User talk:K84m97

Sandbox

 * No problem. The best way to do this is to create a personal sandbox (at User:K84m97/Sandbox) and write your information there. When you finish that, I can come around and check it, and we'll get it to the article. Cheers,  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRN#American_Staffordshire_Terrier
 * Unfortunately, most people interested in the ATTS are not qualified to judge it. I actually complained to the ATTS directly, and there were unaware of the problems in their design and asked me to be a free data analyst.  That is the level of the organization.  I declined as you cannot do anything with a sample that was incorrectly collected to begin with (incorrectly as judged by the analysis type to be undertaken).  If the AVMA uses it in their research, and you find it, I'll be utterly floored at their lack of rigor and will complain to them directly.  As the DRN reads now, change it or remove it (or I'll be forced to again). Wvguy8258 (talk) 22:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * from the DRN "Correction: Newspapers are not a reliable source for scientific data, per this rule. The ATTS results should not, therefore, be included in the article unless reported in a reliable source of the type which would look at their work with a critical, professional eye, such as a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Sorry for the confusion. — TransporterMan" Wvguy8258 (talk) 22:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Will you please at least read about self-selection bias to try to understand how it may undermine the legitimacy of your data exercise. I assure I do not need to specify any sites because the term is very famous. Wvguy8258 (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert edits again unless we are getting a 3rd party opinion. I left message on this at DDR. This should be considered vandalism. Your hate speeches on this and related breeds are well known.

Also same conclusion about Temperament tests in Scot E. Dowd Ph.D., Assessment of Canine Temperament in Relation to Breed Groups, Matrix Canine Research Institute. Shallowater, TX 79363.Assessment of Canine Temperament in Relation to Breed Groupsk84m97 (talk) 07:15, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You are directly going against the DRN statement by the moderator. He/she said PEER-REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL.  To refresh you memory


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Scholarly_peer_review
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_journal


 * Are you actually so unfamiliar with these concepts that you think a dog fancier magazine or a self-published paper from a guy with a phd and a website/org qualifies? Then you spin it around as if I am the guilty party when you are the one in violation.  Lastly, your ridiculous assertions of canine hate speech.  Is that what you call it when I logically pick apart your arguments and do not agree with your BRAINWASHED AND OVERLY EMOTIONAL views?  I can spin this around to being about you just as easily.


 * Here is


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech


 * You denigrate humans who actually suffer from the real thing. Wvguy8258 (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Just went for a third opinion, posted this.

"One editor would like to add statistics about dog breed temperament to the American Staffordshire Terrier wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Staffordshire_Terrier#Temperament These statistics come from the American Temperament Testing Society (ATTS), Inc. and are summaries by breed. Another editor believes that these statistics are inappropriate due to data analysis concerns and that the ATTS is not fit for inclusion in the Wiki. This dispute between editors is found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:American_Staffordshire_Terrier under the section ATTS Test The disputing editor went to the DRN and posted this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:DRN#American_Staffordshire_Terrier_discussion And the moderator said that a "peer-reviewed scientific journal" was needed in order to include the ATTS test stats (if you read the end after the term Correction:). The original editor, who is favorable toward the ATTS, has now used a dog fancier magazine and a self-published .pdf as peer-reviewed scientific journals. The other editor does not agree that these are appropriate. The two are at a standstill. Please provide an outside opinion. 19:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvguy8258 (talk • contribs)
 * So that you know a bit more about Dr. Dowd. http://www.ukcpitbull.com/edu2/mod/forum/discuss.php?d=2  He seems to run his own pit bull university. Wvguy8258 (talk) 07:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and have at it, I have already thoroughly defeated you and anyone with a clear eye can easily see it. I'm quite sure you won't give up with adding the ATTS stats until we've gotten 100 3rd opinions, and I've had to address all of your bad citations.  I'll tell you what I will do.  I'll come back once a month and check your reference.  If it is inappropriate, I'll remove it and ask for a 3rd opinion.  I won't continue doing this though for each instance because I just don't have time.  But you will get random spot checks. Wvguy8258 (talk) 22:10, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You are hilarious and childish.k84m97 (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe you have made anonymous changes to the Amer. Staffie temperament section. I have removed it and will initiate a formal dispute again if it goes back up. Wvguy8258 (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Dispute over ATTS stats has been posted. Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "American Staffordshire Terrier". Thank you. --Wvguy8258 (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

DRN thread
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "American Staffordshire Terrier". Thank you. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

why ATTS test summaries by breed are nearly guaranteed to be biased
Comparing two breeds via potentially biased samples.

Numbers 1 and 2 indicate the breed the variable corresponds to throughout.

N1=total number of breed 1 in general pop. P1=proportion of breed 1 in gen. pop. that would pass ATTS F1=(1-P1)=prop of breed 1 in gen.pop. that would fail ATTS

N2, P2, and F2 are same as above BUT for breed 2

SPP=sampling proportion among passes (%/100 of either breed among gen. pop. of those that will pass that are tested).

SPF=same as above BUT sampling proportion for those that will fail

We'll also make the reasonable assumption that SPP > SPF (meaning dogs that will pass are more likely to be tested, this is to show you what happens when that very reasonable idea is true)

I assume SPP and SPF are the same for breeds 1 and 2, but might not be if one set of breed owners are more image conscious (wanna game the test etc). That would make the effect I will show you even WORSE, but constant values will work.

The parameter we would like to estimate from our sample is just P1/P2 (relative proportion of passes for the 2 breeds). BUT what we will observe, if we use the variables above as a sample generating mechanism, is:

[N1*P1*SPP/(N1*P1*SPP+N1*F1*SPF)]/[N2*P2*SPP/(N2*P2*SPP+N2*F2*SPF)]

the above reduces to

P1/P2 * [P2*(SPP-SPF)+SPF]/[P1*(SPP-SPF)+SPF]

The simple fraction to the left is what we would like to know, the fraction to the right (bigger expression) is the bias.

You should notice that the location in the denominator and numerator for the pass rates by breed are inverted. Let's assume that P1/P2 < 1. So long as SPP is greater than SPF, then as P1 grows smaller (because it is in the denominator in the biasing expression) the biasing fraction to the right grows larger and will inflate the ratio observed in the sample above that which would be observable with exhaustive sampling.

76.92.68.79 (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

 * If you agree to mediation, would you please indicate your agreement here. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey
Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * 1) Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
 * 2) Editor-focused central editing dashboard
 * 3) "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
 * 4) Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
 * 5) Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded User wikipedia/RC Patrol (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)