User talk:Pot

Things to do
In the Null hypothesis page:
 * clarify and correct the end of the first paragraph
 * change all H0 to H0

In the kurtosis page:
 * tell that kurtosis should be considered only for equal-variance distributions and explain why with a reference
 * remove the figure after computing the variance
 * use Talk:Kurtosis

In the geostationary orbit page:
 * contact User_talk:Casliber for going to class B
 * add reference to the small body approximation in the Italian page

In the Ctags page
 * add info about etags
 * add info about etags format

In the COST Hata model page
 * do the things to do

In the Mahalanobis distance page
 * add a diagram
 * In Talk:Mahalanobis_distance I gave an explanation maybe worth adding

In list of satellites in geosynchronous orbit
 * add sectioning or else inclination

Geostationary talk page
Hi Fpoto, please don't remove threads from article talk pages because you think they are obsolete. The talk page provides a record of the development of the article and is of interest to people looking through the article history. It's easy enough to scroll down to the bottom to find current discussions.

When talk pages get large enough, they can be archived so the discussions are still available to be viewed. The Geostationary talk page is only 22K in size, which is nowhere close to needing archiving. If there is a particular discussion that you think takes up too much space on the page, you can put it in a collapsible box using the hidden begin/hidden end templates. In any case, you shouldn't just delete other people's comments from talk pages. Regards. Franamax (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I suspected (I did not know about archiving, but I feared there may be such mechanism), and that's why I did not just delete them, but put a comment saying that if no one had anything to object, I would delete them in a week, and no one objected :). I also asked to you in User_talk:Franamax, but I probably was not clear enough, or you had not noticed what I meant because I asked too many questions at once.  Thank you for teaching me about archiving.


 * Anyway, I really think that there are three points in the Talk:Geostationary_orbit page that just confuse things, as they are clearly partly obsolete and partly wrong. On the other hand, there are still many open issues in the talk page. I think that the now irrelevant entries should be archived, so that the talk page becomes useful, and one can go there looking for things to do. Currently you have no way of distinguishing open issues from closed ones. Fpoto (talk) 12:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Fpoto, you did indeed ask me about removing old discussions from article talk pages and sure enough I just skipped right over that question - mea culpa! I think we may be editing from different parts of the world, so morning for you may be very late night for me - doesn't really matter though, I start out dumb in the morning and just keep getting worse :)
 * Yes, we do like to keep old discussions around, unless the page starts getting too big to load, especially for dial-up users. Everyone should have the chance to know how an article developed, and you never know when someone new will come along and say "NO, all of you are wrong!".
 * I do agree with you that it's helpful on technical subjects to keep current issues where they can be seen, since the talk page isn't big enough yet to archive, I went through and put those collapsible boxes onto the old subjects. You can take a look at how I did it in the Talk history. I probably broke some rule or other doing it, maybe someone will change it back, but that's what being bold and ignoring rules is all about!


 * All right. The day we discover a better way, we will change it.


 * I hope you have that article on your watchlist, I have an outstanding question about orbit altitude that I want to bring up - actually I think that question is for Geosynchronous orbit, so put that on your list too, maybe you can help out. Regards! Franamax (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked at the recent history of Geosynchronous orbit and saw nothing objectionable. I see you wrote something in the discussion, is that what you mean? I will look at it as soon as I find the time (hopefully soon). Anyway, I have it on my watch list now.
 * Yeah, my question is at the end of Talk:Geosynchronous_orbit, I'm not happy with the first sentence of Geosynchronous_orbit - I don't think "average" altitude is correct. Franamax (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Talkback notice about external link topic
Thanks for the feedback. Incidentally, it would be nice if you could help me out on Talk:H.263. —Mulligatawny (talk) 18:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Why a joke?
I posted Wikisocion.org as a site that employs the GFDL license. Why did you think it was a joke? I don't particularly care if the site is listed there or not -- I just thought, "if they have such a short list of GFDL based sites, why not add it?" If it doesn't fit the criteria for the list, I apologize. --Rick DeLong (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Null hypothesis article
You might want to view the comments that have been made for the recent edits at User_talk:Zven and User_talk:Melcombe, as I see it the example is defined very poorly in its reverted state so it needs work to fix the probability of a quarter that is quoted --Zven (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

External Link to Value Reference Model
I do not understand why you removed the link to further explanation of VRM. The material posted on the Value Chain Page under VRM does not contain full detail. The link provides a way for those interested in VRM to learn more. The page is open and there is no solicitation whatsoever. There is indication that folks follow the link. But I assure you VCG does not pursue these people for a sale. We are a not for profit organization and we only want to provide a knowledge resource for those interested in value chain thinking. Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. ScottKarl (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's discuss this on the Talk:Value_chain page. --Pot (talk) 18:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottKarl (talk • contribs) 19:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Mahalanobis distance
Ciao, Francesco! I have replied to your query in the Talk:Mahalanobis distance page. —Aetheling (talk) 05:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Re. GNU General Public License

 * Please not "powerful", it is decidedly NPOV.

Oh, I was interpreting "powerful copyleft license" in the sense of "strong copyleft license", i.e. in contrast to licenses like BSD, which people often refer to as "weak copyleft licenses". Not "powerful" as in "almighty" or something. But, now that I think about it, "strong" and "weak" may be considered judgmental terms.

Regardless, I like the edit you did. Cheers. WalterGR (talk | contributions) 19:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Single-linkage clustering
Thanks for the feedback on the above article. I came across the article during NPP. I don't know math and science from a hole in the ground. Your help is appreciated. Thanks. Cindamuse (talk) 07:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Libration points
Hi, I have answered Your question under Talk:Geostationary_orbit. Mikeo (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

References vs. external links
Don't do this. References serve a different purpose than external links, and should not be casually deleted. In this case the reference serves as evidence from an external source, that supports the claim that a full sphere has a solid angle of 4·π steradians. It's fine to link to the article on steradians, but this does not reduce the value of a reference to an external source to support the validity of the claim. In principle, every statement of fact on Wikipedia should be supported by such a reference.--Srleffler (talk) 03:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I do not agree. It's like looking for a reference when we say that the Moon is a satellite of Earth. A link to Moon is enough for this types of statements. The fact that 4π is a full solid angle is part of its base definition, and not something for which you should find a supporting reference. --Pot (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. Certainly WP:V doesn't require a reference for statements that are not likely to be challenged.--Srleffler (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)