User talk:Ethereal

Welcome!

Hi Ethereal, and a warm welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you have enjoyed editing as much as I did so far and decide to stay. Unfamiliar with the features and workings of Wikipedia? Don't fret! Be Bold! Here's some good links for your reference and that'll get you started in no time!

Editing tutorial, learn to have fun with Wikipedia. Picture tutorial, instructions on uploading images. How to write a great article, to make it an featured article status. Manual of Style, how articles should be written.

Most Wikipedians would prefer to just work on articles of their own interest. But if you have some free time to spare, here are some open tasks that you may want to help out :

RC Patrol - Keeping a lookout for vandalism. Cleanup - Help make unreadable articles readable. Requests - Wanted on WP, but hasn't been created. Merge - Combining duplicate articles into one. Wikiprojects - So many to join, so many to choose from...Take your pick!

Oh yes, don't forget to sign when you write on talk pages, simply type four tildes, like this: ~~~~. This will automatically add your name and the time after your comments. And finally, if you have any questions or doubts, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Once again, welcome! =)

- Mailer Diablo 18:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nice.

Wow. Nice response on Talk:Fox News. I was going to put a comment after it, but I felt I would be distracting too much from your comment, which I feel is more substantial. I was going to mention statistical methods, joint and/or conditional probabilities, and how the demographics of fox viewers can be factored out if one knows the joint probabilities. If this is in the data, I think it's an valuable point to a critically minded person, and I think Silverback is significantly critically-minded. Then the manner of presentation would be the dispute, wherein I would side with wikipedia policy. This also means, to me, at least, and frankly, regardless of wikipedia policy, that if the report reaches an objective statistical conclusion, that fact should be stated as an objective statistical conclusion reached by the report, and if it is the thesis or primary conclusion of the report, it should not be downplayed as anything less than the thesis or primary conclusion, insofar as the report is considered significant enough to present in the article, and the preeminent statement of the report is the thesis/primary conclusion.

Attention to Fox News is a valuable indicator, as well, IMHO, but it would have to be demonstrated that this was irrespective of viewer party orientation, as it could presumably have inverse affects depending on party orientation, or at least that it affected each party orientation or "initial support for Bush" in the same direction, possibly to differing extents. Or another way to do it - weight the demographics of the viewers to match the demographics of the Nation, and see if attention to FOX News remains a significant factor.

There still remains the argument of whether this is due to bias or irresponsible reporting. IMHO, it's the same thing - bias is constitued from lack of checking the facts oneself and realizing the legitimacy of those facts, in comparision to the legitimacy of a second-hand presentation of the same facts - what Henry David Thoreau refered to as "self-reliance". That is, IMHO, there is a direct and mutual inverse relationships between critical thinking and bias. So to me, irresponsible reporting and bias mean the same thing. However, I feel that irresponsible reporting constitutes a bigger problem than bias, for it is okay to have an opinion and state it persuasively, if and only if one is cognizant and respectfull of the facts. Kevin Baas^talk 08:40, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

I get the impression that these are the relevant concepts: Logistic regression, Generalized_linear_model, Odds ratio, where "p" is the probability of misperceptions.

My interpretation of logistic regression, from first glance, is from an information-theoretic perspective: In logistic regression, one finds, to maximum likelihood, how many bits of information, a_n, each category contributes to the final probability. (Such that if they each got a "vote" per bit, the outcome would be determined by the average value of the votes. - The value of a_n votes being x_n) Therefore, p(x) = e^a(1,x)x(1,x)e^a(2,x)x(2,x)e^a(n,x)x(n,x). (each variable multiplies together - we are thus saying "if category 1 is x(1,x) AND category 2 is x(2,x) AND... then p(x) is ...)

By "binary" logistic regression, I imagine they meant that in the generalized linear model, the multiplier x_n on the coeffecient is either 0 or 1; on or off; vote for Bush or don't vote for Bush.

FWIW, what I get from the quotations in your last response. Kevin Baas^talk 18:32, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)

uploading

Wikipedia apparently has a file type filter. one can upload images, probably nothing else. wikisource concievably might provide the opportunity to upload other files types. if not, you can probably put it in wiki form on wikisource, by copying and pasting. if all else fails, you can email me the doc and i can upload it to an arbitrary site in a subfolder - i'm a web programmer so i have ftp access to some sites. Kevin Baas^talk 06:30, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

[1] Kevin Baas^talk 18:50, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

[2]--Silverback 22:19, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

uploaded here Kevin Baas^talk 06:51, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your support vote on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamaeleon. :) Chamaeleon 15:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Silverback

What's the story with Silverback? You seem to have had run-ins with him in the past. Any idea what kind of scientist he is? He mentioned something about the Intelligent Design article. Which POV was he with? Creationist? Evolutionist? Something in between? Just wondering what kind of guy we're dealing with here. crazyeddie 08:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:01, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I thanked everyone who voted for me — and almost found myself wishing that there'd been fewer... Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:39, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal

Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [[3]] Jmegill (talk) 09:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Edwards

Be careful using the concrete "affair" instead of "alleged affair", as some acolytes will likely try to twist it later.  ;-) Thanks for help with clarifying the issue. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there Ethereal, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Ethereal/Tin Pei Ling. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)