Luckydevil713
Hi, I added on to one of your graphs to predict a winner, on this page.
How should I write the copyright tag so that it won't be deleted?
encyclopedic edit
What are you talking about- extrapolation may not be encyclopedic? It's a natural question to ask- you see two lines representing public support of two people that are converging in the distance, and you want to know when they will intersect. Why would you want to remove that answer so that people will not know? If linear interpolation is good enough to show on the scatter plot then surely linear extrapolation is good enough to show also. You're just removing perfectly good information for no reason.
Why don't you just extend your lines until they go past the important primary dates?
Tbsmith (talk) 22:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
By drawing the linear interpolation, you are predicting values of the poll results between the points that were never actually taken, so you are effectively predicting the poll results on past dates when there were no polls. The line itself misrepresents all the values of the poll throughout the plot. The process of extrapolation is less reliable than interpolation but both are valid mathematical approximations to given data. The line you drew is a trend line, and it would be nice if everyone could see the results if the trend continues.
Tbsmith (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Removal of information edit
Please do not scour pages in search of material to delete just because you feel that it is "petty", especially if it is well referenced and highly relevant, that process is highly unproductive. If you have a concern about something please raise it in the discussion page. Your time would be better utilized adding useful material to random pages instead of removing it. Eidetic Man (talk) 06:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please reply to the original post here please, it is not necessary to create a new section for replies. Eidetic Man (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I altered the Dana White page slightly to what i think is not in the least biased, i don't think it needs to be altered further. Eidetic Man (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- We just have different opinions about it and I think you're a little too attached to what you wrote. I've already voiced all of my opinions about the section on the Talk page and tried to contribute edits to fix it. Any changes I try to make(even minor ones) you continuously revert, so I give up. None of the issues raised have been even remotely addressed or even considered in your replies (I think you changed maybe one word). For example, it is not up to you to decide what kind of loss is "legitimate" or not. A loss via Cut/Doctor Stoppage is an acceptable form of loss. It sucks, but it happens and it is in the Unified Rules. There are hundreds of fights that have been decided that way. Continuously referring to Fedor's undefeated streak and calling him a legend three times in two paragraphs is unnecessary, ESPECIALLY on a page about Dana White who has nothing to do with his undefeated streak. These are examples of bias and weasel words/phrases. Continuously calling my edits "vandalism" is not fair to what I am trying to contribute to the article and, frankly, insulting. I would just encourage you to take a step back from your own writing and consider what is best for the article. But I am done trying to have an edit war with you, Good Luck. -Luckydevil713 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- You still don't get it, you obviously don't know much about MMA at all. That first loss is actually illegitimate, everybody will acknowledge that, it is well documented. Fedor received a cut as a result of an illegal elbow, meaning the opponent should be disqualified, however since it was a tournament one man had to progress and Fedor obviously could not with the cut, so he was given the loss however in any other fight he would be awarded the win. This means that his first legitimate loss came at the hands of Werdum. The page about White doesn't have to be all about him, there is a section about his Feud with M-1 Global and i don't think anyone would have a problem with the term legend except for you, this is an encyclopedia written by the people, it doesn't have to suit you just because you feel it necessary. Eidetic Man (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I don't need you to insult my MMA knowledge, and your ad hominem attacks are not warranted or appropriate. I am perfectly aware of when and why the loss happened. The fact remains that the official governing bodies count the fight as a loss on his record, not a "DQ". It is up to the official sanctioning bodies to determine what is or is not 'legitimate', not you. Right now the section reads as if it were written by a Fedor fanboy. I tried to change the tone of it, but you are clearly not having any of that. You are the one not allowing it to be editing by the "people"... especially considering you are the only person who has contributed anything to that section. So please stop spamming my page, I've already stated that I am done having an edit war with you. -Luckydevil713 (talk) 11:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- You still don't get it, you obviously don't know much about MMA at all. That first loss is actually illegitimate, everybody will acknowledge that, it is well documented. Fedor received a cut as a result of an illegal elbow, meaning the opponent should be disqualified, however since it was a tournament one man had to progress and Fedor obviously could not with the cut, so he was given the loss however in any other fight he would be awarded the win. This means that his first legitimate loss came at the hands of Werdum. The page about White doesn't have to be all about him, there is a section about his Feud with M-1 Global and i don't think anyone would have a problem with the term legend except for you, this is an encyclopedia written by the people, it doesn't have to suit you just because you feel it necessary. Eidetic Man (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- We just have different opinions about it and I think you're a little too attached to what you wrote. I've already voiced all of my opinions about the section on the Talk page and tried to contribute edits to fix it. Any changes I try to make(even minor ones) you continuously revert, so I give up. None of the issues raised have been even remotely addressed or even considered in your replies (I think you changed maybe one word). For example, it is not up to you to decide what kind of loss is "legitimate" or not. A loss via Cut/Doctor Stoppage is an acceptable form of loss. It sucks, but it happens and it is in the Unified Rules. There are hundreds of fights that have been decided that way. Continuously referring to Fedor's undefeated streak and calling him a legend three times in two paragraphs is unnecessary, ESPECIALLY on a page about Dana White who has nothing to do with his undefeated streak. These are examples of bias and weasel words/phrases. Continuously calling my edits "vandalism" is not fair to what I am trying to contribute to the article and, frankly, insulting. I would just encourage you to take a step back from your own writing and consider what is best for the article. But I am done trying to have an edit war with you, Good Luck. -Luckydevil713 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I altered the Dana White page slightly to what i think is not in the least biased, i don't think it needs to be altered further. Eidetic Man (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Please reply to the original post here please, it is not necessary to create a new section for replies. Eidetic Man (talk) 11:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)