User talk:37.201.210.166: Difference between revisions

August 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Stochastic matrix, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. (This also affected the article Examples of Markov chains). In both cases you removed references to a source without replacing it with another source. Material on Wikipedia must be sourced, so if you feel the Gagniuc book is not a reliable source then please find another one to replace it. Do not simply remove sources. Thank you. --Krelnik (talk) 11:44, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for replacing the removed source on Examples of Markov chains and Stochastic matrix. I don't have access to that book, but judging from the index and what I can see of it online it does seem to cover the topic, so I'm assuming good faith.

Just a couple pieces of friendly advice: I have found that it is not generally a good idea to give specific commands to other editors in your edit summaries, as you did when you wrote "Please do not revert these edits, Krelnik". It is usually not taken well. If you need to discuss the relative merits of an edit, the talk page for the affected article is the best place to do that, not in an edit summary. A talk page discussion will allow other interested editors to chime in, for instance someone could have suggested other sources to use. For other advice on what to put in an edit summary, see the help topic WP:SUMMARYNO. For more advice on how to use talk pages, read this topic.

Another good thing to do would be to create an account instead of editing anonymously. Although there's nothing wrong with editing anonymously, I have found that other editors will take you a great deal more seriously if you use an account name. Cheers. --Krelnik (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Krelnik, apologies if my note sounded in an order fashion, it wasn't my intention. It was aimed at giving a warning that particular reference contains basic errors in the construction of conditional probabilities. I will use an account for future edits. Thank you for your kind reviews and valuable suggestions 37.201.210.166 (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear Krelnik,

I had the curiosity to check Dr. Gagniuc's book (again). The information in Gagniuc's book is accurate and verified by various software examples and simulations. It's an introductory book for everyone, including myself. The user 37.201.210.166 (WhoIs: Amsterdam) makes an abuse of wikipedia by denigrating various published works to justify the injection of his own book (Van Kampen, WhoIs:Amsterdam). This is not elegant or constructive. The online examples of Gagniuc's book are available for download. The the so called "basic errors" in the construction of conditional probabilities are notations explained in the glossary section and the main text. In the end, Gagniuc's book is an impressive work seen through the eyes of a scientist from which I easily understood "how to".

PS: After seeing the book on Wikipedia in 2017, I contacted Dr. Gagniuc for a collaboration proposal on a EU research project, which he kindly accepted. So, I'm personally involved.

Best regards,

Meg