User talk:Horologium

Welcome to my talk page.

If you post a message on this page, I'll reply on this page.
If I've left you a message on your talk page, I will watch it for your response, so please reply there. Responses left here will be moved to your page.
Please sign and date your comments by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end.

_{Talk page box taken from User:Pairadox who got it from User talk:Danelo, who got it from User talk:Adambro.}

thank you for your commetn

thank you for your comment i am trying to work on repairing tmy spelling errors but they arediffiult to repair since I have a very odl keyboard whose keys stick veryo ften and makes it hard fo rme to backspace when i make spelling errors and sometimes i cant get some keys to work. i should be getting one farily soon though. Smith Jones (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Valley, MN

Thanks for the information and the link. Incidentally, would you happen to know how the US Census Bureau makes its non-census year estimations? Do they use standard interpolation or do they conduct a mini-census and then extrapolate from those results? If you don't know off-hand, then no worries. I don't often edit articles about US settlements, so it's just a point of curiousity more than anything else. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm not totally sure, but I believe it is a combination of both. The American Community Survey is conducted yearly, and extrapolates data from 3 million surveyed households. This data and data collected from local, state, and federal agencies is combined to provide both population estimates and demographic estimates and projections. Different political divisions have their calculations derived in different ways; the methodology used for the 2006 estimates for cities is here; the methodology for each division (national, state, county, city, etc) is here. Statistical analysis is most assuredly not my forte; if you can make something of the methodology from what they provide, more power to you. (grin) Horologium (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm ashamed to admit that I can make sense of it... :) Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to be ashamed of...I'd venture to guess that anyone with over a couple thousand edits on Wikipedia qualifies as a geek in one way or another... (grin) Was my impression correct, that they use both interpolation and extrapolation? Horologium (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was. I was surprised to find that they also regularly collect new data samples, in order to arrive at more valid and precise estimates. (Though it wasn't mentioned in the pages I looked at (or, if it was, I missed it), I would assume that they also use interpolation to correct/adjust estimates for prior years.) Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

POINT?

you're assuming I don't actually want it deleted. But, seriously. It is absolutely imperative that either UCFD goes away, or the Rouge admins category does. The existence of both is a contradiction in terms. —Random832 20:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you that I was one of the biggest proponents of deleting that bloody worthless category (as can be seen at both UCFD's, both DRV's; the "keep" decision on that category in December caused me to back away from the whole UCFD process for six weeks. (Wikidashboard identifies me as the seventh most active participant there, and my first contribution there was in May 2007.) But it goes beyond the rouge cat; you're also going to pull in all of the LGBT editors who have obstinately kept deleted LGBT-related categories (there are about five editors in all in those cats; a couple of them have more than one deleted category), and editors like this one, who has a snarky message hidden over his category listings, disparaging anyone who edits them out. Deleting UCFD isn't going to fix the problem; it's akin to deleting AfD; after all, articles get recreated after being deleted, so why should we bother? Let's find a real solution to the underlying issue, rather than rail at straw men. Horologium (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My request for bureaucratship

Dear Horologium, thank you for taking part in my RfB. As you may know, it was not passed by bureaucrats.
I would, however, like to thank you for taking the time to voice your support, despite concerns cited by the opposition. Although RfA/B isn't really about a person, but more about the community, I was deeply touched and honoured by the outpouring of support and interest in the discussion. I can only hope that you don't feel your opinion was not considered enough - bureaucrats have to give everyone's thoughts weight.
I also hope that the results of this RfB lead to some change in the way we approach RfBs, and some thought about whether long-entrenched standards are a good thing in our growing and increasingly heterogenous community.
I was a little miserable after the results came out, so I'm going to spread the love via dancing hippos. As you do. :)
I remain eager to serve you as an administrator and as an editor. If at any point you see something problematic in my actions, please do not hesitate to call me out. ~ Riana ⁂ 11:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]