User talk:Charles Matthews: Difference between revisions

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, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

• /About me
• /Plaudits

Hi. Can you edit Template:Infobox NRHP. Although the majority didn't take to my full change proposal there seemed to be a consensus by everyone that the current red dot is too large. It has been suggested it be reduced to 7px. Can you add |marksize = 7 to the mapping section next to where it says float=center. That should be fine as there is support for this, unfortunately not for the other changes I wanted to make. Thanks. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. I've just expanded Scott D. Sampson. Interesting stuff. Madagascar is incredibly biologically rich... Obviously it was during Gondwana times too! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I first read that as "biographically rich"! Current obsession showing. Madagascar does get over 100 hits on the ODNB database, some of which are early and interesting. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biographically rich? lol. Well there are a fair few missing Malagasy politicians... Can you reedit the museum infobox. There seems to be a consensus emerging that a simple dot without a label is preferred. I just created a map of DC see White House I think it looks good with just a dot. Can you then clear the label= parameter , change the marker to Red pog.svg and the size to 7px! Sorry to be fussy but in such cases it is often a trial and error type thing. The thing is the open street maps are already cluttered enough, I think the minimist look is probably better too. How the museum infobox is fully protected but the general building one isn't beats me!!! The building infobox is used in way more articles!! Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 18:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too many tabs open today. The museum template now reads:

:|mark       =Red pog.svg
:|marksize   =7
:|label      = 

So that's as required? Charles Matthews (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thanks. Check out National Portrait Gallery (United States). I think this looks good now. Shame about the choice of colours on open street map though. I did propose our own mapping project a while back but it didn't gain momentum. A shame really as wikipedia really ought to have a formal atlas to accompany it and it would be nice to have higher quality maps of cities. Some day they'll improve, (and WikiAtlas too) I'm sure... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groan, one more tiny tweak needing doing to the museum infobox, should definately be the last then!!. See this. The alt text simply needs to be blanked. Of course an alternative is that the museum info is moved to semi protection to I can edit it. I have no idea why it is fully locked. I can't see a history of vandalism.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 08:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's done. (There was another "alt" hidden in a conditional, and the example wasn't completely analogous.) Charles Matthews (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gracias. It never ceases to amaze me though what is still missing from wikipedia. Earlier I started Eduardo Delgado, Marina Piccinini and Concert Artists Guild amongst others... Delgado and Piccinini have performed with some of the world's top orchestras yet were somehow missing.. The thing about wikipedia is that the growth is very uneven, it will amaze you at the extent of coverage in one place and then on another topic will shock you sjust for the sheer number of red links that exist. I think the best way to approach it is to create articles and those articles which are red links you start and so on in a chain effect. Not to mention the amount of work needing adding from encyclopedias. I've done a bit of work from the Universal Lithuanian Encyclopedia from Lithuanian wikipedia. No doubt it has thousands of missing articles..You probably also have many biographical dictionaries you want to plough through but also don't have the time to accomplish what needs to be done.. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 13:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current DNB (sub)project is based on the 27,000 articles of the old Dictionary of National Biography. Checking remains a big task, but it looks like 50% correspond to missing topics. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So only 13,500 missing articles from that particular dictionary then... The thing is if you start an article and then write another article from within it the red links become overwhelming. Check out Kultura (newspaper) and Valery Fokin which I just started to rid of a red link. To rid of a red link you end up with like 10 times more red links in another article!! I have to cringe when people say "wikipedia will run out of topics to write about".. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See List of dissenting academies, Goulstonian Lectures and suchlike lists. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles. First, let me apologize for losing my temper on the Shlomo talk page. But please check out some of the comments recently made by Edstat regarding points by User:Melcombe on various statistics pages. He's gone back to using article talk pages for name-calling and harassment [1], implying that Melcombe is not a professional while railing on Wikipedia [2], and using the occasion to complain about the Shlomo page [3], as well as more. You can see that this was not just a thing between me and him; he treats everyone who disagrees in such a way.

But that's not really what I'm here. You made a good point about whether the term "Sawilowsky's Paradox" is an established phrase in the literature of Statistics. Well, the "reference"[4] he gives for it is 1) by Sawilowsky, trying to name it after himself; 2) not in a peer-reviewed journal that would try to stop such an action, but rather a commercial book (known for the vanity press element); and 3) will not be published until August 30, 2010 [5], yet he happens to know what it states. Apparently, the phrase has never been used anywhere else, as he claims that is the reference where it is defined. So what does this say about your point of using WP for defining a topic?

Also, I was going to say that at least he hasn't resorted to using sockpuppets to badger away editors (like User:141.217.105.21 and User:68.43.236.244), but please note User:76.112.241.229, who recently jumped in on harassing Melcombe; a check on the IP address shows that it is in the same neighboorhood as User:68.43.236.244 and it contributes to the exact same topics. He has been repeatedly asked to stop the sockpuppets, and only stopped temporarily because they were blocked.

I didn't post the fact on the reference there because I guarantee Edstat would harass me worse than Melcombe. But while I may deserve it, Melcombe doesn't. He's probably the most experienced WP editor on statistics. I would appreciate it if you could provide some defense. And check on the validity of that reference. Thanks! Iulus Ascanius (talk) 03:59, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alerts. I will try to react appropriately. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Though as expected, instead of providing evidence, he used the article talk page for more WP:SOUP and jabs at me. I see another editor (stpasha) noted the same issues too - and was treated with enough trolling that he had to inquire about the obvious COI. Have a good weekend! Iulus Ascanius (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in your view, Charles Matthews, of the two paradox article talk pages in general, and the questions from stpasha and my responses. In any case, as to trolling, I wrote there some time ago that I have had my say and I don't object to the AfD nomination on either paradox page, although of course I would opine to keep. And, FYI, the "other side" mentioned on that talk page was not Iulus (doesn't anyone actually read references?), (see Category talk:Obsolete statistical procedures, Requested Opinion, and [6]) although granted imho Iulus was among those who Wikipedia:Hound#Wikihounding, by which I mean one who followed various pages I have contributed to in order to criticize, and has made inaccurate accusations. Edstat (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make my position clear. I prefer to resolve disputes by clarifying to parties what the site policies say. I think that the escalation of disgreements on Wikipedia's content by personal attacks and the dragging in of irrelevant considerations is particularly unhelpful. Where necessary, the site's processes should be used to determine outcomes. As an administrator, I don't go looking for disputes, but when I encounter one by chance (as in this case) I apply what I have learned since 2004 about approaches that are likely to resolve issues. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you today. This was the article by Oliver Kamm which I mentioned. I was so incensed by it, that I sent him a rude message! Looks like it was about the same time you did a BBC interview. I mean every source of knowledge since the beginning of time has had errors in it. Or does he seriously think we should believe everything it says in the Times? Very disappointing. See you next time maybe! Laurence Boyce (talk) 21:07, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just lies, really. The persistent decline in the number of Wikipedia editors may signal the end of the dominance of a remarkable online resource. It cannot happen too soon. The so-called decline was a set of bad statistics implausible to those who know how the site works. Some of the comments are on-target. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving me a note a few weeks ago about the Cambridge meetup - apologies both for not making it and not letting you know beforehand that I'd be busy this weekend doing other stuff. Lastly, many thanks for the article on the abbot! Carcharoth (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A google search indicates that the Oxford Dictionary of Biography has an article on him,. Can you expand it? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 09:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He was a physician and expert on industrial mental health. Yes, I can get round to adding something there. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Charles,

I think there is something wrong in the article about approximation: shouldn't the to-be-dense groups have trivial factors in all *but* a finite set of places?

Stwitzel (talk)