Thanks for the welcome! I hope to be around for a while! RonLar 10:03, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
- No problem; I hope you're around for a while too. I'm interested in the argument you're making, but as you know, excessive talk is disfavored here. To reduce verbosity, you could present your case in a more concise form. Perhaps with, I don't know, maybe some way of representing the data graphically or something? DanielPulido 03:24, 28 July 2010 (EDT)
- Indeed, I have some lovely pics to illustrate my points - I just have to figure out a way to diplay them here. RonLar 10:49, 1 August 2010 (EDT)
- Daniel: The issues involved in probability and statistics can be confusing and almost counterintuitive. Let me see if I can help a little with the problem of exact power-of-two numbers. (Aside from suggesting that you go to Amazon and look for books on probability and statistics—believe me, it is not intuitive; it needs to be studied carefully.) Here's an educational experiment. Flip a coin 100 times. Really! And don't cheat! Did you get 50 heads and 50 tails? probably not. Try it again. Keep going until you get a run with exactly 50 heads, or you come to this realization: Getting 50 heads, "obvious" though it may be, is actually very unlikely. In fact, the probability of exactly 50 heads in a run of 100 flips is less than 8 percent. Even if the probability is exactly known, getting data that conforms to it exactly is quite improbable. So, the probability of conservative words may exactly double per century, but observing exact conformity is unlikely, and someone could infer that the data were fudged.
- Statisticians do many other tests of data. When you got, say 54 heads and 46 tails, were virtually all the heads in the first 50 tosses, and the tails in the last 50? Of course not. They should have been around 25 and 25 in the first 50 tosses, and 25 and 25 in the last 50. That's what RonLar was referring to by measuring the words in the first half of the century vs. the last half. There are lots of statistical tests that one can apply to the data to check that it was actually demonstrating a correct underlying law. That seems to be what RonLar was doing. SamHB 16:55, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
- As you stated, I probably should have apologized to you as well, so please accept my apologies for jumping the gun. We certainly welcome you here and look forward to your contributions. Tyler Zoran Talk 12:27, 27 July 2010 (EDT)
All your requested images have been uploaded. Please insert proper explanations and categories on each one as necessary. Karajou 13:04, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
- thanks, I'll do so! RonLar 13:06, 3 August 2010 (EDT)
Per you request, you'll be unblocked. Please observe the 90/10 rule and do not engage in sockpuppetry, as has been alleged by the previous now deceased blocking sysop. Thank you. Rob Smith 16:35, 4 June 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for moving the Medal of Honor recipients to the new category. Calling them "winners" just didn't sound right to me - they fought for the US, and in many cases gave their lives for their country. They weren't contestants on American Idol. Anyway, much appreciated! --SharonW 14:50, 13 August 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for nothing
You said that Counterexamples to an Old Earth was protected. I assumed good faith and began to respond to your complaint. Imagine how I felt upon discovering that its protection level was "No protection".
- Please assume a little bit of good faith.
- I wrote: This is a simple necessity for all protected articles, but a good idea for most of those articles some sysops feel strongly about.
- Andy himself takes a great interest in this article, and therefore it is necessary to discuss all changes on the talk page. I never stated that the article was protected, I just wrote about the general procedure to put an alternative viewpoint into an article...
- RonLar 15:45, 15 September 2011 (EDT)
- I put the whole section on User:RonLar. It was written for you, not for a general debate, as you asked the questions in the first place.
- please, reread at least the newest section again. Misreading half a sentence shouldn't be reason enough to ignore the whole corpus.
- RonLar 16:41, 15 September 2011 (EDT)