this page or appeal this decision.
Best wishes,
Likelihoodist ( talk) 20:14, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Likelihoodist ( talk) 14:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Hasteur:
I would be most grateful if you could provide me with more guidance as to how I can fix my PS submission.
First, is the only issue notability or do you have other concerns? With regard to notability, I would hope that the following points are relevant.
In any event, I would deeply appreciate any further explanation that you can give me as to why the PS submission is not acceptable for publication on Wikipedia at this time. I would also be most grateful for any advice as to what I need to do to increase your confidence in the references that I provided with my submission.
Sincerely,
Likelihoodist ( talk) 20:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello DragonflySixtyseven:
Yesterday I received an email saying that "User:Likelihoodist was reviewed by DragonflySixtyseven." but I could not find any input from you.
I would be most grateful if you could give me some feedback on a page that I recently submitted to Wikipedia. This page, PS Power and Sample Size was rejected by Hasteur on October 1, 2013. He/she wrote "Cluster of 9 references all together does not inspire confidence. Fix it." I left him the message given immediately above this one asking him for additional guidance and summarizing the evidence concerning the notability of this page. Unfortunately, he has not responded to date. Would you be willing to look briefly at this submission, and my response to Hasteur? Power calculations are of great interest to an admittedly specialized audience. However, Wikipedia does publish a great deal on information on topics that are only of critical interest to specialized experts. I would be deeply indebted to you if you could provide me with some insight into the degree of notability required of such pages for publication in your encyclopedia.
Sincerely
Likelihoodist ( talk) 22:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS ( talk) 23:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Hasteur:
I have edited and resubmitted the PS Power and Sample Size in response to your directions "Cluster of 9 references all together does not inspire confidence. Fix it." I would be most grateful if you would let me know whether these edits satisfactorily address your concerns.
Best wishes,
Likelihoodist ( talk) 23:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
— Tom Morris ( talk) 17:21, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Hello Tom:
Many thanks. The delay was largely my fault. I initially interpreted Hasteur's rejection sentence "Cluster of 9 references all together does not inspire confidence. Fix it." as meaning that he was not confident that my references documented sufficient notability for the PS program. It was unclear to me how I could fix this so I put my page aside and went on to other labors. It was only months later when I reread his sentence that I realized that he might be only asking for a minor edit related to my having cited nine references at one time. This was trivial to fix, but by this time, Hasteur was working on other pages. He, like yourself and the thousands of other Wikipedia editors donate extraordinary amounts of time to Wikipedia and it is not surprising that his response was terse. But I guess what he intended as a conditional acceptance, I interpreted as a flat rejection.
Currently, Wikipedia has a page on statistical power and a page on sample size calculations. Neither of these pages say anything about software for making these calculations. The PS and PASS pages describe such software but are orphans. Would it make sense for me to add a new page on power and sample size calculation software? This page would link to the PASS and PS pages and would also briefly describe the other most popular commercial and free programs that are available. The sample size and power calculation pages would both be linked to this new software page. Do you think that such an addition might be well received by the Wikipedia editors? Would you recommend that I just go ahead and do this or should I submit same as another contribution for review by the Wikipedia editors?
With best wishes for 2014
Bill Dupont Likelihoodist ( talk) 22:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Likelihoodist ( talk) 23:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Tom
Please take a look at my edits to the Statistical power and Sample size determination pages. My intent in writing this paragraph for the Statistical Power page was to remove the orphan status of the PASS and PS pages and to provide a brief description of software that is highly ranked by Google searches for "power and sample size." Since I last looked, there are now external software links that have been added to these pages. Some of these links are not included in my paragraph, as I wanted to get some feed back from you and other editors before making further edits. Any edits that you would care to make to my paragraph would be much appreciated. I would certainly be willing to make this paragraph much shorter (giving little except links to the PS and PASS pages) if you think that that would improve the overall value of these Wikipedia pages.
Best wishes,
Likelihoodist ( talk) 19:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Likelihoodist. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Odds ratio for a matched case-control study, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)