User talk:BetterMath

Improving math display
I can see you are systematically reverting User:Cedar10 doing math formatting, in particular removing math templates. Please use the math template for inline math (it is better than mere italics) and use TeX only for displayed equations and things will display acceptably on all devices. YohanN7 (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. I am now reading more about rendering math. BetterMath (talk) 22:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Statistical inference
Hey! I saw you undid most of my edit at Statistical inference and said you thought the lede was more accurate before. Out of curiosity, what did you feel was inaccurate about my changes? Armadillopteryxtalk 11:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I am glad about your kindly asking. For the first sentence, I thought it was preferable to follow the source more closely. For the second sentence, the term "includes" is more accurate, because statistical inference need not utilize hypothesis testing or estimate derivation (e.g. see Akaike information criterion). For the third sentence, I have no real preference: if you prefer your edit to the third sentence, that is fine by me. For the last sentence, the term "identifying" did not seem accurate, and otherwise the extra words seemed to slightly obscure things without adding any real content. BetterMath (talk) 12:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I agree with you about the second sentence; rereading my edit, it did sound like it could imply that hypothesis testing and estimate derivation are always used. I don't have a strong preference about the first sentence. I think that the original (and current) version of the third sentence states the same information twice, and I find my edit (which removes the redundancy) to be preferable.
 * For the last sentence, you're right that "identifying" wasn't the best choice of word; perhaps "observing" or "finding" would have been better. But it's certainly okay without any gerund at all, too. While the meaning of the current version of this sentence still comes through, I think it is less accurate than my version. As it reads now, it says that descriptive statistics makes assumptions, which isn't true: It depends on assumptions for its principles to hold. Assumptions are made by the scientist, not the science. That was where I was coming from. Armadillopteryxtalk 12:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * About the first three sentences, we are now in agreement(!). About the last sentence, I agree with your point on makes versus depends&mdash;I did not realize that before. What do you think of something like the following? "Descriptive statistics is solely concerned with properties of the observed data, and it does not rest on the assumption that the data came from a larger population." BetterMath (talk) 12:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine to me. Here's a version of the lede that incorporates the changes we've just discussed, plus a couple of small suggestions that I think improve clarity. What do you think?
 * "Statistical inference is the process of using data analysis to deduce properties of an underlying probability distribution. Inferential statistical analysis infers properties of a population, for example by testing hypotheses and deriving estimates. It is assumed that the observed data set is sampled from a larger population. Inferential statistics can be contrasted with descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics is solely concerned with properties of the observed data, and it does not rest on the assumption that the data came from a larger population."
 * Armadillopteryxtalk 13:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The wording is good for me. The prior reference should be included (Oxford Dictionary of Statistics). Also, my preference would be to split into two paragraphs, 3 sentences + 2 sentences; I do not feel strongly about that though, and agree to either way.
 * Please feel free to make the edit. I am glad that we worked on this jointly, and got it to be good. BetterMath (talk) 17:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes! It was nice to work together and get a good result. I'll make the change now, incorporating the reference and breaking up the paragraphs. Armadillopteryxtalk 18:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Mathit, mvar
Thanks for your edits on several articles recently. I wanted to point out two minor issues. Upper case greek is not italicized on Wikipedia - we just use the regular LaTeX output. Also, please don't add mvar to articles that don't already use it. Just the double apostrophes to italicize is fine (MOSMATH prefers it) and changing articles from one formatting style to another is discouraged. Similarly, articles that don't use the "math" template should not see it added just for the sake of doing so - the "math" template is not preferred over regular HTML formatting. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding your claim "Upper case greek is not italicized on Wikipedia", that is not applicable here: the explanation was given in my edit summary, which you should have read before undoing my edit. I have reverted your edits on those. Regarding adding mvar and math templates, I had thought that it was better in the context, because mixing different renderings looks annoying.  BetterMath (talk) 21:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * MOSMATH is very direct: "For consistency with the (La)TeX style, do not italicize capital Greek letters." It does not make a difference what the letters represent; they are typeset in roman just the same. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:22, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. (I have not been signed on since then.) Your citing of MOSMATH seems to be correct. In that case, though, MOSMATH should be changed, IMO. I hope to raise this issue later on. BetterMath (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Significance level
Your recent editing history at Significance level shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

No longer watching "Statistical significance"
I'll be taking a break from Wikipedia to focus on other tasks. So I'm not likely to watch the Statistical significance page. I know you and I did not agree on certain issues in the past but somehow, I'm confident that the page will be in good hands with you watching it. All the best. Let me know if I can help in other ways. danielkueh (talk) 00:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Likelihood function into Relative likelihood. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you much kindly; I did not know about this. BetterMath (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, BetterMath

Thank you for creating Relative likelihood.

User:Scope creep, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

 scope_creep Talk  00:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay—but what is the preferred way to distinguish a name that is being defined? I did not see anything relevant in MOS:MATH. Pending your advice, I've changed most bold to italic.
 * BetterMath (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi It is a mathematical definition. No bolding nor italics.  scope_creep Talk  18:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi
 * The Bourbaki’s Elements of Mathematics might be considered the description of mathematics that is closest to being definitive. I looked at the volume Integration I (English translation, 2004). It italicizes terms being defined.
 * The book The Art of Computer Programming has been called one of the best twelve physical-science monographs of the 20th century, and is written by the author of TeX (Don Knuth), and is praised for its attention to detail in typesetting and presentation. It too italicizes mathematical terms being defined.
 * I have worked as a research mathematician, have a master’s in mathematics, and am the recipient of a Knuth reward check. And I am used to seeing mathematical terms being distinguished in definitions—although that is not universal.
 * What is the reason that Wikipedia does not distinguish such terms? Also, perhaps this issue should be mentioned in MOS:MATH?
 * BetterMath (talk) 21:02, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I've read bit of Knuth. Hope he gets it finished. Second opinion is always better. I was going to suggest such a move. My knowledge of is second hand, somebody told me about it a few days, although the details escape me. Expert opinion is needed, re another mathematician or WP:HELP. I'll post a note.   scope_creep Talk  21:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Akaike information criterion. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --bender235 (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)