User talk:Cazort

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Tree of Heaven

Great job with Tree of Heaven. It seems to me that Wikipedia's tree articles are pretty good with botanical information, but often lacking in ecological information. --Allen 18:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto to the above; one request, please note that wikipedia pages should be internally consistent in spelling; as an Asian species, it is in International English, not with American English spellings - thanks, MPF 17:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

sure...what spelling correction(s) did you have in mind? I notice you haven't made any changes yet. Cazort 23:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Things like odor to odour. I can do it tomorrow if you like - MPF 23:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evergreen

Hi Cazort - nice additions, can you dig out some references? I've also removed the note "The most cold-tolerant broadleaf evergreen tree is the American Holly", as there are several Asian broadleaf evergreen species as hardy, and it is also open to interpretation of what defines a "tree" with some hardier shrubs that can make small trees. - MPF 17:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

ok...I added some references but I need to learn how to reference them by number...I'll figure it out eventually...the "advantages of being evergreen" article should link with the "reference needed" that you pointed out. The other two articles also deal with this issue and with some of the other things I wrote. Cazort 23:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; referencing by number isn't too important, if it's easier, just add it in brackets like this (Author 1996) at the relevant point (like in a printed journal) - MPF 23:46, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relating Hypocricy to fundamental attribution error

Can you please explain how they relate? I read the article and it appears to me that the fundamental attribution error is based more on a mistake people make when determing why behaviour is done rather than hypocricy where the very same behaviour is justified by the one who does it and then villified when the very same thing is done to them.

The two do not appear to actually relate to one another at all.

Example:

Fred robs a persons house
- FAE: "Fred must be a bad person" instead of "Fred grew up in a bad neighbourhood and doesn't know better"
Someone then robs freds house
- Hypocrisy: Fred claims how wrong it is for people to break into peoples houses even though he did it himself

Enigmatical 23:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose this is my opinion but I think it is pretty clear: FAE is connected to hypocrisy as follows: the basic problem of FAE is that one tends to associate attributes in other individuals to the notion of their "self"--i.e. it reflects that they are a "bad person"...whereas when you judge yourself, you tend to focus more on your environment, i.e, you had good reasons to do what you did. Thus, you're more likely to hold others towards absolute morality, whereas you are more likely to hold yourself towards relative moral standards. The inconsistency in moral standards that you hold others to, vs. yourself, leads to the hypocrisy. Cazort 00:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh, thank you :) Now I can see the connection. Its the fact that they use different methods of judgement which makes them hypocritical. Very nicely explained. If it could be added to the article in some way I think it will provide some nice clarity for people to understand as well. Enigmatical 04:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obie culture reorganization

I like your recent reorganization, but it created at least one problem: the bike derby has nothing to do with sexuality or nudity. I'm not sure where best to put it. I feel that another section is needed that could cover the derby, the big parade, local foods fest, and other miscellaneous cultural events. What do you think?—WAvegetarian•(talk) 16:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Hmm...yeah...that sounds like a good idea...why not go ahead? Cazort 03:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: The Versatility Of C**t - removed section (censored out of politeness)

Good call, its basically just an email joke WookMuff 05:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The page still needs a lot of cleanup. Not sure exactly what the page should say, but a lot of the stuff in there is pretty inappropriate for an encyclopedia article...just a lot of senseless rambling. Cazort 18:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made to Bagel

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Cazort! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule petitiononline\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 19:03, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] on Bagel

Oh, I understand the humour as well (but this is an encylopedia) and your addition seamed like original research rather then encylopedic.

But if you want to add it, please find a real academic or news reference, the link you provided seems clear that it was done as a joke by some people. And if I'm not mistaken, anyone can go onto this website to create a survey. Therefore, this website does not fit a acceptable citing source for Wikipedia's standards. (as neither do personal blogs).

Either way a whole section for something quite obvious doesn't seem right. Really the term everything bagel, just includes all the "traditional" toppings (which doesn't really mean anything because as you point out, they are all over the world), but the traditional ones in the US and Canada anyways. (And probably before all the different vareirties came out)

And just to point out, even today, if you go to a "traditional" bagel place in the USA or Canada, you are likely not to find blueberry, choclate, etc... anyways.

If you want to further clarify this article, be bold, but please cite your sources. Oh, and please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for how do a ref tag, this is important for you to know as you didn't do it correctly.

I have nothing against what you wrote, I have wondered this since childhood as well, actually the restraunt near my home sold a "New York bagel", which was an "everything" bagel, and I always wonderd what they had to do with New York.....

This is probably the reason "everything" bagel is in quotes, so readers can take away the irony. But if you want it in, please source it. Giving something its own section for something which seems trival without citing it doesn't seam right. I would prefer a simple sentence along the lines of........An everything bagel includes xyz, even though today, numerous different toppings types are used on the bagel, and it does not include them. Epson291 23:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COTA bus

I asked for assistance at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems#Am I being too strict here?. --NE2 08:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks; I didn't see the whole conversation the first time! Cazort 15:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your work on maths ratings

You have been lighting up my watchlist with your edits, way to go! Are you a member of WP:WPM? If not, I highly encourage you to join. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that your work has not gone unnoticed. Cheers--Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 21:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Almost forgot... you might want to read up on general policy on importance ratings Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Wikipedia_1.0/Importance here. I think most of your edits have been in line with policy, but if you are going to make a habit of this it would be a good idea to familiarize yourself with the general policy.Cheers again :) --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 21:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, this is a very useful page. Sometimes I just don't know where to look for things like this...wikipedia tends to be very easy to navigate, but the community of wikipedia editors, and the maze of guidelines and standards is often far-from-transparent to me! Cazort 21:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem, If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask me or one of the math admins User:Oleg Alexandrov User:CBM and User:Jitse Niesen for help. You can also post on WT:WPM there are always helpful people hanging out there. The same is true for just about any wikiproject. If you have any particular interests I can point you in the right direction for the relevant project. Cheers#3 --Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 21:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello from me too. I've been uprating some of your adjustments, because importance/priority ratings are assessed in context, and "interest to a general audience" is not a major issue for more specialized articles. Geometry guy 09:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, is it not of some importance? This seems to be what separates Wikipedia from, say, PlanetMath. I understand that not everything is going to be accessible to the layman but I think that we ought to work to keep wikipedia articles on math subjects oriented more towards a general audience (at least a general audience of people with some math knowledge) than would be the case for a specialized math reference. Cazort 13:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evergreen article references

Hi. This post is about your references on the article Evergreen (diff).

Recently, someone reformated your references, but placed all of them at the end of the section (diff).

Do you remember what are the specific paragraphs or facts they were supposed to support, and whether they may satisfy this new request for citation? (diff)

Thanks. 75.63.18.106 10:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit to predation

Re: your edit to the mobbing behavior section, it would probably be better to add this material to the mobbing behavior article. Predation uses summary style, the point being to summarize the material in the daughter article. Adding new material that isn't covered in mobbing behavior is not the best way to go about things, as it desynchronizes the articles, leaving the summary containing information that isn't even in the main article. When making future edits to sections such as this, consider adding the material to the daughter article instead of or as well as adding it to the broader article. Richard001 23:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, I did not see this separate article. You are totally right; the material I added would belong on the other page, if it's not already there. Cazort 13:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brewery categories

Categories are the easiest things to make mistakes on - yet can have big implications for the way that Wiki is structured. I made mistakes as well when I first started editing. Yet I think it's important that new editors do look at and question the categories because it's so easy for long standing editors to miss the obvious because they've been staring at it for months and got used to it! Keep up the editing! Regards SilkTork 23:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that I made a mistake with the categorization of breweries, and I think it is proper to revert any changes of that sort that I made. However, I do not think that my categorization of non-alcoholic beer is a mistake. I have restored those edits and I look forward to hearing why you objected to them. Cazort 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I responded on my talk page, but I assume you've missed this as you haven't responded, yet are continuing to populate the cat under discussion. Here is the response I wrote:

"It was not my intention to be condescending. It was my intention to be friendly, helpful and supportive, and to share with you my own experiences of dealing with categories. I felt my comments were encouraging you to continue editing categories, and to get involved with the beer project. Though I agree and accept that I didn't give you a full explanation for my editing. It is something that happens now and again, and I am guilty as others for that. It usually boils down to the whole nature of how we all do our Wiki editing. We log on at odd moments - perhaps to do some reading, perhaps to do some editing, or perhaps to response to messages or check on some activity. While on Wiki something may catch our eye which we'll then edit. Depending on time and other circumstances we may then give a full explanation of what we have done or we may not. Certainly where there may be some controversy it is always advised to give an explanation, and if one hasn't the time for that, then leave the editing for another moment. We are, however, all human and frail and few of us edit Wiki in a perfect manner that is going to please everyone. Clashes do sometimes occur - mostly through misunderstandings. In my message to you I should have given a full explanation, and I apologise to you that I did not. So, what was my thinking for emptying Category:Non-alcoholic beer? Well, we have two categories for styles and types of beer, and we have a category for non-alcoholic beverages. So there are already three categories into which individual beers can be placed appropriately. Categories work best when they are neither too broad nor too narrow. We could have a category for each style of beer, but that would be too narrow. This article addresses that issue: Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Also, for individual products the consensus is that they go into the article for the company that makes them, unless they are significant in themselves. Certainly, while both the product and the company are stubs it would make sense to keep them together. This [1] deals with that topic. We have been down this road several times and had a long discussion on it, from which this essay emerged: Wikipedia:Notability (breweries). As I said to you earlier - it's always good to have fresh views on something. Nothing I have said here should suggest that your way is wrong and my way is right - merely to give you an explanation for why I proceeded the way I did. Regards SilkTork 09:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC) "

Does this response seem reasonable to you? Would you like to talk about it now? Regards again, SilkTork 09:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I've heard nothing from you for a while. I have today listed the category for discussion. [2] SilkTork 15:26, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been without internet for a while. This is fine! Cazort 22:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Systems

Thanks for joining the WikiProject Systems. I hope together we can make a difference. If there are things you want to discuss or initiate, please let me know or leave a message at the WikiProject Systems talk page. I've been running the WikiProject Systems with lot's of support for half a year now, and things are still moving. The Announcements archive gives just a little impression of the things we have been doing. This doesn't tell that we are not that active. Things are moving with a stop and go... and in a way (after four years now) I am also still learning about the opportunities and limitations of wikis.

I always try to find similarities. And I have noticed that you have made some contributions in the field of the systems ecology and on the mathematical model article. I made some contributions here too (I wrote the (short) Dutch article on mathematical modelling)..., although I'm not an expert in those fields (and in English neither). I hope we can join forces here, or maybe elsewhere. Good luck. - Mdd 23:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I was excited to find the community...I often feel a bit isolated within academia when it comes to my interests in systems theory, and I'm eager to find others who share an interest to it. Some things I have been thinking about are wikipedia pages in areas of philosophy, including holism and reductionism (you'll see I made some edits to those and related pages lately). I am also interested in the connections between bayesian statistics and systems theory. Right now I'm starting a Ph.D. program in statistics at Yale, where the department has a lot of research interests represented in bayesian statistics, information theory, and networks, so I'm hoping to ultimately do something related to these things with my research. Cazort 23:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Lately, I have learned that there is interest in systems theory from a lot of angles... and it is fascinating to try to combine these perspectives into the Wikipedia representation of systems theory and all it's surroundings. I guess with the WikiProject Systems we are not much of a community yet, beeing started only half a year ago. I guess this will take some more time. In the meantime I'm glad that people like you are willing to support this. Good luck. - Mdd 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gamma Zee

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Gamma Zee, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of the page. Toohool (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mean squared error

You write:

Omitting technical terminology does not necessarily make a page more accessible.

As I stated in the edit comment "can't we keep the introduction simple and work up to mathematical formality later in the article?". This does not mean "omitting technical terminology"—it means starting with what the reader could reasonably understand and gradually easing him or her into the domain-specific formalisms. This is consistent with the Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible.
I believe I preserved all of your additions, including the part about "difference between the estimator and the true value of the parameter" which is a duplication of the formal definition in the "Definition and basic properties" section, and so seemed redundant.
You are very comfortable in introducing technical terms without definition, directly or indirectly. If I achieve anything here, I'd like to appeal to your sense that information should be democratic. I'd urge you to read the comments in Talk:Mean squared error, notably the one that states "This article is pretty useless to anyone but a math major.".

I agree that what I had put there was not ideal, but what is there now is still not ideal; it introduces other problems.

Could you provide specifics here?

I also think that your comment about why MSE is used (differentiability) is a bit problematic. The real justification for MSE is its natural link to the mean, like the characteristic property mentioned on the variance page. But how to explain that in common english? I'm not sure but I think it could be done.

It's been twenty years, but here's the argument for MSE as a general measure of how an estimator performs (as I understand it):

The measure that one would likely try first if one had to solve this problem from scratch is the mean absolute error (MAE): it's intuitive and computationally just about as easy as you can get (subtract, change signs, and add).
If one uses the MAE in constructing a method to find estimates of parameters so that the error is minimized, one of the first issues one runs into is that the derivative of $|X_i-\overline{X}|$ at $X_i = \overline{X}$ is undefined.
If one were to cast about for the "next best alternative", MSE looks fairly attractive, even though you have to do more work computationally (subtract, multiply, and add) and it weighs outliers more heavily than one would naturally expect (one source of the criticisms you cited).

About the "criticism", however, the Berger book I cited as a source for that paragraph very heavily criticizes the use of MSE. I thought it was pretty clear from context that that source refers to the entire paragraph...it seems clumsy to put a citation to the same source at the end of every sentence. Do you have a suggestion as to how to better handle this?

I urge you to read WP:WEASEL, especially the "this page in a nutshell" statement and the section on passive voice.

Couldn't we put the explanations that you added somewhere else in the article? This way we could keep the definition itself concise.

Yes, good point. I had a vague notion that I'd get to it some day or that it might inspire someone else to elaborate in the meantime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielPenfield (talk • contribs) 16:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mean squared error, redux

You write:

Also, I want to note that I think the rest of the article (besides the definition) is actually much more inaccessible than the definition!

Once again, could you provide specifics here?

All of the sections except the "Definition and basic properties" were included based on specific requests from the talk page.

I think it's dangerous to say that the reasons it is used are the reasons it should be used.

You are the first one to conflate the two (what is versus what ought to be), to my knowledge. Before you came along, nobody had issued any normative statements regarding MSE whatsoever. I think sections on its historical development as well as advantages and disadvantages would serve the article well, with Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible kept foremost in mind. It's your propensity to introduce terms without definition (e.g., true value, loss function) and fondness for redundancy that I take issue with. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Comfort (New Haven)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Joe Comfort (New Haven), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Joe Comfort (New Haven). RJC ^Talk 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Sexual repression

Sexual repression was not an article. It was a redirect to Sexual morality. Per debate at WP:RFD, the community was in agreement that sexual repression and sexual morality were not synonymous and so the redirect was deleted. I would agree the topic is encyclopedic. As for creating the article, you may wish to ask for help at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. It would fall in the domain of that project so its members may be willing to assist you. Let me know if you have any other questions. -- JLaTondre 14:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthrosexual

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Anthrosexual, which is currently up for deletion.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Systems/Member userbox

Hi, I updated the WikiProject Systems/Member userbox -- Mdd (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orgasm in Childbirth - proposal for change

Hey there - How about changing the orgasm information to a Sensuality in Childbirth section? This seems to better capture the intent of the references I've viewed. It's also more inclusive - while not all women experience orgasm during sex (when they expect they could), it seems even more alienating to focus on orgasm during labor. Instead, focusing on sensuality allows the discussion of relaxation, comfort with the birth process, use of clitoral/nipple stimulation for enjoyment and pain relief during labor. It can include the fact that some women report having orgasms (rather than focusing on proving that it happens), but this isn't the pinacle of sensuality and needn't be treated as such. This modification would make it appropriate for the content to be it's own section or a subsection in the Pain Management section. Thanks. Lcwilsie (talk) 14:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Play party (BDSM) (2nd nomination)

Since you are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, i would appreciate it if you could voice your opinion on the article Play party (BDSM), which is currently up for deletion. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)