User talk:Simen Rustad: Difference between revisions
imported>Francis Tyers No edit summary |
imported>Larry Sanger m (→Viper articles) |
||
| (11 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Hi, I see you are interested in maths... does this extend to statistics? I've written two articles that I would appreciate it if someone who didn't fail Maths [[GCSE]] would look over: [[Fleiss' kappa]] and [[Inter-rater reliability]]. Many thanks and don't worry if you don't have the time, - [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]] 06:33, 21 November 2006 (CST) | Hi, I see you are interested in maths... does this extend to statistics? I've written two articles that I would appreciate it if someone who didn't fail Maths [[GCSE]] would look over: [[Fleiss' kappa]] and [[Inter-rater reliability]]. Many thanks and don't worry if you don't have the time, - [[User:Francis Tyers|Francis Tyers]] 06:33, 21 November 2006 (CST) | ||
I'm not a statistician by far, nor really well versed in it. But I'll take a look at them if nothing else just as a copyeditor. [[User:Simen Rustad|Simen Rustad]] 14:59, 21 November 2006 (CST) | |||
== Viper articles == | |||
Hi Simen, | |||
Please don't delete those Viper articles--they're a special case. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:21, 17 February 2007 (CST) | |||
Ok. Templates removed (as far as I'm aware)[[User:Simen Rustad|Simen Rustad]] 15:24, 17 February 2007 (CST) | |||
:Hi Simen. How come you marked so many of my articles for deletion? And how come they're a "special case"? I hope there's nothing too controversial about them. --[[User:Jaap Winius|Jaap Winius]] 17:44, 17 February 2007 (CST) | |||
:Re viper articles: I'm not really sure why they're a special case. The reason I originally tagged them was that they appeared to be a straight copy from Wikipedia (ref history and no cleanup) which work hadn't started on.[[User:Simen Rustad|Simen Rustad]] 02:59, 18 February 2007 (CST) | |||
Probably because they're all originally from WP -- even though I wrote them all myself, copied them here and then modified them somewhat. I decided to move them here because I was getting tired removing nonsense and vandalism from them every day over at WP. Together they add up to almost exactly 100 articles ([[:Category:True vipers]]). There's also about 40 articles with short descriptions of snake scales ([[:Category:Snake scales]]). All of these (100 + 40) have many more redirects. For the viper articles, I've even categorized the redirects -- something I've not done nor seen anywhere else. Now all I need is for for someone to come along and correct/modify/approve what I've produced. Unfortunately, due to the fact that it's all so specific, I'm not holding my breath. --[[User:Jaap Winius|Jaap Winius]] 06:24, 18 February 2007 (CST) | |||
Jaap, the reason they're a special case is that few if any changes seem to have been made from the Wikipedia versions. For these articles, it looks like we're just mirroring the Wikipedia content, but CZ isn't a WP mirror. Therefore I have a special request: what can you add to the CZ articles that makes them significantly more valuable than the WP versions? Then there would be no question at all. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:30, 20 February 2007 (CST) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:31, 20 February 2007
Welcome, Simen! --Larry Sanger 02:07, 31 October 2006 (CST)
Maths
Hi, I see you are interested in maths... does this extend to statistics? I've written two articles that I would appreciate it if someone who didn't fail Maths GCSE would look over: Fleiss' kappa and Inter-rater reliability. Many thanks and don't worry if you don't have the time, - Francis Tyers 06:33, 21 November 2006 (CST)
I'm not a statistician by far, nor really well versed in it. But I'll take a look at them if nothing else just as a copyeditor. Simen Rustad 14:59, 21 November 2006 (CST)
Viper articles
Hi Simen,
Please don't delete those Viper articles--they're a special case. --Larry Sanger 15:21, 17 February 2007 (CST)
Ok. Templates removed (as far as I'm aware)Simen Rustad 15:24, 17 February 2007 (CST)
- Hi Simen. How come you marked so many of my articles for deletion? And how come they're a "special case"? I hope there's nothing too controversial about them. --Jaap Winius 17:44, 17 February 2007 (CST)
- Re viper articles: I'm not really sure why they're a special case. The reason I originally tagged them was that they appeared to be a straight copy from Wikipedia (ref history and no cleanup) which work hadn't started on.Simen Rustad 02:59, 18 February 2007 (CST)
Probably because they're all originally from WP -- even though I wrote them all myself, copied them here and then modified them somewhat. I decided to move them here because I was getting tired removing nonsense and vandalism from them every day over at WP. Together they add up to almost exactly 100 articles (Category:True vipers). There's also about 40 articles with short descriptions of snake scales (Category:Snake scales). All of these (100 + 40) have many more redirects. For the viper articles, I've even categorized the redirects -- something I've not done nor seen anywhere else. Now all I need is for for someone to come along and correct/modify/approve what I've produced. Unfortunately, due to the fact that it's all so specific, I'm not holding my breath. --Jaap Winius 06:24, 18 February 2007 (CST)
Jaap, the reason they're a special case is that few if any changes seem to have been made from the Wikipedia versions. For these articles, it looks like we're just mirroring the Wikipedia content, but CZ isn't a WP mirror. Therefore I have a special request: what can you add to the CZ articles that makes them significantly more valuable than the WP versions? Then there would be no question at all. --Larry Sanger 10:30, 20 February 2007 (CST)