User talk:Benstrider

RCHS Alumn
Hey man, I just was wondering what year you graduated? I'm from '06.Acidskater 03:36, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just noticed you had a Wheres George userbox. What is your username on WG? Acidskater 19:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is my Wheres George profile. I also have a link to it on my userpage for wikipedia. Acidskater 15:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Just wondering if you have gotten any hits on Where's George yet. I am currently 113th in NC. Acidskater 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I actually have a Wheres George stamp I use on my bills, but the best thing to do is at least write the website on there because the chance someone will put it in with nothing written is very very very slim. Acidskater 15:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Stossel
Hi, I wanted to let you know that I reverted your recent change to John Stossel. My reasoning is that having read the book, I believe "rebut" or "seeks to rebut" is more accurate than "argues against", because he doesn't come across as argumentative. Instead, he presents a common myth, refutes all or part of the myth, and then repeats the process.

The word "rebut" alone means that he disproved the myth successfully. "Seeks to rebut" means that he attempted to disprove it, but avoids any claim regarding success or failure. Because of this, I believe the latter phrase is less POV. You are right in thinking that some people may interpret "seeks to..." as implying failure, but that would be an illogical conclusion based on the words being used. Hopefully most people will read the sentence correctly.

I also think "seeks to rebut" is more accurate than "rebut", because everybody is wrong sometimes. Simple probability suggests that even if someone is correct the vast majority of the time (as I believe Stossel is), the greater the number of myths that a person seeks to refute, the greater the odds that he will be wrong on at least one of them. Stossel attempts to refute quite a lot of myths in the book. --JHP 23:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"As of"
Please note that linking such as
 * As of 2006

instead of
 * As of 2006

is an intentional part of the way Wikipedia works, as it lets us identify dated statements. Thank you. Fourohfour 15:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your reply to this on my talk page


 * Please explain what you mean when you say that linking As of 2006 instead of 'As of 2006 ' is "part of the way Wikipedia works". I have reviewed the Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and see no such convention.   Benstrider 19:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

there is an article covering its use. Although it claims to be out-of-date, it doesn't seem to offer an entirely satisfactory alternative. Hope this helps. Fourohfour 19:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. Benstrider 20:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Prediction Market
Thanks for pointint me to the "no original research" page, it's been a while since I've read it. I agree that at best what I wrote is on the borderline, and at worst it is original research. That being said, I'm a little cheesed that you simply blanked the page rather than making an attempt to edit what I wrote or move it to the talk page of the article to discuss it there. After all, if "[the problematic text contains] valid information, these texts should be simply edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly." (Help:reverting)

While I admit that my attempt to add context to the fact that Intrade and the IEM do not agree is indeed "analysis", I'm not sure that this easily verifiable and highly relevent fact is so highly toxic that it must not be included in the wikipedia until someone, somewhere, writes an article about it. While citing sources is essential it's not necessary for every sentence (I'm sure you've seen a page where a disgruntled editor has added "citation needed" at the end of every sentence without a citation). Further, some minimal level of analysis is unavoidable and necessary to write wikipedia articles. I'll try to illustrate my point with an example.

An editor is writing about the 1978 election in anycity, and looks up the vote totals in some public record (this is clearly research). He finds that Bob got 110 votes, and Tracy got 120. He then writes something along the lines of "In the close 1978 anycity election Tracy defeated Bob by a slim margin of ten votes". The wikipedian then cites the source of the data.

In saying that Tracy defeated Bob the wikipedian performed a trivial original analysis - that the person with more votes won the election. The wikipedian doesn't have to cite a source that says that Tracy won, because it's a trivial analysis that a reader could be expected to make on their own given the vote totals. In order to make wikipedia readable editors perform this kind of simplistic analysis all the time. Wikipedia articles aren't just collections of facts, editors must perform some systhesis to make it readable.

So, coming back to the original point... My question to you is do you think that it is reasonable to add the given verifiable fact (that the IEM and Intrade futures for Guiliani and Romney are very different) to the wikipedia? Or do you think the mere act of stating this fact constitutes original reserach?

As for my "analysis" confusing accuracy and prediction I have two comments. First, while I assume that you were acting in good faith and trying to help I couldn't help but be insulted (and as much as I wish it wasn't the case, angered) by your suggestion that I don't know the difference between them. When you don't know another editor's professional background you should try to be a bit more tactful. To me it feels as if I was an economist and you suggested I didn't understand what liquidity was, or was a music professor directed to the page on "pitch".

Second, I think it was fairly clear from what I wrote "(within the uncertainty inherent in the estimator" that I was referring to the accuracy of the markets. I expect the expectation value of different prediction markets for the same variable to be precise, because one could profit by trading on both markets to bring them into agreement.  In this case, one could buy Romney on Intrade and sell short on IEM and make a guaranteed profit.  I think the fact that they are so different is remarkable.Flying fish 23:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grand unified theoy
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Grand unified theoy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * Redirect page for a spelling mistake, with no links to it

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  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. *Edit's inappropriate template message*. Notice was probably unnecessary, but alas, tag-assist tools are too good to pass upon. Going on something of a tangent, I see you're a juggler! *Highfive*. --BlueNovember (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Haiwaii" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Haiwaii. Since you had some involvement with the Haiwaii redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Haiwii" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Haiwii. Since you had some involvement with the Haiwii redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Hawii" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hawii. Since you had some involvement with the Hawii redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Haiwaii" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Haiwaii should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"Haiwii" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Haiwii should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"Hawii" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Hawii should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. –LaundryPizza<b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 18:32, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

"Fee willy" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Fee willy. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 31 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

"Newton(unit)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newton(unit)&redirect=no Newton(unit)] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)