User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz/Archive 3

Changing posts of others
Please do not alter posts on talk pages, especially the posts of others; and changing your own post after it receives a reply is not a good idea either. I realize you had good intentions, but it's not done, and the fact that you had to make several alterations to both your post and the reply demonstrates the problems this causes. If you want to "take back" something you said, you should use the "strikeout" feature. Highlight the text, and hit the " str " button in the bar of editing buttons above the edit box. Or discuss your change of mind in a follow-up post. In this instance your changes didn't really change content, so the alternations were not necessary. I have changed them back, and used strikeout on the portion of your own post which you removed. It looks a little messy, but it conveys the change. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right. Thank you for mentioning my good intentions (without mentioning the road paved by good intentions!). Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Emanuel Lasker
Hi Kiefer, and thanks very much for your contributions to Emanuel Lasker. However, well-intentioned wikipedians have deleted them (and will probably continue to do so) on the basis that they are not referenced. Could you please say to me if you have reliable sources for your explanations, so that I can reinstate them in the text ? SyG (talk) 13:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a very reputable reference at http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Lasker.html Charles Matthews (talk) 14:34, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I quote a few sentences from this site, hoping to be in compliance with copyright and WP policies. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * "In 1905 he introduced the notion of a primary ideal, which corresponds to an irreducible variety and plays a role similar to prime powers in the prime decomposition of an integer. He proved the primary decomposition theorem for an ideal of a polynomial ring in terms of primary ideals in a paper Zur Theorie der Moduln und Ideale published in volume 60 of Mathematische Annalen in 1905. A commutative ring R is now called a 'Lasker ring' if every ideal of R can be represented as an intersection of a finite number of primary ideals."
 * (Later on that page): "Lasker's results on the decomposition of ideals into primary ideals was the foundation on which Emmy Noether built an abstract theory which developed ring theory into a major mathematical topic and provided the foundations of modern algebraic geometry."
 * (In the linked article on the history of ring theory): "Primary ideals were introduced in 1905 by Lasker in the context of polynomial rings. (Lasker was World Chess Champion from 1894 to 1921.) Lasker proved the existence of a decomposition of an ideal into primary ideals but the uniqueness properties of the decomposition were not proved until 1915 by Macaulay."


 * Thanks both of you for your kind words. I'll try to find a reliable, secondary source for most of the statements. Quickly, I found these textbooks, which are somewhat dry: Northcott (LRMMM page 104 crediting Lasker with irredundant primary decomposition), Eisenbud page 87 (mainly praising Emma Noether), Becker and Weispfenning (page 419, crediting Max Noether with the concept of primary decomposition in some concrete rings, and Lasker with improvements and generalizations). I cannot find Atiyah-MacDonald and I don't have Miles Reid's chatty book on commutative algebra. I suspect that I may have read some history of Emma Noether's abstract axiomatic approach, which compared Lasker and Noether, but this was some years ago. I cannot think of a comparison of Lasker's brain-power as evinced in chess and mathematics, but it could be in one of his biographical treatments. Thank you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * * Waerden, B. L. (1971) The foundation of algebraic geometry from Severi to André Weil. Archive for History of Exact Sciences 7

2 infoboxes
I made them both 250px. I don't know what you mean about them being to wide - Per Enflo's infoboxes are 350px. Do you mean too long?Edstat (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This change looks better to me. Before, the scientist box was displayed on my screen at 3-4 times its current size, which looked really weird, imho! Now both boxes are the same size, which is much less distracting. Regarding Enflo's box, I used visual editing based on the introductory text and the box's content to choose the 350px size; this may be nonstandard, but it was the best I could do. Thanks for responding here, and for the nice edit! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Cat feedback
As requested I have given my two cents supporting keeping your catagory. As a former combatant of yours, I offer this advice: Don't be your own worst enemy. You have contributed, with this cat, probably the only thing of value that I have seen here since I began editing 3 years ago, but your edit warring style impedes your great idea.Edstat (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

What goes around comes around
Although I couldn't be happier than to see you experience editing as you have edited (sorry to distract you if you are tired), you are still correct on including the F test on variances as an obsolete test. (Actually, I would call it discredited, but the message is the same.) Please see my comments at Edstat (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe the name (widely) "deprecated statistical procedures" would be a better name for the category (but still a subcategory of "obsolete scientific theories"). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You can experience and expect even greater happiness with greater kindness. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Maximum Likelihood
Hello Kiefer, I wonder what you meant by the remark ''“However, in general, the likelihood function is not a probability density. In fact, it need not be an additive function, so it is not a probability measure.”'' which you attribute to Basu? I don't seem to understand, can you give an example perhaps? //  st pasha  »  18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Stpasha! I'll try to find the section in Basu tomorrow; I failed just now---I trust because my eyes are tired. I've been writing a lot today, finding citations for obvious comments about statistics in the U.S for which Melcombe requested citations. I might try Schervish, or maybe Cox/Hinkley (although measure theory isn't the strength). Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * My first plunge into Basu didn't work (find the right passage). I'll try again soon. (Heuristically, I would note that a Bayesian likelihood is nicer because of the attention to appropriate measurability isssues from the start. While a probability distribution is transported by a random variable, a density is not, so one would guess that a likelihood using the density would have bad properties: That's the current definition of the likelihood funciton, I believe. It may be that a non-density definition would be better behaved, especially if it were given in a Bayesian set-up.) More on this later .... Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination
I nominated your article Robert V. Hogg for DYK. Your article is good and I thought that it would be interesting to have an article about something to do with Iowa (I'm an Iowan) on the main page. Joe Chill (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * WOW! That's very kind of you, and this is the first time that this has happened to me. I'll stay up a bit longer, and add some more substance to the article, and some interesting facts. Hogg and Craig almost had Basu's theorem, according to Deb Basu, for example. Thanks again! You made my day!Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of what I do on Wikipedia is find articles that I like and that I think is good enough for DYK. I really like giving people their first DYK. Joe Chill (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * C.f. the film that caught the eye of many buckeyes, namely The OH in Ohio. *LOL* (as the kids say)! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I would suggest the following sentence, from the current state of the article:

"Hogg independently discovered a special case of "Basu's theorem", a few years before the publication by Deb Basu.

Good stories
As noted, the more personal stories are from Hogg's interview with Randles. I cite them, most carefully, to add color to the biography. I believe that the best one-sentence facts from this article are these: Thanks for your interest! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 04:10, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Hogg proved an early version of Basu's theorem, illustrating Stigler's law of eponymy!
 * 2) Allen Craig was Hogg's mentor, helping him to obtain a teaching position while a graduate student and also supervising his thesis. Later, after Hogg had graduated, Craig became a close friend, and served as the best man at Hogg's wedding and later as the "godparent" to each of of Hogg's four children. Indeed, Hogg's son Allen was named after Craig.
 * 3) Hogg received a Boss Hogg name-tage from the ASA staff.
 * 4) At the University of Iowa, Hogg won his first teaching award after a student submitted a nomination with the title "There is a hog in my statistics book"!
 * Nice suggestions. Joe Chill (talk) 11:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * : The hook about ASA President "Boss Hogg" has been queeued to DYK. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Robert V. Hogg
The DYK project (nominate) 12:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the webpage on Wikipedia article traffic statistics, roughly 1,300 persons followed the DYK lead to the Robert V. Hogg article on 24 May 2010. (FYI) Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 14:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Statistics Template
You said: "Hello Melcombe! I appreciate your retaining the mean-unbiased and median-unbiased estimators in your latest edits (which only partially reverted mine). Could you (briefly) explain why you keep removing 'questionaire' and 'survey' from social statistics? (IMHO, surveys are intrinsically human-subjects statistics.) Also, I am sincerley puzzled by your repeated comment about the equality of sampling and experiments: Please explain a bit! Thanks, and best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)" I equated surveys and experiments, as there is theory about how to design surveys and experiments and how to analyze data from these: for surveys, this would include general stuff about how to desaign questionaires. "Social statistics" should be about the results from particular studies, and perhaps some special techniques, but not about general techniques which are better placed under "surveys" alongside "experiments". I added a higher level group heading so that "social statistics" would appear under "applications", and development of this may lead to some re-thinking. Melcombe (talk) 09:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I must say that your explanation is less convincing (to me!) than your usual standard, which is very high indeed. But your reply does help me see some (model-based) logic to your answer, which escaped me before. No other editor seems to feel strongly about these issues, and the whole template may be shortened soon, so I won't try to argue further (for the moment). Thanks again for your reply. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Melcombe! I read your comments, and so kept the organization you liked, with surveys and questionaires in the sampling section, despite my misgivings about the logic of this organization. Please look at the other revisions I made: I hope that most of them are close to consensus. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Charles Sanders Peirce as Mathematical economist
Thanks for your note. Well, CSP was a great pioneer of the economics of science  (on which see also the article abstracted at ). That gets into economic methodology, rather than mathematical economics as such. Why not recognize him for such a contribution then, rather than as a mathematical economist or in the bigger space of mathematical economics? Baumol & Goldfeld classify Pierce with others in their book as Precursors of Mathematical Economics, not as mathematical economists. He can certainly be classified as a practicing mathematical economics (in sources unpublished in his lifetime), but that's a different matter. There is the additional more immediate problem of inclusion in the "See also" section of ME that there is currently little in Charles Sanders Peirce on his status as a mathematical economist. Cheers, --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC) P.S.  You didn't ask me, but, yes, one of the cooler WP User names I've encountered.

Natural experiment
Thanks for the heads-up. I ordinarily don't have the natural experiment entry on my watch list. I read your note. I made some quick corrections to the natural experiment entry. The corrections bear on John Snow and his pioneering research that became part of the foundation of epidemiology. Londoners didn't use wells as much as there were pumps connected to pipes below the streets.Iss246 (talk) 13:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are welcome! Your edits were very good, throughout the article. In one place, though, I did strengthen your "could be deemed" to "has been recognized", because this example seems to be a favorite of discussions of natural experiments. (If it isn't a natural experiment, then the cited authors are wrong and we should find a new example!) Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You strengthened the sentence. Thanks.Iss246 (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer
I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for this nomination. I shall have to read about the details carefully. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, would you be so kind as to give us support!
Hello, I hope you're doing fine and I sincerely apologize for this intrusion. My name is Claudi Balaguer (User Capsot from the Catalan Wikipedia and Occitan Wikiccionari), I've just read your profile and saw that you're a learned person and open-minded since you're interested in some languages, and that you even deplored chauvanism (I think tant anyone should be free to use the language they wish on personal matters...), so maybe I am not bothering you and you will help us... I'm a member of a Catalan association "Amical de la Viquipèdia" which is trying to get some recognition as a Catalan Chapter but this hasn't been approved up to this moment because Catalan is not supported by a state even though our Association is working real hard. We would appreciate your support, visible if you stick this on your first page: Wikimedia CAT. Thanks again, I wish you a very nice, warm and pleasant summer, take care! Capsot (talk) 10:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Catalan's cultural identity is ancient, and Spain last summer approved even greater regional autonomy for Catalunya. I am surprised to hear that there be any resistance to having a Catalan Wikipedia. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked over your association's material, which emphasize its political independence, and I saw no trace of (e.g. anti-Spanish or anti-Castillian) chauvanism, so I was pleased to add your association's template to my user page. I would encourage other Wikipedia editors to do the same. Good luck! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support! I'm glad you had a look there. I wasn't really active before because of lots of work and family and I felt really guilty because they are really active and positive (without any chauvanistic view as you've just said!) so I'm doing my best though I'm not really sure it will change the views of the Chapter Committee but it sure wouldn't help if we wouldn't try. A thousand thanks for the support and the time you lost in watching our pages. I wish you a wonderful and pleasant Sunday! Take enormous care, if you ever need something about Catalan or Occitan, just let me know, I'll be glad to help, Capsot (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are very kind. I visited Barcelona for the first time last summer, and I loved the town. The balconies reminded me of Veracruz (instead of the hideous concrete and alumnim siding of Stockholm!). Are you by chance related to the mathematician who is memoralized by a prize awarded by CRM in Barcelona? Cheers, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:57, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pfanzagl
Please take a look at Talk:Maximum likelihood. Regards, Qwfp (talk) 07:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your notice. I wrote the following on the talk page:


 * The inadequate reference has been improved, now reading "Pages 207-208 in ". Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Who is Pfanzagl? Professor Dr. Johann Pfanzagl may have been the leading mathematical statistician in Austria and perhaps all of the German speaking countries from 1970-1995, say. In his early work, Pfanzagl solved the outstanding problem of von Neumann and Morgnenstern of showing that expected utility theory could be axiomatized with subjective probability (essentially compatible with von Neumann's approach), and wrote a related monograph on measurement theory. He then worked on statistical inference, with deep results on median-unbiased estimation and exponential families. Following Le Cam and Hajek, Pfanzagl has been one of the architects of asymptotic theory, including both parametric and semiparametric approaches; Le Cam credits Pfanzagl with introducing tangent cones and spaces, and these objects are now standard in advanced graduate books. Although Pfanzagl clearly states that MLE has no good finite-sample properties, he has contributed one of the best convergence analyses of maximizing the conditional likelihood; Pfanzagl also includes simulation studies for assessing the performance of MLE and other methods, which often show that the MLE behaves quite well in moderately large samples. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Writing a stub article on Pfanzagl, using secondary sources (Oskar Morgenstern, Lucien Le Cam, Bunke^2, etc.), has been on my to-do list! Thanks again! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Daniel Lambert
I don't know what this edit was all about, but I've undone it. A county gaol is not a prison, a gaol keeper is not a prison warder any more than a brothel-keeper is a prostitute, and while I've no idea what a "corrections officer" is I'm certain they've never had them in England and certainly not in eighteenth-century Leicester. – iride  scent  23:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia directs gaol to prison, so I hope that you can correct Wikipedia's "patent nonsense" before the Lambert-factoid hits DYK and hundreds of readers be misled (if you are as correct as you are prideful). Your analogy seems  to be flawed: Perhaps you misread "warder" for "ward" (here, "prisoner"). Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * A gaol keeper is the owner of a gaol, not the guy who does the locking-up and slopping out. A present-day gaol is equivalent to a prison, but that wasn't the case in this period; a gaol held short-term prisoners awaiting trial, while a prison was a forced-labour institution holding prisoners serving custodial sentences or awaiting tranportation. Again, the two aren't equivalent. I don't understand why you have such a bee in your bonnet about this. – iride  scent  23:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your explanation: The distinctions and offices of British society have always been interesting to me; I have been assured that the job of college Wardens like Sir David Cox is to lock up students, and the the word "gullible" is not in the OED.
 * Besides suggesting that my edit was "patent nonsense" and "daft", you are even now breaking down gender stereotypes by suggesting that I wear a bonnet, which is unusual expository practice on WP, in my limited experience. I wish you a good day. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to have the same conversation in three places. There's an explanation of why gaol currently redirects to prison (basically, in modern British English a gaol is equivalent to an American prison, not an American jail) and what the problems regarding alternative links are, here; let's keep this all in one place. – iride  scent  18:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks!Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Svante Janson
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind notification, and for your nice edits on this slew of DYK articles! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * When featured on the DYK list on 6 July 2010, the article on Svante Janson was viewed by 1.3 thousand readers.Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Presidents of the Econometric Society
A tag has been placed on List of Presidents of the Econometric Society requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Derild 49  21  ☼  13:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please check the article (list) again. It has context and improved content, with consistent editing, and a rich collection of Wikipedia links. Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The innocent article has been spared. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)