User talk:StuRat/archive7

csv files
Hi, I have my csv files at http://people.virginia.edu/~jrs5fg/returnvelo.csv and http://people.virginia.edu/~jrs5fg/returnaccel.csv; they both correspond to the same raw experimental data set. Basically, there are two columns in each file, the first being f(t) and the second being f(t+1).

If it helps to orientate you, the overall structure of the file is the aggregate of the data of many flies, such that F = [time series from one, fly time series from second fly, ... time series from nth fly]^T. (I deleted the "loose ends" used by shifting matrices) As such F(33000) does not correspond to t=33,000 for example, but probably something like t=6000 for fly #4, however each pair in F represents one f(t+1),f(t) pair, which I then plot. Thus t=10 is represented 22 times in a 22-fly aggregate data set, for example. Nothing gold can stay (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much for offering to help! Nothing gold can stay (talk) 03:48, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thinking about it a bit more, I could probably be more helpful in splitting the data into the 3 distinct blobs, dropping the data where they all overlap. Then I can send you those three CSV files and you can run them against you favorite curve fitting program.  Sound good ? StuRat (talk) 04:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually want to use this method repeatedly for many experiments. Can I take a look at the code that you used to process my data? (Hopefully I can decipher it and convert it into MATLAB.) Also, I know the data might be skewed but I hope I can use some regression diagnostics. If the data is basically skewed in the same way each time, I can use the algorithm to differentiate different genotypes and drugs even though the outer "arms" would be biased to have more spread than the inner arm. Nothing gold can stay (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Before I send it I'd like to add a few things:


 * 1) Currently everything is hard-coded. It needs to allow user inputs.


 * 2) I didn't yet write the part to output the red, green, and blue blobs as CSV files.


 * 3) I'll add comments to make it more understandable.


 * I'm pretty busy Friday and Saturday, but should be able to work on this Sunday. I can post the code, but would also like to send you the Fortran executable.  Do you have the e-mail option enabled on your Wikipedia account ?


 * Also, the program currently uses the ImageMagick convert function to change the rather large PPM ASCII graphics output file into a compact GIF. You would need to download this utility, if you want your output as GIF. StuRat (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a test condition could be run to "decide" where to cut the curve off, and the point of this cutoff could be used as parameter. Basically my goal is to determine a bunch of parameters for each experiment and compare them. (I'm also running control tests to test for data artifacts.) Nothing gold can stay (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * What method were you thinking of to determine how to decide which data to drop ? StuRat (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Your comments
"Gandhi is always good, if you're in a Hindu area" at reference desk was like ROFL..I am also Hindu and you comment doesn't fit logically. What's you point ? :) GiantBluePanda (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My point was that naming it the "Gandhi Training Institute" might work in a Hindu area, but not in a Muslim area, where Muslim student's wouldn't feel welcome. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * But, I think you're confused. Gandhi is just a surname just like Obama. It's not a name of Hindu god. So, How you assume whether it is good or not ? GiantBluePanda (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I assumed Gandhi, without qualification, would be taken to mean Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, in India, as our redirect at Gandhi shows it does in English. StuRat (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Time-wasting
Well, how's that for a reasonable response to what I said!

I'm just stunned that you'd come out with something lame and rude and irrelevant and knee-jerk ego-defensive like that, Stuart. I made no mention of time wasting - not that your's wasn't a time wasting post, but because that's not the core issue. My concern is that this is not the Suspicions Desk, or the Opinions Desk, or the Guessing Desk, or the Making It Up As We Go Along Desk, but the Reference Desk, and I explained why.

But since you've introduced the topic: If you think my post was a waste of time, then I've seriously misjudged your bona fides for too many years to count. Maybe that's a bit strong; I don't mean to impugn your good faith. But clearly your idea of what's appropriate here differs very markedly from mine, when it comes to answering questions we don't know the answers to. Just why did you feel the need to air your suspicion, anyway? Do you think the OP is going to rely on it, anywhere, at any time, in any context? Perhaps because it's generally considered the Word of StuRat is as good as gospel truth? Surely not. Then, of what possible value to the OP would your suspicion be? What would have been so hard about sitting in silence and waiting for someone who had some information to offer to come along and offer it? -- ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  06:52, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * My answer is probably right. If somebody finds a source which says that the Nazis treated those who converted to Judaism significantly differently, then fine, but, failing that, my answer is a good best guess.  As such, it's better than no answer at all.  On the other hand, constantly bickering about every answer in front of the OP does them no good whatsoever. StuRat (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Sheesh, where to begin? You are an absolute master at avoiding the issue and liberally spreading red herrings.


 * I brought it here specifically to avoid a prolonged discussion in front of the OP.


 * "A good best guess ... is better than no answer at all" - you cannot possibly be serious. After all the discussions about the purpose of the ref desk that have taken place over all these years, you STILL think it's OK to guess answers?  Let me quote from the opening section of the Ref Desk Guidelines, which you were not backward in claiming joint responsibility for authoring, just the other day on the Talk page:
 * The Wikipedia reference desk attempts to provide services comparable to those of a library reference desk.
 * We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork. Ideally, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources.


 * Does a RL reference library guess answers? No, they do not.  Neither should we.  They direct the questioner to a suitable text.  So should we.  They might use their personal knowledge of the subject matter to identify better resources than their fellow librarian standing next to them might have done; but they would never suggest that their personal knowledge is all the questioner needs to have.  And as for guessing, forget it.  They'd be sacked, and rightly so.


 * Even if your suspicion proves to be 100% accurate, that is SO not the point, and I'm flabbergasted that you would still defend this approach. All that does is show StuRat is an astute student of this bit of history.  But guess what, the Ref Desk is not about the respondents.  We are the channel through which the OPs get the information they seek.  It is not an opportunity to big-note ourselves or make it a personal ego trip.  When one of us guesses or suspects, we're effectively saying "What I have to say is just as good as any damn reference book".  Qualifying the answer with "suspect", "assume" or "guess" doesn't alter that.


 * "As such, it's better than no answer at all". Firstly, that was not the choice you were confronted with.  You posted your suspicion exactly eleven (11) minutes after the OP posted their question.  Eleven minutes.  The OP was hardly getting desparate for an answer by then.  If there had been no response after 2 or 3 days, then the argument of "any response is better than none" might be justified.  But eleven (11) minutes?  Gimme a break.  If you were so driven that you absolutely had to be the first one to provide an answer, what stopped you from doing your job properly and looking up a reference and including it in your answer?  Secondly, that statement tells me you're committed to mediocrity and not quality, and again we part company.  Good day, sir.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  20:35, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There are 4 possibilities:


 * 1) I am correct, and somebody later confirms this with sources. In this case, no harm done.


 * 2) I am correct, but nobody confirms it. Still no harm done.  In fact, in this case, I provided a correct answer that they otherwise might not get.


 * 3) I am wrong, and somebody proves it with sources. Still no harm done.


 * 4) I am wrong, but nobody ever proves it. In this case, you could argue that harm was done, in that the OP is given the wrong answer.  However, for a Q like this one, is the wrong answer really any worse than no answer ?  Would the OP rather have his Q go unanswered, and feel ignored, or get a reasonable sounding  answer ?  If I asked a Q, I'd rather have people take their best shot at it, rather than ignore it entirely.  Apparently you would prefer to be ignored.


 * In cases where the OP requests only sourced responses, I comply. If they don't say this, I assume they want everyone's best answer, regardless of sources.  StuRat (talk) 02:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * You've missed my point entirely. It has nothing to do with whether your guess, assumption or suspicion turns out to be right or wrong.  Expressing a guess, assumption or suspicion is itself the wrong thing to do.
 * We often advise our readers not to trust what they're told by anonymous jerks on the internet, because they have no idea what their backgrounds are or anything else about them. Advice from one anonymous jerk is as trustworthy as that from any other, viz. it is not safe to place any trust in it at all.  So, what makes you special?  The reason Wikipedia requires that all content be sourced from reliable external sources, and not just whatever the editor happens to have in their mind, is that the former can be accessed and checked and the latter cannot.  If a source contains information that is later shown not to be the case, that has implications for its reliability and professional reputation, and the marketplace will respond accordingly.  It's not possible to impose such sanctions on anonymous people on the internet, so the rule is that nothing should get into Wikipedia merely on the say-so of an editor, no matter what their expertise, experience, knowledge - or lack thereof -  might happen to be.  The same basic principle applies to the Ref Desk.  We provide access to suitable sources of information, whether in WP or externally.  As part of our reply we might also provide some supporting background information from our own personal knowledge of the matter.  And of course our replies are always in our own words, so that personal element is fine.  But the core part of the answer ought to be what the source says, not what we say.  Your reply was completely lacking in the former.


 * You seem to be saying that it's more important to be sourced than to be correct. Here I couldn't possibly disagree more.  Can you find even one OP who says he prefers an incorrect, sourced answer over a correct, unsourced answer ? StuRat (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * But how would anyone know an unsourced answer is correct? It certainly wouldn't be correct merely because the respondent claims it is.  Would it.  You seem to be saying that OPs should trust your word because ... what, you'd never lie to them?  I can't believe you'd ever lie either, but surely you can see that that is just so incredibly irrelevant to this issue.  Worse, it's a really dangerous position to adopt, because you place yourself and your opinions as inherently superior to others and theirs.  If you asked a question, would you be happy with whatever unsourced opinion an unregistered respondent came out with as an answer?  Hardly, I suggest.  From the perspective of a random OP, what makes you any different from that unreg, or from anyone else? --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  09:29, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't require proof that every answer proposed is correct. I can judge for myself which answers seem most reasonable.  For example, I recently posted a Q on the Entertainment Desk about why the sound was messed up in the movie Mrs. Brown: .  The only response I got was to turn on closed captioning if I can't make out the dialogue and make sure both audio channels were working on my TV.  I would have been happy if somebody else who saw the movie said "It sounds like the problem might have been...".


 * For another example, see . The answer from CambridgeBayWeather was quite helpful to me, although he was relating his personal opinion of how well it works.  StuRat (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If I asked a Q, I'd rather have people take their best shot at it, rather than ignore it entirely. Apparently you would prefer to be ignored.
 * Hoo boy! That really takes the cake. Where did you get the idea that I would prefer to be ignored?  Where does it say that if a question has not received an answer within 10 minutes (!!!), the OP is being ignored?  Look, this is not a work place.  You may have noticed you're not being paid every fortnight or month by the Wikimedia Foundation.  You do not have to be here.  Nobody does.  It's totally voluntary.  There's nobody looking over your metaphorical shoulder and demanding an accounting of every minute of your day.  So, surely you're here to be involved in quality editing of articles, and the provision of quality information on the ref desk.  If not, why on earth would you be involved at all?  Do you claim that the suspicions of an editor constitute "quality information"? There is never any need to act out of a false sense of urgency, and compromise quality in the process.  And most particularly only 11 minutes after a question is asked!!  Obviously none of us can answer all the questions on the ref desk.  None of us is responsible for answering even a single question.  The choice from any one editor in relation to any one question ought to be: Can I provide a good answer to this?  If so, I am willing to do so if nobody else beats me to it; or, if I can add to their answer, I will.  But if I cannot provide a good answer or add to another editor's answer, I should not touch the question at all.  Others will be along soon who are able to contribute more than I can.  The OP will never be ignored.  Sometimes they ask such obscure questions that nobody has any idea what the answer is, but in those cases somebody will speak up after a day or so and ask for more information.  The question you answered was not remotely in that category.   --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  04:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've seen many questions go unanswered here. Did you miss them all ?  (Note that they may have had responses, but that doesn't mean they were answered.) StuRat (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In which case they weren't ignored either. Nowhere does it say we can answer 100% of all questions ever asked.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  09:33, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * We should answer as many as possible, with reasonable answers. If they can be sourced, all the better. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna exit at this point because I know from experience with you that, no matter what I say, you'll always manufacture some defence. Life is too short for a marathon debate that ultimately leads nowhere.  My parting message is that your expressing your suspicions only 11 minutes after the OP asked their question was totally unnecessary and inappropriate. And just about as far from "reasonable" as it's possible to get.  I know you know it, but I don't expect you'll ever acknowledge it.  --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  22:35, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No, I don't know any such thing. And preferring to leave a question unanswered rather than give a correct but unreferenced answer is as far from reasonable as you can get, which I expect you know, but are unwilling to admit. StuRat (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you are not competent to judge the correctness of your own answers. Remember when you told the dude his mechanic was going to beat him up? And when I challenged you, you came up with a totally bogus source that had nothing to do with anything except "car dealership"? No StuRat, I think your aim of providing knowledge gets mixed up with your aim to put your signature onto every RD thread you can. I sort-of respect your approach that any question can be addressed by anyone on first principles, in the same way that I sort-of respect the approach that a good business manager can manage any part of a business - but I've seen oh-so-many incompetent business managers. Your determination to answer something, no matter what, IMO leads you into situations where you are not competent to answer at all. It's a pity, because when you are in the zone you are a good answerer - but you swamp it with a tide of mediocrity. Franamax (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The source I provided was about a lawsuit that found, in court, that the threat of violence at a given dealership was a tangible threat, so was directly related. StuRat (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * That is utter bullshit, and that you apparently don't realize it is exactly my point about your lack of competence to judge your own contributions. I'll type very slow so you can understand better: you told a customer that a mechanic was going to beat him up; when challenged, you coughed up a furball about a generic TOV at "some" car dealership towards employees. The two have no connection whatsoever, except the source saying "car dealership" and the general truth that threats of violence are part of human society. You drew a specific conclusion that an individual would probably be assaulted by one or more others from that. All you proved is that you are unable to ever admit being wrong, or even contemplate that possibility. Jack's last comment above is certainly apposite here. Franamax (talk) 23:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't say "probably", that's an outright lie. I said it was a possibility, which it is.  And showing that an atmosphere of threats of violence exist at one dealership certainly proves that it is, indeed, a possibility, especially when you accuse them of cheating you.  This doesn't just apply to car dealerships, of course.  Whenever you plan to antagonize someone, it is safer to do so remotely than in person.


 * As for me never admitting that I'm wrong, I just did so today, when I spelled the word "undo", instead of the correct spelling "undue". In the last few days, I also admitted that my theory on why some glazes cause coffee mugs to heat up more than others is likely not the correct one: Reference_desk/Science. StuRat (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding: "We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork. Ideally, answers should refer (link) to relevant Wikipedia articles, or otherwise cite reliable sources". Here the issue is what is meant by "guesswork".  If I just flipped a coin and answered based on what it said, then that's guesswork.  However, since I have some knowledge of history, it's not a complete guess, I am basing it on all the documentaries I've watched, books I've read on WW2, etc.  Now, this doesn't mean my judgement is 100% right, but it's not a wild guess either.  (And, of course, historians aren't 100% right either, as shown by them frequently coming to different conclusions.)  And I do frequently cite reliable sources and Wikipedia articles.  Just today I answered a Q about the Japanese emperor's position being maintained after WW2, by providing both.  And it does say "Ideally", not, as you seem to think, "it's absolutely required in every case". StuRat (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * See above. --  ♬  Jack of Oz  ♬  [your turn]  04:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And, in the future, please come here right away rather than starting an argument on the Ref Desk. The OP may or may not want unsourced answers, but they definitely don't want an argument to hijack their Q. StuRat (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * StuRat, if your modus operandi on the reference desk is to answer everything with a guess that may or may not be correct, and you leave it up to everyone else to prove or disprove you, you might as well be writing gibberish. If you don't know, just shut up. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can't be more civil than that, Adam, please stay off my talk page. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Body Snatchers
Found this with a reasonable explanation. The kick damages the pod, causing goo to leak out. The pod is thus damaged and the result is two closely sleeping organisms are merged into dog-man/man-dog. Thanks ツ Jenova  20  (email) 14:05, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. StuRat (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Linebackers aren't fat...
and slutty women look like bitches dripping blood? At least get your unfacts right. Here you censor yourself to change "sex" to "mate"--dogs don't realize they are seeking to concieve, just to engage in sex. At least you removed the "why only females" nonsense. See rut and must. Oh, and check out the comments on Uncle dan is home's talk page. He'll be banned or self-skedaddle soon, no need to fight that battle myself. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Good, then don't. And go through the talk page before removing anything.  Your record of knowing what to remove is dismal, at best.  StuRat (talk) 03:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Hiya
The poo troll is a LTA who uses the refdesk for scatological inquiries. The justification was in my hatting reason. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and Medeis have probably also seen this person before. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The proxy has been blocked. Please revert yourself. &#40;&#40;&#40;The Quixotic Potato&#41;&#41;&#41; (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)