User talk:Ca3tki

Hi Ca3tki!

You are welcome to join us and add this user-box.

This user is a participant in WikiProject Statistics.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:26, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Mmm, well, perhaps you could advise: I wanted to add something statistical to the stuff about measurement, a la David Hand. I cannot work out where to put it. His view was of course that statisticians have neglected measurement for too long but I think his book and JRSSA article are worth citing. Any ideas? Ca3tki (talk) 22:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that User:Melcombe has the best knowledge of WP statistics articles, and could better advise you.

Maybe you could mention measurement in relation to Wayne Fuller's book (or maybe another Iowa econometrician) or the SEM people, like Kenneth A. Bollen....

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking more about the theory of what it means to measure something statistically. I'm not sure that anyone else has attempted what David Hand has done. I'm just a bit wary of starting a whole new article on statistical approaches to measurement as it would be just one author to rely on. I'll have to think about it. Thanks anyway Ca3tki (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ca3tki!

Don't worry about writing text at first. If you can provide excellent references, particularly to on-line sources, then the reader is well served. I would suggest looking at a standard handbook, encyclopedia, or dictionary of statistics (econometrics, psychometrics) and finding an article or two about measurement. Just try to provide a handful of the best references, and then write what you can using Hand.

My best article is Shapley–Folkman lemma, which has citations to excellent economic references (the Handbooks of Economics and the New Palgrave and draft textbooks by the leading researchers.)

(Since you want to use one reference, at first, it can be a challenge to avoid close paraphrasing, including duplicating the structure of passages from Hand: Ask me for help if you have questions. You can also draft your article in your user space.)

All articles begin with a first babble, and then grow in ways that their initial authors could not foresee. Just write with an aim towards the truth, and everything will be fine. :)

Melcombe is much more systematic and encyclopedic than me. I write more about my own interests and THE TRUTH, and then try to edit myself towards a neutral point of view that honestly represents the main serious points of view on contentious issues. I think Melcombe starts more by reading a few encyclopedic sources one day and then writing a good article based on them the next; his way is probably better than mine. ;)

Best regards,

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:18, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

P.S. 17:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Here's a good reference:

• Stefanski, L. A. (2000). "Measurement error models (Vignettes for the Year 2000: Theory and Methods, ed. by George Casella)". Journal of the American Statistical Association. 95 (452?): 1349–1353??. JSTOR 2669786??. MR 1825292??. {{cite journal}}: Check |mr= value (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Stefanski, L. A. (2002). "Measurement error models (Chapter 4: Theory and methods of statistics, ed. by George Casella)". In Raftery, Adrian E.; Tanner, Martin A.; Wells, Martin T (eds.). Statistics in the 21st century. Monographs on Statistics and Applied Probability. Vol. 93. Chapman and Hall, and CRC. pp. 461–470. JSTOR 2669786??. MR 1825292??. {{cite book}}: Check |mr= value (help); Unknown parameter |other= ignored (|others= suggested) (help)

  Stefanski does cite Wayne Fuller's Measurement Error Models, besides his Measurement error in nonlinear models (with Carroll and Rupert).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:44, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You may enjoy writing about a Kiwi Cambridge statistician, Peter Whittle. His autobiography and on-line histories of the Cambridge Statistical Laboratory are often hilarious and always instructive, and so are worth reading just for fun.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of him. I will have to look up whathe has said about the stats lab, though. It wouldn't surprise me if I had read some before and forgotten about it.Ca3tki (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to comment on the following probability-related RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

While the public understanding of probability is interestin, I wouldn't say I was interested in finite sets. Simply I would refer you to Polyà if you want to talk about problem solving. For me,this article is not important enough to spend time on. Ca3tki (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to give the article the scope to justify removing the list. The historical examples I think can now be condensed, to provide a useful background to the practice. The 'modern' census now needs to be properly introduced, and summarised. There is much potential for other change. I invite you to be bold yourself :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Along the lines of being bold, I see you undid my edit to this article from a few years ago in which I mentioned the problem of enumeration in what in the U.S. is called "group quarters", stating that this gave a U.S. focus to the piece. I am afraid that by NOT mentioning the U.S. in this instance and instead using the term "communal residences", you may be making the article overstep its bounds. I do not know what other countries term such quarters/ residences, but I DO know what they are termed in the US, which is why I mentioned it. I also know that the term "communal residences" is NOT used in the US for any part of the US census. Giving a specific example of a term used in the US does not mean the article then has a US focus, it only means it has a US example, and taking out such an example and putting in a term that does not have meaning in any census doesn't help the article at all. I hope you see where I have been headed with this. I will not undo your edit, but I ask you to consider your tactic on this one. Thanks. KDS4444^Talk 17:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)