Talk:Shlomo Sawilowsky/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive

Wiki autogenerated a message that the discussion page is 117 kb and recommended archive. It is found in the \archive1 link in the upper left of the discussion page. I have left matters that appear to be unresolved on this current page for further consideration.Edstat (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to delete material

1. I have not found any other wiki bio that is so specific that it lists in detail publications, such as found here on the references to professional encyclopedia entries authored by Sawilowsky. Although I appreciate VernoWhitney figuring out how to do the notes, I recommend that material be deleted.

2. Furthermore, footnote 14 ("In their book on robust nonparametric statistics Hettmansperger and McKean...") should probably be trimmed: (a) the praise by Hettmansperger and McKean is unnecessary when a simple citation of reference will do, and (b) the way their book is noted looks more like an advertisement for their book, and this entry is not about them. So, reformatting it into a reference like 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 15, etc. should suffice. (However, if the praise should stay in, it could go in the body of the text.)

3. External links 4 and 5 don't seem relevant and should be deleted.

4. External links 1 and 2 are redundant with References 1 and 2, and should either be deleted or combined in some way.Edstat (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the References and External Links. To be honest I hadn't really even looked at that part of the article. To respond to your suggestions in reverse order:

• I went ahead and boldly deleted, refactored or turned into references most of the ELs, since you're right, they did seem redundant, only tangentially related and/or not of great encyclopedic value.
• I have also trimmed footnote 14 of the material that seemed like advertising, I just left the quote from the book and of course the book info itself, hopefully I didn't trim out anything that somebody thinks important to this article.
• Finally, I don't really have a strong feeling regarding the encyclopedia entries, but I don't think they really hurt the article since they only show up at the very bottom. I don't know of (and haven't looked for) any policy or guideline which would weigh in on either keeping or removing them. Since you're the one that added them if nobody objects I can go ahead and remove the whole Notes section in a few days. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Not a single link on the Sawilowsky "quasi" (or whatever you called it) webpage you added seems to work. I suggest deleting it.Edstat (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. VernoWhitney (talk) 11:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Return of Edstat

The two week ban on editor Edstat for sock-puppetry has expired. Editor Edstat has been busy editing articles on which I have worked, slashing sections with phrases used on this talk page ("ephoric", "travel brochure", etc.), e.g. with Per Enflo, Oscar Kempthorne, etc. I dislike being called anti-semitic, and so I am tired of dealing with Edstat. Would another editor please look and see whether Edstat's behavior is appropriate. (Some of his edits are good, but his choice of subjects and the tone of his comments in editing may strike editors as retaliatory, imho.) Thank you. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Before there was context adapted from other Wikipedia articles to explain the context of Enflo's contributions, using articles on Zebra mussels, human evolution, Schauder bases, etc. By removing this material, you make it hard for the public to understand the contribution, imho. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is need for bold. Moreover, I don't see why Enflo's subject area should get more space than any other entry (which generally, as I have learned here, is to mention the topic in one or two words, whereas there the material still goes on for sentences). Why not start a new stub and redirect if the intent is to educate the public on advanced mathematical topics?Edstat (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Experiment

It has been argued by Kiefer.Wolfowitz on another page that despite all the protests to the contrary by him and other editors on this page, it is appropriate to include doctoral students in the box, and without providing a citation for it. (I'm ignoring Kiefer.Woflowitz's unsubstantiated opinion of what constitutes being notable as a student, because it appears that he is unwilling to provide substantiation to support his definition of who is and who is not notable as a student. On another bio where he has included this I've deleted it, he has reverted it, and so on. So, the purpose of this experiment is to see if his point of view holds up consistency, and has the approval of other editors. If this material remains here, I will recapitulate there and not delete it again. Note that due to the controversy over the Math Genealogy web page not defining what constitutes a co-advisor or 2nd advisor (as opposed to a committee member), (which Kiefer.Wolfowitz deleted on that page which further hides the problem), and their making no effort to solicit that information from any of the doctoral degree granting universities anywhere in the world, I have just given a number for those categories instead of naming the doctoral students.Edstat (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, it got deleted about 1 minute later. I reverted only because the reason given was unintelligible: "talkpsge". If that is a legit reason that will answer the question.Edstat (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed that long list of studants from the infobox , as I know policy doesn't support long lists of not notable names. Off2riorob (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Before I agree, please explain which Wiki policy you applied to determine what constitutes a "non notable name" in a list of doctoral students? Thanks.Edstat (talk) 23:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, how many "notable" doctoral students, according to your understanding, are permitted to be listed?Edstat (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the same template that has a entry point for doctoral students has a DIFFERENT entry point for "notable_students". Please also exlain, according to your understanding, the difference between the two. Thanks again.Edstat (talk) 23:30, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

In any case, please note that in reverting you removed other edits as well.Edstat (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

How about this, per Template:Infobox scientist, "The idea is to list only those students who are significant enough to warrant their own article." Given that the quantity of doctoral students is important for this bio, I think simply posting a sourced number as was there before would be an acceptable compromise if none of the doctoral students are notable enough for their own articles yet. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I also see that is says they should be "Concise. Infobox templates are "at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts. Long bodies of text, or very detailed statistics, belong in the article body." So, that same source you cite supports actually listing them in the body of the text, be they worthy yet of their own article or not. Hmmm. Anyway, a simple revert removes other edits, but I'm glad this experiment has given a definitive answer.Edstat (talk) 23:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, Kiefer.Wolfowitz, NONE of the six doctoral students of Enflo have their own article, so according to this that deletion is sustained, so please don't keep putting it back in.

For my own edification, VernoWhitney, can you please explain the difference between "doctoral_students" in the info_box and "notable_students"? I read them to be two separate things, but you apparent seem them to be the same. Thanks for you help in resolving this!Edstat (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I feel obliged to point out that it doesn't say "list every student they've ever had in the body of the text" or anything close to it. It's establishing what shouldn't be in the infobox, not what should be in the article (which is generally covered by other guidelines such as WP:UNDUE and the like that have come up here before). I would venture a guess regarding students that consensus would support that those students who are notable enough to possess their own articles and thus be listed in the infobox would also possess a sentence or more on the student/teacher interaction or his influence on their research or something on that order. Oh, and presumable "talkpsge" is a typo of "talkpage" which would be shorthand for "please discuss this change on the talkpage before restoring it to the article". VernoWhitney (talk) 23:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. As to the revert, the explanation was unintelliglbe, and furthermore, note that the comment by the one who deleted it was put in the wrong place on this page so I missed it. I moved it to this section.Edstat (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so again per the Template page, notable students should be "any notable non-doctoral students taught or supervised by the scientist. These can be undergraduates, postdocs, masters students etc." subject to the same general restriction that they should have their own articles. VernoWhitney (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Experiment 2 redux

After all the comments in the above section, I fear the 2nd experiment question is not being answered (only have Iulus' vote so far) so I'm repeating it here. On another page, Kiefer.Wolfowitz put in a lot of bibliographic material, and maintains that even though it is primary sources, not independent, and original research it is ok. So, as a trial balloon, here is information on this page that he, Iulus, and others deleted. (Note that I don't use the term slash in bold, or censure, as Kiefer.Wolfowitz does - I call a delete just a delete.) I would ask editors to review this material and let me know if it should be reinstated according to that standard on the Enflo page:

• • ==Contributions to the statistical literature==
  • He has also published over a hundred articles in peer-reviewed journals, including the

• • * LRE, a measure of location relative efficiency for comparing different approaches to confidence intervals of measures of central tendency
  • * Sawilowsky I Test, a statistical procedure contributing psychometric evidence of construct validity
  • * Sawilowsky-Bunner adjusted Winsorized sample variance
  • * Blair-Sawilowsky Salter-Fawcett adjusted rank transform test for interactions in factorial Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
  • * Shulkin-Sawilowsky AllExp, AltExp, and Fibonacci estimators of the population median
  • * discovery that testing for ordinal (non-crossover) interactions are more sensitive to assumption violations than testing for disordinal (crossover) interactions in factorial ANOVA
  • * redesign of the appearance and stopping rules for interpreting the classical ANOVA table
  • * demonstration that random assignment works (i.e., produces correct Type I error rates) with N as small as n=2 per group
  • * proposal in 1991 for the creation of an encyclopedia of effect sizes for social and behavioral science variables.

• • A common theme throughout his publications is the utility of Monte Carlo simulation methods for solving statistical problems, particularly for real, small (N < 50) data sets, which are intractable via mathematical methods. His Monte Carlo studies demonstrated the

• • * fallacy of claims of small sample power supremacy of parametric and permutation statistics over nonparametric rank based statistics for treatments modeled as shift in location parameter
  • * fallacy in interpreting "trivials" (a term coined by Sawilowsky referring to effect sizes obtained under the truth of the null hypothesis)
  • * fallacy in interpreting main effects in the presence of interaction effects, or lower order interaction effects in the presence of higher order interaction effects, in factorial ANOVA layouts
  • * fallacy of datametrics (a term coined by Sawilowsky referring to the practice of applying psychometric test reliability to scores instead of the instrument)
  • * fallacy of claims that confidence intervals are based on probabilities different from that of hypothesis tests
  • * failure of the rank transform statistic in the presence of correlated data, a high magnitude treatment effect, multiple effects, or interaction effects
  • * limitations of the Brownie, Boos, Hughes-Oliver modified t test
  • * limitations of the Braver & Braver meta-analysis method for the Solomon Four-group research design
  • * irrelevancy in solving the Behrens-Fisher problem in applied research

Now, of course each of these dreaded bullet points can be supported with a primary source that is not independent of the subject, and each of them can also be expanded as on Enflo by (a) putting in the dates and how many publications on each subject, (b) adding who influenced the subject (if known) to do the work, (c) adding jpg's of famous academics related to these topics, (d) list sources who have "praised" this work or given a duck in its honor, (e) giving paragraph long mathematical details on each point, (f) adding VERY lengthy and detailed paragraphs on topics that are impacted by them, and (g) noting how long the problem was outstanding before the subject solved the problem. So, assuming a - g has been done, I would like a consensus of editors as to the permissibility of doing so, based on actual wiki policies and not opinions. Thanks everyone - this experiment might solve the apparent edit differences once and for all.Edstat (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I will check back in a week or so to see what is the consensus, and I will certainly abide by it.Edstat (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: this reply only concerns this article, I haven't looked at Per Enflo and probably won't for a few days. Ok, so my original inclination that the "Sampling of publications" section wasn't needed was based on a random sampling of other academics articles. This time I went and found a guideline: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lists of works). Since he is an author there can be a section of (Notable) Works or (Sampling of/Selected) Publications or something along those lines. Preferrably there's a reliable source that compiles them, but in cases such as this I believe primary sources (i.e., the publications themselves) can be used (per WP:PRIMARY, but only for listing the works; they should not be used to evaluate or infer things about the works. This leaves such statements as "discovery that testing for ordinal (non-crossover) interactions are more sensitive to assumption violations" problematic, because we should have a reliable source that says he discovered it and not someoneone else. In short, the listing of publications could be fine, but some of the statements you listed above seem problematic unless they are titles or quotes from his works (in which case that fact should be mentioned).

That said, there's still the issue Iulus brought up earlier. You are correct that there is only notable or not, the only fuzzy area is what's generally called "borderline-notable" which would mean it's likely to get put up for deletion if someone was so inclined, but while the article's around that really doesn't matter to the content. What I believe Iulus was referring to with his reference to the WP:UNDUE policy is that everything within the article should be given appropriate weight when compared with its significance to Sawilowsky. For completely hypothetical examples, if his publications aren't very significant in terms of his bio, then they shouldn't occupy much of his article; if his mentoring is of miniscule significance to his bio, then it shouldn't be included at all. Obviously this is a judgement call, and the existing section on his Publications already comprises about half of the article, so that's something for people to mull about since I think that's all of the input I have for now. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Verno. Yes, UNDUE weight is an issue. Notability (with a capitalized N as a WP term) is a dichotomization of a continuum purely for convenience. Drawing comparisons between Shlomo and people like Sarah Palin, Emmy Noether, and Per Enflo is like comparing West Bloomfield MI with Detroit. Or the entire US. You mentioned the word significance, which is relevant. It is a judgment call, as you point out, but such comparisons as standards should not be the basis. Rather, what is the significance of Shlomo's work? Iulus Ascanius (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If I'm understanding you right, you seem to be saying that his article should be shorter because he's less notable. If that's the case then I'm going to have to disagree. Assuming for the sake of argument that Sawilowsky is less notable than <insert random person here>, that's not necessarily a reason for there to be a shorter article on him. His article can be lengthened as much as any editor desires so long as there are sufficient reliable sources supporting it and it continues to comply with other policies and guidelines, that's really the only limiting factor. See also m:Wiki is not paper. WP:UNDUE is only concerned with content within an article relative to other content in that same article (or possibly the same group of articles if they got split, but that's not an issue here). VernoWhitney (talk) 12:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm more getting at the reasoning - we should not add something here because it exists at Per Enflo, nor should anything be deleted at Per Enflo because it does not exist here. Per Enflo is not a "standard" as was mentioned above. But I agree that disk space is pretty cheap! Iulus Ascanius (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Per Enflo

Edstat added a bunch of "citation needed" stickers, about things that are obvious to anybody familiar with Banach space theory and operator theory. Fair enough: I inserted page references to Pietsch's recent history of functional analysis and operator theory, and several other reliable sources. Edstat also made some helpful criticisms, which led me to edit and make corrections last night.

Now I look and see that Edstat's reverted (almost?) everything, so I have to through add the references again. And he's not acknowledged that I added references to reliable secondary sources everywhere he requested, so his discussion here is misleading.

(In his defense, I indicated that he had so butchered a section of the article that it was violating Wikipedia policy about biographies of living persons, without having any citations (or knowledge in the area, apparently), so perhaps he tried to undo some of his damage.) Am I alone in asking that he refrain from editing the Per Enflo article for at least a week, since he's volunteered to take a week off here (where he knows something)? Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I ask for a response to the above comment, please. Breiefly: In the case of Enflo, it was easy to find independent sources describing most of his achievements: For example, Pietsch, Benyamini and Lindenstrauss, and the book of Bombieri suffice for almost all of the statements in this article. Edstat's was wrong to claim that independent sources were lacking for Enflo, but may be correct that independent sources may be difficult for Sawilowsky. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking for an opinion on Edstat editing (or not) Enflo for a week or on something else? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I ask for an acknowledgment that the Enflo article (save for the zebra mussels and a couple details on piano playing) are based on independent sources (which were removed by Edstat a day ago) and a comment addresing Edstat's statement that he will start applying his interpretation of the principles by editing other articles in one week. Especially the latter statement deserves comment from the community, imho. ~Thanks Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 17:15, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If you want an opinion about Per Enflo, ask about it there - and I still haven't reviewed it in depth. Further, I don't see a statement from him that he will start editing other articles in one week, but even if I did I don't see a problem with it: that's what we all do. If you disagree with his interpretation then you both sit down and talk about it on a talk page: yours, his, an articles, wherever, and get input from other editors when you can't resolve the differences on your own. Does that work for a response? VernoWhitney (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Your comments here and your comments in appropriate venues about "Wikipedia:Don't use Wikipedia to prove a point" suffice for me. Thanks! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 20:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Removals

I have removed nearly 50% of this page, based on its content being personal attacks and replies, or otherwise inflammatory. I have warned one participant directly. I'd like to make it clear that, whatever else is going on, neglecting the Talk page guidelines is unacceptable, as well as being fundamentally counterproductive. My reaction to further goings-on will be to remove personalia, and take any steps that seem to be required. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive

EdJohnson has archived the discussion page, correctly renumbered the archives, and has suggested archive time be reset to 180 days.Edstat (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have reset the archive to 180d as suggested.Edstat (talk) 23:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BLP

This being a biography of living person, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies. I quote from the nutshell on that page: Material about living persons must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research. I would ask all editors active on this biography to respect this scrupulously; and to use WP:BLPN to address anything that comes up that is not amenable to treatment by consensus on this page. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Students

I have not edited the article since the recent deletions began, but now the student section ends in a comma instead of a period. It seems to me that the deletion of the students (for which there were independent secondary sources indicated who they are or what they have published, etc., should be reverted. The reason was explained in the history page. I can repeat that explanation here if anyone wants me to, but if not, does anyone want to discuss it before I revert the deleted students information?Edstat (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've added a couple of citations, and moved a "citations needed tag" to a different part of a sentence. I have not edited the student's section.Edstat (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

If there are reliable secondary sources establishing their relationship to Sawilosky and any other details then there's no issue with restoring them. Going into excessive detail could be WP:UNDUE since the focus should still be on Sawilowsky and not his students, but that's the only thing to avoid. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I have restored the student info for a sample of students, all of whom have published or made other contributions to the field. All but the last one is listed in the MG project as being Sawilowsky's doctoral students; the last one is listed in the third citation as being his doctoral student. I think WP:UNDUE would be something like what is found at [Emmy Noether]. (Please take a look to see what I'm referring to.)Edstat (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit for standardisation

I have made a general edit to the page, to bring it in more in line with expected level of detail for academics. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you deleted a lot of material that is fully and appropriately referenced. For example, you deleted a reference to the American Statistical Association's national publication reporting on Sawilowsky's awards. In the history pages others felt it was important to not only cite the ASA's reporting, but to do so citing it in the third person (i.e., including the "then President" text), which I agree was unnecessary. However, this and other of your edits are unwarrented, because independent, secondary references outweigh what you appear to be calling "unncessary" or "too much". I find it too hard to fix many of the things you did without starting over, so I'm going to revert (for which I apologize in advance) and try and put all your edits in that are supported by your citations, and leave those in that are not.Edstat (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm working through Charles Matthews's deletions, and I've come to the resignation from the Presidency of a National Organization. This was discussed on the archive pages where it was noted that even Wikipedia has a page where presidents of organizations resigned from their positions. I'm going to delete it for now because I too think it is not "encyclopedic", but someone may want to put it back in because apparently it is "wikipedic" to state such events.Edstat (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I removed "major" and "leading", but I've left in the issue with the Wikipedia term "test validity" because the footnote explains validity applied to a test's use, not the test itself, making the wikipedia entry's name problematic. Perhaps that should be argued on the test validiy page. I can supply any arbitrary number of textbook citations by other authors for this if the point is not to rely on the Sawilowsky citation - just name how many citations you want and I can supply them. To my knowledge, there are no classical measurement theorists who claim the contrary.Edstat (talk) 01:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is best to un"simply links" as you put it, because in so doing, you went from a wikilink to a red link (i.e.) there is no entry for "educational statistics" as you have it. I have seen some editors do that on purpose to stimulate writing the new page, but it seems to me until the new page is written, having a dead wikilink is not "simplifying" a wikilink.Edstat (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't restore your splitting of the lead, because (a) it seems too short, and (b) your creation of a new section "academic career" is now applying to degree's earned only, giving the impression none of the other material, which is mostly in the context of academics, is part of the academic career. I think if you made the lead a little more informative, and came up with another section title, though, it would read like I think you intended it to.Edstat (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the "flattening" of some section titles. The higher section title refers to "in applied statistics, psychometrics, and experimental design in education and psychology". Therefore, the lower section titles are following those descriptions. However, I agree "applied statistics" is more precise that just "statistics". I've deleted "education and psychology to "flatten" the subsection titles, but others will probably want to restore it to distinguish it from DOE in the lab/bench sciences.Edstat (talk) 01:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm struggling with the "sorting" edit. The way you want it makes a difference between statistical publications somehow different from statistical publications in textbooks and encyclopedias. I see them as being the same. I think you have a good idea, though, if you want to separate out editing a statistical journal, because that is obviously not his publications. I'm going to give it a whirl, but you may need to look at it closer.Edstat (talk) 01:38, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Just in case you don't have a chance to read the archives: I didn't move the edited volume to the section on editorship. In that book Sawilowsky wrote several chapters, but other editors said there was nothing notable about writing a few chapters in a book, so that was deleted. If you move the edited volume to the editorship section, it will obscure the fact that it also contains some of Sawilowsky's contributions to the field. Of course, you could move it there and say, parenthetically "(and authored several chapters)", but be aware of what was written on the archive pages on this issue.Edstat (talk) 02:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

First, though, I've removed an unsourced statement. The AERA/SIG newsletter link did NOT say the journal was founded for papers rejected by other journals. It said a motivation for the journal was other journals rejected Monte Carlo methods, presumably at least back in 2002 when the journal published its first issue. (A quick google search today shows thousands of Monte Carlo simulations in many journals.) The AERA SIG national newsletter did not say any of the articles published in that journal had been rejected from any other journal first.Edstat (talk) 01:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I put your bullet list back in. HOWEVER, if you check the archives, you will see that there was a MAJOR attack from others against having bullet lists in the article. By putting them back you, you are going against the consensus to remove them in favor of prose, so others may come and revert this.Edstat (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've left the see also in. The point made was Sawilowsky has detailed the criteria for a thorough Monte Carlo, and instead of listing them here, the see also sends the reader to the appropriate place to read more about it.Edstat (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The second time you "fixed link", you again turned it from a wikilink to a red link. Again, I don't know why you are doing this. I changed the other one, so to be even I'll leave this in, but I would like to know the thinking behind wikifying to nonexistent pages.Edstat (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I figured out the problem. "maximum likelihood" was mispelled, and that made the link red. Now it is fixed.Edstat (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I've left restored your wholesale deletion of national awards which you call "too much". Should the American Educational Research Association, a national organization that is probably 100 years old with 20,000 Ph. D.'s take back the award? If you do such wholesale deletes of sourced material IMO you are inviting others to then question where is the notability, which presumably is not your editing intent.Edstat (talk) 02:02, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for restoring to prior to your edits, but there were so many troubled areas, I thought it was easier this way. My recommendation is that you give some thought to reading the archived pages before stirring up issues that there was already consensus on, and I say this even in areas that I was not part of the "consensus" - for example I was in favor of bullet points but the majority of other authors were not.Edstat (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You should not have taken that attitude. The comment that I'm unfamiliar with the background is unwarranted. I shall revert to a sensible version of this page's content. If you further contest such edits, I shall open a behavioural RfC on your editing here. I imagine I shall have little trouble in finding a seconder.

Your attitude of ownership here is quite out of place. If you don't know why educational statistics should be a redlink, I shall tell you: an academic area in which a professor holds a chair is probably a topic on which Wikipedia should have an article. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If you, in that case, REREAD the archive, you will see that a number of edits you have made are precisely what I had requested (e.g., keeping original bullet list in). A LOT of editors voiced their opinion against having a bullet list. How can you call it ownership, when I bring up issues regarding your edits that I favor, but the consensus was against me?

Your comments about attitude are inappropriate. I clearly explained that there were a number of unsubstantiated changes you made, and because it was too difficult to do them in one shot, I reverted. I then spent a lot of time putting in, by cut and paste, all of your edits that were supported. I appologized for doing it that way.

You made changes that you call "standardized" and now "sensible" and "too much". I've looked through a number of wiki layout pages and I haven't seen a page on "standarization" or on "sensible" or "too much". Please tell me which pages you are referring to for this. It seems to me that regardless of your postion at Wikimedia, you should have to substantiate what you add, and what you delete, following the same rules as everyone else. However, I don't know the rules for folks on the office staff of Wikimedia, so if I am wrong about this, please show me which wikipage that explains why you are exempt - I'll certainly abide by it.

Meanwhile, I will continue to edit this article.Edstat (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I have added back in the College Well Being test, along with its citation, that you deleted. I'm sure you agree this is not an "ownership" of the article issue.Edstat (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you don't understand how it works. Consensus on a page can always be challenged. You, however are in a weak position to insist on "your" version. There will now be, very likely, an application by me for an RfC on your conduct on Wikipedia. Let me explain to you clearly that this is a chance for the community to comment on how you have been acting within our community rules. Assuming others agree with me, I shall then apply to the Arbitration Committee for an editing restriction, limiting you to topics that have nothing to do with Professor Sawilowsky. This will be for the general good.

Again, the consensus, for example, was to eliminate a bullet list. I argued "FOR" it, the consensus was "AGAINST" it. It was not "MY version" that I was referring to, it was the "Consensus" version that I was warning you might bright back previous editors to refight the use of a bullet list.

What conduct are you referring to? I was very apologetic that I reverted your edits, but you, after repeated requests, have offered nothing to support your reasons other than opinion. What authority do you have to edit/delete w/o being within the framework of WP policy? I already asked if your position gives you the right to rely on your opinion, and if so I would acquiesse, but you never responded that was the case.

As for finding others that agree with you, that won't be too hard. K.W., S., Sm., IA, AR, follow just about every page I edit to revert or debate, so you should have little trouble getting them to agree with you. I think it is condenscending of you to avoid speaking in details of the problems your recent edits caused, and instead lecturing on what you think is for the general good. I think good faith editing should require you to answer plain questions about the edits you have made.

Instead of editing, rather obsessively, a "biography of a living person" (BLP), which is the most delicate kind of editing here, and inviting me to debate the topic of "undue weight" in a BLP, where it seems to me I have considerably more background than you do, you would do better to take a hint. It is not a random thought of mine that you might be able to develop an article for Wikipedia on educational statistics; in fact if you are not able to do that, your choice of username would seem to be bizarre. If you are able to begin such an article, and if in collaboration with others your work there becomes a reference and survey on the site for others to use, then we all gain. I mean the whole planet. The same cannot be said about a recital of Professor Sawilowsky's distinctions, however numerous.

"Obsessively" is an attack on me. Why are you permitted to attack me? Again, I asked for wikipedia policy pages that speak to what you have judged as "too much", "etc.", and it appears your only response is you have "more background" than me. Is that how wikipedia works? I have in fact written on a number of statistical issues, and have been bullied by the above mentioned group of editors, when I have citations, and they have opinions and 3RR. I have already said goodbye to editing on those pages where they edit. Even rather innoucuous pages that I have edited have come under attak from some of them, lead to AfD voted on by none other than those listed above, time and again. "The same cannot be said ... however numerous". You still have not explained why Professor Sawilowsky's distinctions, however FEW, are not wikipedic.

So you do have a stark choice, it seems to me. Either begin to repair your reputation with the community by branching out into what I assume to be your field of competence, writing in survey style. Or insist on what we call a "sterile edit war", on a BLP, with almost inevitable consequences in our dispute resolution system, which is set up precisely to deal with those who take an attitude such as yours. Be well advised here. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are threatening me. I do in fact, edit at about a dozen other pages. I don't like being bullied there either. Now, above I raised some questions caused by your edits in the section below, and you didn't answer them, instead, you continue to bully me.

I already apologized for trying to fix your mistakes in editing by reverting; it was only because I didn't know how to make that many edits without switching back and forth. I cut and paste all of your edits that were sourced back in. Why don't we work together on improving the article, starting with you answering some of the questions below, with wikipedia policies instead of what you consider to be "sensible" or "too much".Edstat (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not bullying you. Not my way - ask almost anyone. I have been showing you the carrot and the stick, plainly. But that is by way of clarification, and I didn't invent either of those. If you wish to improve your relationship with other editors, this constant growling is the wrong way to do it. If you demonstrate clearly that you are a "Wikipedian" - in other words a contributor to this great encyclopedic project of ours, not in the small but at the level I imagine you quite capable of - then you will find it so much easier to get along with others on the site. That is the carrot. You have in fact been pursuing what appears to me a classic short term strategy. In fact this is proverbial in gambling: if you are going to take so many chances you had better start with more money than the bank. Your reputation is being made subject to constant attrition, because you feel you must hold the line in the article, when any outsider can see that you are distorting it. My point entirely in editing as I did. So you need a better strategy, of adding to your reputation. Why do you think that SPAs are tolerated, when they begin as clear POV pushers? Because they can learn, can modify their behaviour. Not necessarily in a moment of satori, but simply by getting a better idea of what Wikipedia wants, which is not itself so hard to do for anyone having an academic background. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm taking a "wiki-break" to consider your allegations. In the meantime, as for SPA (there are several more, I just don't have the time to look for them), here are the dates that I first began editing on the following topics:

• 27 May 2007 shlomo sawilowsky
• 28 May 2007 Isaac Bitton
• 1 June 2007 Crown Heights Riot
• 11 September 2007 Brooklyn Bridge shooting
• 31 October 2007 Chabad
• 4 November 2007 Belarus
• 14 October 2009 Rush Limbaugh
• 9 January 2009 Analysis of Variance
• 12 April 2010 Per Enflo
• 12 April 2010 Rabbinical College of American
• 12 April 2010 List of Yeshivas
• 12 April 2010 Oscar Kempthorne
• 18 April 2010 Abelson's paradox
• 18 April 2010 Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods
• 7 May 2010 Obsolete statistical procedures
• 9 May 2010 Betty Castor
• 9 May 2010 F-test of equality of variances
• 21 May 2010 Charles Surasky
• 6 June 2010 Phi Kappa Phi
• 15 June 2010 List of statisticians
• 4 July 2010 American Statistical Association
• 8 July 2010 Chaim Shaulson
• 9 July 2010 Moshe Rubashkin
• 23 July 2010 Margaret Sanger
• 3 September 2010 Jacob Immanuel Schochet
• 5 Septebmer 2010 Student's t test
• 17 September 2010 Monte Carlo method
• 21 September 2010 Mathematics Genealogy Project
• 21 September 2010 F-test
• 4 October 2010 Resampling (statistics)
• 4 October 2010 Multitrait-multimethod matrix
• 4 October 2010 List of psychologists
• 17 October 2010 Cognate Advisor
• 31 October 2010 Doctoral Advisor
• 31 october 2010 Rubashkin family
• 31 October 2010 Israeli-occupied territories
• 15 November 2010 ANOVA on RanksEdstat (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

AMSTAT News & etc.

Charels Matthews has deleted two citations to the AMSTAT News ([1]), the major member publication of the American Statistical Association (it is not a newsletter - it is full journal length), that mentions a number of SAwilowsky's awards. His only explanation is that it is not "standardized", "too much", not "sensible", or "ownership" by me to cite this. Hopefully, because Mathews is a mathematician and not a statistician he isn't claiming that the AMSTAT News is not a reliable, secondary, and independent source. However, I'm asking other editors to discuss why AMSTAT News is invalidated for wikipedia in general, or why AMSTAT News is invalidated for this article in particular.Edstat (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, under the new layout by Matthews, where he parsed a number of sentences, some sentences now have no citations for support. For example, previously a sentence would say "A & B" with a citation. Now, there is A with the citation in one place, and B is located in another place with no citation. Should the citation be repeated?Edstat (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, now that Matthews has deleted the refernce to the distinguished paper award by the American Educational Research Association, (for which reason he has not given), can its citation be at least connected to the info box that mentions it? Otherwise, it is now in the info box unsourced.Edstat (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Wolf-Brainin

I see this student was deleted. Judging from the username, he seems to be the student (but who knows?) Anyway, he is listed here. Can I restore it with that reference? I see publications such as here, and if a ref is needed with Sawilowsky (the mentoring thing), I find this. I would just add it in because it was deleted due to being unsourced, but I feel like I'm being threatened against editing this article.Edstat (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It being unsourced is the only reason I removed it, so feel free to go ahead and restore it with a reliable source. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, but I'm taking a "wikibreak" to think over Matthews' suggestions.Edstat (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)