Talk:Least-squares spectral analysis/Archive 1

message: Archived Nov. 7, 2007.  Shortly before archiving, various sections mentioning an author involved in a conflict of interest were removed by the wikipedia general councel on request of that author, leaving some of the talk sections uninterpretable; see the original talk page history if you need to know more. Dicklyon 15:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

message: As a simple 3O browser I'd like to weigh in.  I think a cool-down period is in order here.  Let's try and back off and get some perspective.  This is a Wikipedia article, and as impressive as WP is it's not worth adding all this aggravation to your lives.  Threats were made and words were tossed... let it go.  I'm going to go do some research, let's all look for a way to step back and take a breath.  Padillah 12:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While you do that, it seems like minimum good will to remove at least some of the naughty repellant-tags on Petr Vaníček and Vaníček analysis (because Dickhawk has attacked both). Right now, the two pages look like a Christmas tree...in July.  In the mean-time, here is some food for thoughts: please check out J. Tuzo Wilson Medal and ask yourself how many recipients of the highest geophysics recognition in the second largest nation on Earth (therefore: a geophysics world power) actually do have their biographies on Wikipedia? Answer: a mere 30%!  If various hawks are allowed to continue massacring every new biography of a scientist just because it was not featured on MSNBC, then I am afraid there is no point to further discussions here. In that case, all Wikipedia pages about geophysics and geodesy would cease being serious. Speculations on whether they too are based on a popular vote would start creeping in.   --Geoeg 18:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Since you insist on the exact phrases count: Google search returns about 100 pages with the exact phrase "Vanicek spectral analysis", plus some 100 returns as well for "Gauss-Vanicek spectral analysis". Why are some 500 so much better than the competing 250? Even in the way you (Dicklyon) stated the argument (selective non-weighted counting), in most Google returns done in your way the long name has no dashes in "least squares", and the four initial letters are actually capitalized. So the present version ("Least-squares spectral analysis") is actually the least acceptable one according to the rule you (Dicklyon) suggested?! Finally, I hope someone will remove at least one of the tags from the author's biography page as there is no point of having such a scarecrow in here, is there. --Geoeg 04:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Forget the Google counts; I never proposed looking at counts, and only suggested looking at book hits, since they tend to be much more reliable than web hits (books usually have the benefit on an editor).  As to capitalization, wikipedia has a guideline about that: WP:NAME.  As to the hyphenation, see hyphen#joining; it is very common for authors to violate the general rule, and some editors even explicitly allow it, but I prefer to follow it, to give the reader a good clue to the structure of the phrase.  If it appears in any reasonable proportion of book hits (as it does), then I'm pretty confident that it's a correct and acceptable way to punctuate.  If you disagree, then propose a move. Dicklyon 04:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 20 returns without the dash v. 10 returns with the dash, in the Google book search you used. So based on your own criterion (which is fine by me), and given that there is no regulation giving your preferences priority over my preferences, as the page author I ask you to please remove the dash at your earliest convenience. Also (less relevant though) I believe that the dash actually decreases the number of search returns.  If you are unable to comply with this request, please let me know and I will remove it myself. --Geoeg 14:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My own criteria include "forget the counts" and "any reasonable proportion of book hits".  When have I ever suggested looking at google hit counts?  And there's no dash.  Did you read the hyphen#joining that I referred you to?  As I said above, if you want to propose a move, do so; start a new discussion section. Dicklyon 14:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Call it an Indian Tiger if you like. The "book hits" come from Google Inc., do they not? So it's 20:10 in favor of no dash option. Please remove the dash (hyphen or whatever) or I shall do it. The regulation you cited is irrelevant as it refers to a style that is a matter of one's preference. I already explained this to you. Your preference is not any older than mine as the page author. --Geoeg 15:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As I noted above, I don't think google hits determine notability. However, they do tend to reinforce my view that there's a more appropriate and neutral title than the Vanicek version. It seems that the most commonly used name is the least-squares one, so it makes the most sense to me. (I'll try and back that up with an ISI Web of Knowledge citation report at some point in the future, since that would be the definitive way of determining the more common name for this sort of thing). As far as the POV/COI tag on the author's page, I'll go look and see if it's still needed. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 04:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that ISI would be a good measure. Looking forward to your report. --Geoeg 14:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed request for sources and notability tags. Notability seems to be established, and the article seems sourced. (If more sources are needed, maybe a  tag could be added to indicate what needs sourcing?). PS: Will copy this comment to the author's talk page. Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 05:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're referring to the Petr Vanicek article I presume, since this page never had such tags; it has been well sourced from the beginning; just not neutrally sourced, which is what the COI tag was about. Dicklyon 06:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for the sake of clarity & completeness: my response is on the Vanicek talk page (since that seemed the logical place to continue the discussion). Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 06:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see, the tags are still there? Also, I don't see any new posts by you on my talk page? --Geoeg 14:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was that directed at me? Sorry, by author's talk, I meant Vanicek's talk page. Best, --Bfigura (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion of 3O 

message: There seem to be a fair number of double redirects created as a result of the recent page moves. (See here). I'm going to try fixing them to point here, since I can't think of a good reason to have double redirects. Cheers, --Bfigura (talk) 04:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there are numerous redirects that were made to catch all the common misspellings of Vanicek; it doesn't actually hurt anything that they are double redirects, but there's a bot that will typically fix them within a day anyway, so don't spend too much energy on it.  I already replaced the links that matter. Dicklyon 05:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, done already. TOo bad I didn't read that a bit ago. --Bfigura (talk) 05:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Redirects 

message: It would seem that WP:3RR is also about to apply here. Everyone, please slow down, and remember: we have plenty of time before we have to worry about  hitting the editorial deadline. (Again, I have no interest in whether or not the current version is the  right version, but this needs to be settled through consensus, not via edit warring). --Bfigura (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What can I say? You saw I was ready to let it calm down, but he has just brought some partial reinforcement with him, and it is now two of them doing exactly the same thing as Dicklyon: frantically looking for more regulations that they interpret rigidly. I only wish they used that much energy on editing the actual two pages. --Geoeg 23:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've actually done some significant improvements to the page's lead and history sections, replacing deprecating statements about Scargle with actual quotes that better characterize his contribution.  The reverts of Geoeg along the way are a distraction, to be sure, but I have not asked anyone to come help me.  I had made a neutral request for a third opinion, as anyone can do. Dicklyon 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is exciting: we finally see that indeed you can contribute something of value to the actual article(s)! Imagine all the contributions you could have made if you actually were editing the pages instead of talking enormously lot of how they should be edited... You should really take this as a compliment, and an incentive to keep on doing good, not talking on how its done. --Geoeg 00:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I do!  Dicklyon 01:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: Geoeg, your point of view that Vanicek needs to be featured much more prominently than Lomb and Scargle is getting old.  Please stop pushing it.  You can decide to bold all their names, or none, but you can't pick and choose, and you can't disparage some of them in the lead.  It's not rocket science to understand this simple concept of wikipedia that the viewpoint of the article should be neutral.  If you find a significant view in published papers that Scargle deserves less credit than Vanicek, present it and reference it; but you can't do it based on your own biased interpretation of the few words you choose to pay attention to in one reference; your interpretation is original research and thus not part of what the article should be based on. Dicklyon 03:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, note it's not the page title we are discussing right now. Second, you (again...) use selective editing: I said it clearly in my edit comment that you can have it either all-names-bolded but with in-lead note on Scargle "method's" self-denial (he denied it himself), or you can not have the Scargle's thing called a method i.e. bolded (and, by extension, the Lomb's too because his paper brings even less novelty to the Vanicek's method than Scargle's does). At the same time, bolding of Vanicek method remains unquestionable in either case for Vanicek invented a scientific method just like Fourier invented his, now known as Fourier analysis, so that Vanicek analysis is the only legitimate competitor with the present page title (LSSA). How difficult is that to grasp (and it sure is not rocket science either): Vanicek has claimed a new method, while Scargle denied that his report meant the same.  --Geoeg 04:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed very easy to grasp what your POV is, but your interpretation of the sources is not neutral. Dicklyon 04:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind repeating this to you one more time: stop with your pointless allegations and control your imagination. The only POV here is your own rigid interpretation of all possible regulations you have ever read. --Geoeg 13:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a cooperative enterprise, guidelines for behavior, goals, style, etc., are important in helping the community converge on a good result.  Your refusal to read and respect those guidelines is at the base of the problems you're having here.  I'm trying to help you learn, but you have decided not to listen to me.  So maybe you should try editing some other articles for a while and listen to others that you are not yet predisposed to ignore. Dicklyon 15:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How do you know I "refuse to read..."? Did I say that, or were you standing next to me and observing whether I read something or not? What do you mean by "you decided not to listen to me", are you my supervisor here? I don't know why you try to sound like someone on Wikipedia paycheck. That all takes imagination, I suppose.  --Geoeg 15:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV pushing

message: So far this article seems like a preface.  It's telling us what it's going to tell us, but it's not yet telling us. Michael Hardy 23:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said somewhere on the talk pages, I shall be contributing more, time permit. But do not let that discourage you from contributing as well. --Geoeg 03:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Preface 

message: Athaenara wrote: edit comment, at 02:52 Petr Vaníček (diff; hist) . .  (+29) . . Athaenara (Talk | contribs) (Subject probably passes Wikipedia:Notability (people). Template:COI2 applies: COI editing by User:Geoeg has been extremely disruptive & aggressive.  Everyone who reads the talk pages can see that I have not been extremely anything. The use of that sort of lingo and aggressive attitude actually exposes you as an aggressive person, because, in case you have not noticed, you just attacked me personally instead of debating the issue (the articles), see personal attack. --Geoeg 03:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Athaenara's statement that "COI editing by User:Geoeg has been extremely disruptive & aggressive" was a plain observation on your edits, nothing about your self.  Contrast this with your own personal comments on my attitude, competence, memory, etc., and your name-calling like "judge-and-the-jury wannabe", "dickhawk", etc.  These are personal attributes and personal insults.  See the difference?  Dicklyon 05:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go back and read the entire discussion on the respective talk pages. Because what you just did in the above is called selective memory. Examples of your insulting behavior (Note that behavior such as yours actually constitutes an insult) include but are not limited to: interrogation as to my identity, acting from position of power and false authority of Wikipedia's (threatening me with expulsion from Wiki), overly reverting edits from more than one editor while claiming Vanicek's biography page lacks sources and notability although three different editors told you there was nothing wrong with the page in those respects, pushing your POV based on misunderstanding of the subject you seem to want to contribute on (say, equating Fourier analysis with least-squares), and so on.  --Geoeg 13:49, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With the exception of my warnings that I would ask for you to be blocked if you repeated certain proscribed behaviors, my comments were generally about the article contents, not about you.  My invitation for you to reveal your identity was a good-faith attempt to establish a collaborative relationship in which we would not have to speculate about the reason for the pro-Vanicek slant in your contributions.  Please try to cooperate and we can move forward.  Since it seems increasing likely that you are the person you say you are not, I invite you again to clarify; it will be easier to work around your WP:COI when we can address it openly. This is not a demand, of course, since you every right to maintain privacy if you so choose; see, however, WP:SOCK#Avoiding_scrutiny_from_other_editors, the official policy you infringed by using both a log-in account and an IP address to make edits that you tried to hide the relationship between. Dicklyon 15:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Athaenara]] 

message: Where it says "fitting of data with trigonometric functions" I've tried changing it to "fitting of sinusoids to data", which seems more precise and descriptive to me.  Recent edit summary on revert said "VA is not function-bound".  What am I missing here?  Is this saying that Vanicek analysis includes spectral analysis by fitting functions other than sinusoids?  What other trig functions make sense in this context?  What am I missing here?  Dicklyon 07:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never heard of cosinusoids.  Sinusoids come in all phases; the suffix oid means resembling, or having the appearance of; that's why I said sinusoids; could have said sine and cosines, but since the method works with arbitrary phases, either by sin/cosine or other decomposition, or complex exponentials, the generic term sinusoids seemed reasonable, and more more specific than the vague "trigonometric functions". Dicklyon 14:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if something does not have its own article on Wikipedia, it means it does not exist? LOL. Here, learn: http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~mjj/dspDemos/EE4/tutFT.html, or search Google for cosinusoid. --Geoeg 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with those few who choose to introduce that term; but since we have an article on the more mainstream concept sinusoid, let's just use it. Dicklyon 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One thousand Google returns are "those few" to you? I mean, given that it was you who established Google counting as the criterion when we were discussing what name should take priority, Vanicek analysis or Least squares spectral analysis...  You have just outdone yourself! But seriously, how about writing a cosinusoid article instead, and so actually contributing to Wikipedia? --Geoeg 03:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never recommended such a counting method.  But if you want to look at counts, it's 100:1 in favor of sinusoid.  Of course, many of those are probably the medical term, so take it with a grain of salt. Dicklyon 04:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You used Google Books instead of plain Google, but the principle is the same. In any case: Extra! Extra! This just in! Math knows of no democracy! --Geoeg 03:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No idea what you are talking about. By the way, two references could hardly be called excessive. --Geoeg 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things I'm referring to: (1) using full and bold name for Vanicek while unbolding and reducing to initials Scargle; (2) adding references to your own work to support statements such as that Scargles merely "simplified" the method. Dicklyon 14:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) More like insisting on consistency than "reducing", but you do not seem to be reading edit comments field. (2) LOL. Did you not hear: all peer reviewed references were born equal. Unless excessively cited, of course. --Geoeg 03:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trigonometric functions?

message: personal attack removed.
OK, I did some more looking.  The Craymer 1998 thesis (linked in the article refs) actually has a good explanation of what I was observing.  In particular, you can't use more frequencies than data samples and expect to get a decent answer; actually, when you try that, Matlab's solver has no trouble giving a solution that exactly interpolates the data points with a minimum sum of squared coefficients, but it's very badly conditioned and doesn't make a decent spectrum.  Which agrees with Craymer's other point: 
By "modeling" he means also fitting some non-sinusoidal (non-trigonometric as he puts it, a term he inherited from Craymer) functions.  It's easy to see how a least-squares fit of functions could include arbitrary other functions along with sinusoids, but that notion is inconsistent with the quoted stuff above that only works for the Lomb/Scargle periodogram method.
Anyway, I think I've got it figured out, but having some more eyes on it would help.  It looks to me like the Vanicek method is essentially unusable due to its unpredictable conditioning problems, while the Lomb/Scargle method, the one in Numerical Recipes, is very robust; by the way, Scargle contributed the modification that Press uses to easily and exactly decorrelate the sine and cosine terms by phase shifting them.  
Dicklyon 03:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expert request

message: See WP:RFC/USER at Requests for comment/Geoeg.  — Athaenara  ✉  02:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no. The four votes below mean those user agree with the two users who certified the basis for the dispute. (Which is why it says users who endorse this summary). So it would be 6 people who feel you are behaving in an inappropriate fashion. Further, threatening to not allow any changes is tantamount to disruption. Please stop. --Bfigura (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but I do not see any "four posts below". (Below what?) --Geoeg 00:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Try here. It's 5 now I think. (Users who agree with the summary written by dicklyon, that is). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 21:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Your out-of-the-blue change of position is rather interesting. Read the list (below) explaining why I will not answer to Dicklyon's traps that are so evidently based on his POV and imagination, as well as to his edit crusade against scientific references. The below list of his violations of WP regulations is extensive, and it is only getting bigger. I suppose everyone who endorses his traps sees no problem with his violations as listed below either. It is your choice.  --Geoeg 15:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requests for comment/User conduct 

message: (removed old RFC tag from archive) Dicklyon 15:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: LSSA content RFC

message: Apparently Steeves, a Vanicek student, did his Ph.D. in 1981 on "least squares response analysis" or "least squares response technique", which was said to be an extension of the Vanicek 1971 method.  It's also the basis for this paper: .  If anyone has access to the thesis or the paper, we ought to try to include something about what he did there, and maybe mention those names (at this point, I don't know whether LSRA or LSRT are the same thing as LSSA, or different).  That's why an expert tag might be useful.  Dicklyon 07:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Least-squares response analysis 

message: Geoeg, you keep claiming various names for Vanicek's method, including Vanicek spectral analysis, Gauss–Vanicek spectral analysis, Vanicek analysis, etc.; most recently, you credit Taylor and Hamilton 1972 for Vanicek spectral analysis; but I can't find it in there; they call it the "Vanicek Method of spectral analysis" as I pointed out before, with Method capitalized as if part of a name, and spectral analysis not.  So, here's the challenge:  can you show even one single reliable source, not written by or in response to Vanicek's student Mensur Omerbashich who proposed these names, as evidence that any one of these names has been adopted and used by anybody?  Use whatever search tools you are comfortable with.  If not, it makes no sense to say the method is also known as these things, if it's known that way only to you. Dicklyon 04:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am an admin, and I am taking notice of Dicklyon's behavior and of yours too. -- Hoary 03:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you then address the issue in question, without playing the evenhandedness games?  Because there are no two parties in this case, it is just Dicklyon spewing poison on two different Talk pages. Thanks.  --Geoeg 03:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat: "put up or shut up".  If you can't point out even one reference for your naming claim, stop bugging us.  Your claim that you pointed one out above might be true, but I thought I had already showed that nothing you pointed out as a source was correct, so now is your chance to correct me if I recall incorrectly. Dicklyon 05:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Put up or shut up 

message: As advised by Dicklyon ("...he should perhaps be alerted..." Dicklyon 05:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your highly dubious deletion. If Mikegodwin wishes to delete it, he may. You can't. Hoary 15:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal