Talk:PDF (disambiguation)/JediLofty's reversions

08:16, 21 June 2007 JediLofty (Talk | contribs) (1,381 bytes) (Undid revision 139585653 by Pdfpdf (talk)rv unneccesary edit) Why is this an "unneccesary (sic) edit"? Is this simply your opinion, or do you have something concrete to back this statement up? If so, please quote it. You have been contributing since September 2006, so you should be well aware that the customary process is to discuss things on the talk page before undoing other people's edits. (You may have noticed that this is what I did. If you didn't notice, please go and read it. If you disagree with it, please add your comments there.) As you should be well aware, your behaviour is the sort of thing that starts edit wars.

Probability density function and Probability distribution function are two separate names for the same thing. For your benefit, I will copy and paste what I said on the talk page: ''Probability density function and Probability distribution function point to the same page. (Which they should.) Having them on separate lines implies that they are two different things. (Which they are not.)'' However, not having them both as blue links implies that one is subordinate to the other. (Which they are not.) It was originally which I didn't like because it seemed to imply they were different, so I changed it to
 * Probability density function
 * Probability distribution function
 * Probability density function (also known as a Probability distribution function)

You didn't like this because, as stated in WP:DISAMBIG (without a leading left parenthesis, which makes it a red link) it gave more than one link per line. Fair enough. So, you changed it to
 * Probability density function (also known as a Probability distribution function)

As one is not subordinate to the other, I tried to fit in with you and WP:DISAMBIG by changing it to
 * Probability density function (also known as a Probability distribution function)
 * Probability distribution function (also known as a Probability density function)

Without consultation, discussion or explanation, you reverted it.

I'm not happy with this. I'm prepared to go back to rather than have what you are proposing. (And you know I don't particularly like the original.)
 * Probability density function
 * Probability distribution function

Please explain what will keep you happy and address my concerns. Pdfpdf 11:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I apologise if I caused offence (either in my edit, or my inadvertant misspelling of unnecessary in my edit).
 * I apologise if I caused offence (either in my edit, or my inadvertant misspelling of unnecessary in my edit).


 * When I first reorganised the page (back at the beginning of May) I didn't realise that Probability density function and Probability distribution function were different names for the same thing, otherwise I'd have made the change that I did before.


 * Having
 * Probability density function (also known as a Probability distribution function)
 * is against the style guidelines in WP:DISAMBIG (as you are aware), as there should only be one link per line. This is why I removed the second link.


 * In my opinion
 * Probability density function (also known as a Probability distribution function)
 * is correct, as the Probability distribution function article is merely a redirect to Probability density function. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you didn't cause me offence (but thanks for apologising). And of course, in your opinion, you are correct. (In my opinion, you are incorrect. That's what this correspondence is about, isn't it?)

You seem to have missed my point, and you haven't answered my questions, or explained anything (that wasn't obvious).

I'll try again. The Probability distribution function article is not merely a redirect to Probability density function. They are two separate names for the same thing, (so it makes logical sense to have just one article pointed to by both of them), but that doesn't mean that one is subordinate to or less important than the other. Not having them both as blue links implies that one is subordinate to the other. (Which they are not.)

So, please explain what will keep you happy, and will address my concerns.

As I said, I'm prepared to go back to rather than have what you have proposed, even though neither of us are happy with that. Pdfpdf 13:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Probability density function
 * Probability distribution function


 * I thought I'd been fairly clear in my explanation. I'll try one more time then drop the subject.
 * You said that "The Probability distribution function article is not merely a redirect to Probability density function." when it blatantly is. If one clicks the Probability distribution function link, one is taken to the Probability density function article (as shown by the text (Redirected from Probability distribution function) at the top).  I was of the understanding that one shouldn't link to pages that are merely redirects. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on. You're not even trying. Yes, you had been very clear. I said that. I also said you seem to have missed my point. And, you seem to continue to avoid it. Where do you get "when it blatantly is" from? To use your words: "I thought I'd been fairly clear in my explanation." Without wanting to get nasty, I'm forced to wonder what isn't clear, and what you don't understand. Yes, functionaly, what you describe is indeed the the case. I'm not disputing that. As I said, I agree with the logic you are applying. But it is completely irrelevant to the point I'm trying to communicate to you. I could repeat myself, but I don't see a lot of point. If you didn't read and think about what I said the first two times, you are unlikely to change your behaviour if I copy it a third time. If you did read and think about it, I don't understand your response. And at no time have you made any attempt to respond to my question: please explain what will keep you happy, and will address my concerns.

And if you do chose to ignore me and my requests, we will end up in an edit war, and it will be of your making, not mine. I'm being reasonable and trying to rationally discuss this with you. It is you who is sticking to your position and ignoring my requests for explanation and clarification. Pdfpdf 14:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting too complicated and unnecessarily unpleasant. Lets just drop all the baggage, and you answer the question: What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns? OK? Pdfpdf 14:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going any further with this discussion as I really don't appreciate the hostility you're showing me when all I'm trying to do is follow the Wikipedia style guidelines. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what's hostile about me asking you to answer the question: What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns? Pdfpdf 15:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what concerns you have. Here are the facts as I see them
 * 1. Probability density function is an article on Wikipedia
 * 2. Probability distribution function is not an article, it is a redirect to the above mentioned article.
 * 3. Disambiguation pages should have ONE linked article per line.
 * 4. Links to disambiguation pages are to be avoided.
 * In other words, Probability distribution function should not be a link, because it points to a disambiguation page.
 * I really don't know what more I can say on this, which is why I didn't want to continue the conversation. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In other words, Probability distribution function should not be a link, because it points to a disambiguation page.
 * I really don't know what more I can say on this, which is why I didn't want to continue the conversation. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't know what more I can say on this, which is why I didn't want to continue the conversation. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 15:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. So you have answered the "What will keep you happy?" bit. And to the "and will address my concerns?" bit, you have answered: I don't understand what concerns you have.

This seems to be the crux of the communication problem we are having.

As I've acknowledged, you have explained yourself quite clearly several times. What you say is internally consistent and internally logical, and within that framework addresses Wikipedia guidelines. But it bears no relationship to what I'm trying to communicate to you.

What you describe (accurately) is the structure of the information on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia currently represents the information. However, this is not the only way that the information could have been represented. For example: The article could have been titled "Probability distribution function", and "Probability density function" could have been the redirect link. Another option is that the article could have had some other title, and both "Probability distribution function" and "Probability density function" could have been redirects. No doubt there are other options too.

What I'm trying to communicate is that, independent of how Wikipedia mechanically does the job of representing the information, "Probability distribution function", and "Probability density function" are two three-word-names which both happen to descibe the same thing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia (or encyclopaedia if you prefer - I do). What it "says" should represent reality, not represent how Wikipedia's internal representation of reality happens to be constructed. You have accurately described the reality of how Wikipedia has internally represented the information. This is not necessaily the same as the reality that there are two three-word-names which both happen to descibe the same thing.

Is this making any sense? Before I go any further, please ask me to clarify anything that's not clear to you.

(It's 2am here. If you don't mind, I won't reply for another 6-8 hours.) Pdfpdf 16:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

As you have not responded, I assume you do not disagree with what I've said so far.

Continuing: So, the reality can be independent of how Wikipedia happens to represent the reality. In this case, the reality is that they are two independent three-word-names which both happen to descibe the same thing. One name is commonly used by one group of mathematicians. The other is commonly used by a different group. Neither is "wrong". Neither is "right". That's just the way it is.

To imply that one is subordinate to or inferior to the other (just because it happens to be internally represented on Wikipedia that way) is, (in terms of the encyclopaedia function (rather than in terms of the style guide)), inaccurate.

Do you now understand my concern?

If so: What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns?

If not, please indicate what you don't understand.

Note: I'm not asking you to agree with my point of view. I'm asking: What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns?

In summary: I made my initial edit, and explained why on the talk page. You pointed out that this did not fit Wikipedia style guidelines. So I changed it to a format that did fit Wikipedia style guidelines. You didn't like that format either. Rather than guessing what might satisfy your requirements, I asked: What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns? You eventually answered: "I don't understand what concerns you have." I have attempted to explain my concerns, and again ask: What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns? Pdfpdf 01:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I read your comments (apologies for not being at my PC 24/7). Is this really what this is all about - the fact that both phrases are equally valid?  Maybe this is why I didn't understand - without wishing to cause offence; to my mind that is a triviality, which is why I didn't focus on it.  I really don't know how one can address that while keeping within the bounds of the Wikipedia style guidelines, so I'll leave it to you.  Life is too short for this kind of thing. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this really what this is all about - Yes. That's why I typed variations of the same statements four times. without wishing to cause offence; to my mind that is a triviality - "without wishing to cause offence", making that statement shows you have no understanding of the subject matter. Do you think it wise that somebody with no understanding of the subject matter should be making edits to the subject matter? Further, do you think it wise that somebody with no understanding of the subject matter should be reverting the edits of somebody who has considerable knowledge and understanding of the subject matter? I really don't know how one can address that ... so I'll leave it to you. - Thank you. Pdfpdf 09:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Post Script: Several times in our discussion you have said, "In my opinion", but WP:DISAMBIG was the only reference you quoted to support your opinion. Wikipedia is about facts, not opinions (unless the opinions are supported by facts). Also during the course of our discussion I asked you several questions. It was not until the last paragraph of the discussion that you answered any of them, and then you only answered one of them. Pdfpdf 09:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While it's true that I don't understand the subject matter, what I DO understand is the Wikipedia style guidelines. The page now has two links to the same page, which doesn't follow the style guidelines at all.
 * As for Probability distribution function not being subordinate to Probability density function, might I suggest you look at Probability distribution function and count the number of times the phrase Probability distribution function occurs (other than in the Redirected from... heading). Can you see why I came to the conclusion that I did? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The page now has two links to the same page, which doesn't follow the style guidelines at all. - You are completely correct. This is why I have asked, many times, "What will keep you happy, and will address my concerns?". You said: ''I really don't know how one can address that ... so I'll leave it to you.'' In the absence of any help from you in coming up with a solution, and with what I interpreted to be your permission (i.e. "so I'll leave it to you") I arbitrarily chose the solution that you seemed to dislike least. (You will notice that I don't think much of this solution - it is the original situation that I didn't like in the first place, but as I said, you seemed to dislike it least.)

I have had several tries to come up with something acceptable to you, but without success. If you don't like what I've tried, I think it's now your turn to have a go and come up with something. (And here comes a question that I'd like an answer to.) What do you think?

might I suggest - Certainly. But what you've done can hardly be classed as scientific investigation, or even statistical analysis. Your conclusion is based on a sample of size one, in a field that is not your area of expertise. Yes, I can see how you came to the conclusion that you did, but your methodology is not robust. Consequently, you have come to an unreliable conclusion.

I would like to go on and further develop my explanation, but as you so concisely stated (and with which I agree): "Life is too short".

So let's try to "wrap this up". What solution can we come up with that will keep us both happy? I await your suggestion(s). Pdfpdf 11:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a solution that will keep us both happy. All I did was edit the page to maintain the style guidelines of Wikipedia, which is a general-purpose encyclopedia, not a physics or maths textbook.  I fail to see why
 * Probability density function (also known as a Probability distribution function)
 * causes you such distress, but it obviously does.
 * I can't be bothered arguing over such a trivial matter, so I leave you to come up with a solution that follows the style guidelines by having ONE linked article per line and by NOT linking to a redirect page. I've already given my solution but that obviously wasn't good enough. --  JediLofty User ¦ Talk 12:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find your response very helpful. All I did was edit the page to maintain the style guidelines - No, that isn't all you did. Yes, you did edit the page to maintain the style guidelines, but your edit introduced an inaccuracy.

Being a general-purpose encyclopaedia does not mean that this is a licence to be inaccurate. Wikipedias style guides are not an excuse to be inaccurate - they are guides on how accurate information should be presented in Wikipedia. You might be presenting data in a manner that is consistent with the style guide, but you are not presenting accurate information. Changing accurate information into inaccurate data so that the text can fit in with the style is not consistent with the style guide, or any other of Wikipedias principles, policies, procedures, etc.

Nevertheless, I have had another go at what I hope is acceptable to you.

And it is very rude to classify as trivial something of which you have no knowledge, no understanding and perhaps no interest. And if you "can't be bothered arguing" over it, why do you continue to argue over it? Pdfpdf 13:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)