Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
:::It's funny that would interpret my stubbornness as rage. I'm actually pretty calm and getting lots of other work done in spite of the distraction of cleaning up after you on wikipedia. Sure, you annoy me, but wikipedia is not worth getting into a rage over. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
:::It's funny that would interpret my stubbornness as rage. I'm actually pretty calm and getting lots of other work done in spite of the distraction of cleaning up after you on wikipedia. Sure, you annoy me, but wikipedia is not worth getting into a rage over. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
==3RR warning== |
|||
You have reverted my edits more than three times in 24 hours on [[least-squares spectral analysis]]. You are hereby warned that if you do it again you will be blocked from editing for a period, based on [[WP:3RR]]. I advise you to issue a similar warning to me. [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] 04:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:42, 12 October 2007
Welcome!
Hi Geoeg! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! Aboutmovies 01:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Your edit to signal processing
Hi Geoeg,
I have reverted (undone) your recent edit to signal processing, in which you placed a link to Vaníček analysis. With respect, I do not think that such a short article on the very basic concepts in signal processing has room for a link to Vaníček analysis, which is IMO a little-known aspect of spectrum estimation. I do agree that there is a lot lacking in this article and I would be glad if you would expand it, but I don't think that adding links to specific advanced topics is the way to go. Cheers, --Zvika 06:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Vanicek analysis is not so little known as you might think. It went under different names, as noted in the Historical Background section. The number of references that had used the method for spectrum computation since the method was invented counts in thousands, if not tens of thousands. Amongst the experts in spectral analysis, the Vanicek method is a very good alternative to Fourier analysis for analyzing incomplete datasets, so I saw it only fair to mention the alternative each time the FA is mentioned, as well. Again, I don't see any problem with listing the method on the signal processing page. --Geoeg 12:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I happen to have two standard textbooks on signal processing in my bookshelf (Porat and Oppenheim-Schafer) with chapters on spectrum estimation. They discuss standard methods like periodograms and ARMA estimation, but neither of them mentions Vanicek. It is possible that Vanicek is famous in the geodesy community, but it doesn't sound like he is well-known in the signal processing community. --Zvika 06:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Introduce yourself?
Geoeg, you're obvioiusly an expert on the method you've written up. However, it is important to make sure you keep the writeup neutral (see WP:NPOV), and not biased by your closeness to the subject. I guess from your handle that it probably represents the Geodesy etc. department where the inventor of your method teaches. Were you his grad student? Is that perhaps your thesis you've referenced? Dicklyon 06:12, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- I checked that policy, and the articles I wrote seem OK to me. All sources cited are verifiable and published by reliable sources, some of which are indeed prominent e.g. Press et al. All claims in the article seem to be supported by such references too (but please let me know if you find some that aren't, and I'll provide references). That thesis was included as it contains a rather general description of the method; it doesn't seem like there are too many reliable sources that write on the topic in general terms. The thesis also includes examples of references from various fields. I believe it to be a good source of information for the encyclopedia reader. I hope to have more links of the kind posted soon, so this thesis should be viewed as a temporary but by no means the only such source to be listed; more links of the kind are coming, probably as soon as today. I don't know if you would call me an expert, but I am trained in geodesy (no, I don't represent the department you mention). I cleaned up the geodesy page a bit; I'll try to do some more edits when I have time. It seems like geodesy related topics are not being overseen regularly, so it will be my pleasure. --Geoeg 12:24, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- By the way, could you please stop switching places between fullstops/commas and reference numbers? From what I gathered reading Wikipedia instructions on editing, it's just a matter of style, not a must. Thanks. --Geoeg 12:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sure, I'll leave that to you if you actually prefer the other way. But don't put extra spaces before the footnote numbers. Also, don't use a footnote number as if it is a noun, as in "see Abstract in [8]"; and Abstract should not be capitalized there. Dicklyon 12:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
October 2007
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Petr Vaníček, you will be blocked from editing. Removal of maintenance tags without doing the maintenance first is considered vandalism, especially when done without discussion. Dicklyon 02:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Why are you calling me a vandal? But I caught you today (several times) making shameful mistakes concerning Petr Vaníček and Vaníček Analysis pages! Repetition normally signals intention, so those "mistakes" may be exposing you as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. You call me a vandal, after you were proven unable to justify your moves? Whew, some guts...
- Please, either cool down (as I said on Talk:Vaníček analysis), or pass the case on to someone who knows what they're talking about, someone with manners, please. --Geoeg 02:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I have requested a third opinion (see WP:3O) on the talk pages of the Vaníček articles where the two of us have been having disagreements. Dicklyon 02:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see you wrote this as I was writing the above reply. Good, now please do the same for Petr Vaníček page. --Geoeg 02:55, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Petr Vaníček, you will be blocked from editing. Dicklyon 03:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please read my replies to your objections before you issue warnings. Your hurry intrigues me. Don't you have to exercise objectivity when you are an editor here? (At least in science you do). Also, one would think that no tags are to be placed until after the dispute was resolved. --Geoeg 03:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- The dispute is about your repeated removal of the tag, after explanation of why you should leave it until it spurs some action. Dicklyon 03:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- Now that's called a distortion of facts. The tag on Petr Vaníček came at the end of the dispute. You started the dispute with your objections to Vaníček analysis. You treat those pages unrelated or related interchangeably, depending on whether it's good for your argument or not. --Geoeg 08:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
- The dispute is about your repeated removal of the tag, after explanation of why you should leave it until it spurs some action. Dicklyon 03:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
October 2007
Your recent edits to Talk:Vaníček_analysis could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. Bfigura (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that this is response to this comment. Veiled legal threats are not tolerated here, regardless of motivation. If you have a genuine dispute with a user, please use dispute resolution: further veiled threats will lead to your being blocked from editing per WP:LEGAL. --Bfigura (talk) 04:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Your edit to least squares
I've reverted your edit to least squares for the same reasons as our discussion above. Least squares is a hugely useful technique with thousands of applications (take a look at the pages linking to it to get a glimpse). It does not make sense to add a link to specific applications. --Zvika 20:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I have no problem with that. Geoeg 23:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Least-squares_spectral_analysis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. As I mentioned, editors are not allowed to make more than 3 reverts to any given page in a 24 hour period. I'm leaving this message for both of you, as you both seemed to gone past 3 here. Bfigura (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry about the template, but given that I mentioned this already, I wanted to be clear. Please stop reverting. I'm assuming good faith on your part, but the only exceptions to 3RR are based on blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- OK, I'll stop. You know I was only reverting your removing of tags. I doubt he will stop though, as he seems blinded with rage as no argument (and there are many, indeed) seems to work on him. Cheers. --Geoeg 17:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- It's funny that would interpret my stubbornness as rage. I'm actually pretty calm and getting lots of other work done in spite of the distraction of cleaning up after you on wikipedia. Sure, you annoy me, but wikipedia is not worth getting into a rage over. Dicklyon 00:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
3RR warning
You have reverted my edits more than three times in 24 hours on least-squares spectral analysis. You are hereby warned that if you do it again you will be blocked from editing for a period, based on WP:3RR. I advise you to issue a similar warning to me. Dicklyon 04:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)