User talk:Zven

You are invited to look at my user page, where I am making an attempt to start a new article on Money and the Money Supply. Your advice and suggestions are invited Martycarbone (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you got a fair bit goin on here in the 'pedia ow ;-) --Nad 04:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gidday,

That's a great start you've made to the article on INCIS. I assume you're going back to it, because at the moment it doesn't make clear what actually happened to the project. As I recall, the first stage was rolled out but was much less functional than the police wanted, and the whole project was eventually cancelled. I'd have to check the inquiry you linked to and other sources to confirm this, and you must already know. I presume that project was intended as a replacement for the Wanganui computer, which it should probably link to even though we don't have an article yet. What do the police use now instead of Wanganui computer and INCIS?-gadfium 23:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra information. I see Moriori has added that the project was abandoned in 1999, perhaps you could clarify in the article that future development was scrapped, but the system developed to that point remains in use.-gadfium 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sweet - i will check it out. it's been puzzling me for ages....

check this site out http://www.resumewiki.com/ looks like you can post your CV up and get edits/comments from other users. have'nt looked into it much yet but seems a cool idea in principle anyway.

try this - http://www.telescum.co.nz

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikistress and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiwacko

think you were asking about this at one stage too http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics

Just to let you know that a meetup is planned in Auckland for the 25th of June (see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland for more details), and that you are cordially invited. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 00:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you added Peter Brocks death to Portal:New Zealand/News. While it is tragic, it is not New Zealand news, but Australian. I have hence removed it. --Midnighttonight Procrastinating on uni work... 22:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough I see he is in the Australian portal --Zven 22:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Replying to your comment at User talk:Midnighttonight) There is Portal:Current events/Oceania, which covers his death, and is linked to with "More current events..." from Portal:New Zealand/News.-gadfium 00:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks gadfium, looks like the most appropriate place, although first glance the namespace and template doesn't look consistent with other portal/news templates --Zven 00:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my lack of input on the mediation -I've been sick. I'll get back to it ASAP. Armon 09:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to Auckland Meetup 2 on the afternoon of Saturday February 10th 2007 at Galbraith's Ale House in Mt Eden. Please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland 2 for details. You can also bookmark Wikipedia:Meetup/Auckland to be informed of future NZ meetups. - SimonLyall 08:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What does a decile rating of "1A" mean? I see the MOE site lists it as "1", and I haven't seen a letter suffix for decile ratings before. I'm wondering if this is a typo.-gadfium 20:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decile 1 has been split into four parts decile 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D. Decile 1A is the lowest. Iteresting that MOE doesn't show that since it their rating system --Zven 21:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hah - when did you get the nz police info about the bain case from? unbelievable that apparantly the privy council has rubbished decisions by the court of appeal 5 times in the last 5 to 6 years!! 202.36.134.22 21:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How I know about this is that a friend was a police recruit in the 90's, and talked to me in great length on the phone some years ago about the case as it was presented to them during his recruitment. Personally I am not taking sides, I follow the ruling of the Privy Council decision that one of the two men (David or his father Robin) committed the murders, but that David was not given a fair trial and a substantial miscarriage of justice has taken place. What I find concerning is the amount of anadmisable or clearly misleading evidence presented in this trial. The evidence and discrepancies needs to be logically assessed and added to the article David Bain. --Zven 05:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mainfreight logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated Uathesis, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uathesis and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am away on a wikibreak for two weeks --Zven (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert of my edits seem to be a bit hasty, not only are you incorrect in your summary later edits incorrectly changed meaning & number was correct as prob was for either 3 heads or three tails which clearly none of my revisions altered (see my diffs), but you have reverted my correction for the probability of 3 heads or tails which is 0.5*0.5*0.5 = 1/8 or an eighth not a quarter. --Zven (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right I now see what you are getting at, however you also reverted my other edits which probably didn;t need to go. --Zven (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition above may indicate that you have seen that the text said "such sequences (three consecutive heads or three consecutive tails)" ...perhaps there needs to be more emphasis on the "OR". As for the other changes, you moved away from text that correctly had the proability being computed as being for things as or more extreme than that observed to say "One can then establish the probability of observing the obtained data if the null hypothesis is true, or data significantly different from the prediction of the null hypothesis." ... on its own the "probability of observing the obtained data" is incorrect. Reading this straightforwardly it talks about two different probabilities, whereas you may be wanting it to mean the probability of either. However the thing in the second part, ie "significantly different from the prediction of the null hypothesis" seems to be using the idea of a significance test to define what a significance test is, which is tautological. Melcombe (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the example, the "OR" definately needs to be removed as the context clearly states from the outset imagine flipping a coin three times, for three heads; and then forming the opinion that we have used a two-headed trick coin., so the section "such sequences (three consecutive heads or three consecutive tails)" is incorrect, it should be three heads only, as we don't have a two headed or two tailed trick coin. I have modified the example accordingly. I think it is a bit misleading to combine the P(T,T,T) or P(H,H,H) together here.

Re your other comments I couldn't quite see what you mean in my original changes, but feel free to modify how you see fit --Zven (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you flip a coin and see three heads in a row, what is strange is not that you had three heads, but that you had three equal results. Assuming that what I say is reasonable, the strange event is having three equal results in a row, an event that happens one quarter of the time.

why don't we move this discussion to the Null hypothesis talk page? --Pot (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See revision in Sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sandbox&oldid=524927740