User talk:Dmmd123

Welcome!

Hello, Dmmd123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CMacMillan 01:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blog link on Charles Darwin[edit]

Hi there! I removed the link *Blog about Charles Darwin's life from the Charles Darwin page only because I think it's more about Lloyd Spencer Davis' life and the writing of his book than anything Darwin. It's very interesting, but I'm not sure that it's apropos. Can we discuss it? CMacMillan 01:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CMacMilan, no discussion is necessary, I have looked at the URL and wikipedia rules; you are absolutely correct. Dmmd123 09:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nzx logo.gif)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nzx logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Data mining vs Information extraction[edit]

Copied from talk:data mining#Data mining vs Information extraction:

pdfpdf added this to the top of the article, I have moved it here as it seems like more a discussion topic.

Note: "Data mining" is a quite different process to "Information extraction"

Dmmd123 (talk) 00:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was intended to be a "disambiguation-type" entry.

It is quite common for those not involved to assume that "Data mining" means "Information extraction".

The article makes no mention of this common incorrect assumption, hence I added the "hat-note".

Although my edit was perhaps not the best way to address the issue, I disagree that it is a "discussion topic".

What is a better way to do it? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your posting at Talk:Data mining. I would be very interested to read your comments in response to mine. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Data mining[edit]

Hi! The Data mining article is coming along very nicely. Thank you!
(I can now read it without getting too annoyed.)
"Could be much improved with a better description which applies to all DM methos, discussion of PAC learning model, a discussion of accuracy measures - recall, TPF" - Agreed. Is there any way I can help?
Also, I've made some comments, and more particularly, asked some questions at Talk:Data mining#KDD vs DM?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea the Datamining article is the first time I have come across and article which I know to be missing quite a lot of information. I use Wikipedia so much I thought should give back and have a go at editing it. Much harder than I expected but a fun process. I think we have put it into good shape now. I still see areas for improvement

* the background contains lots of random bits of information which are elsewhere in the article and is not too cohesive.

* The process of datamining can be expanded quite a lot the bits I wrote were pretty rough and fast. The types of algorithms dont actually say much about DM for an article on DM. The evaluation section is only really talking about classification, not clustering, and there are so many ways to evaluate and algorithm - time, accuracy, false positives ect.

* The area I want to get into next is notable uses. Seems to be a lot of fringe cases, when there are really clear examples like fraud detection which are much clearer and well documented.

But I am also cautious that my view of datamining is probably biased, so I think its good if more people contribute as it will help balance things out. (for example I was a bit frustrated with the whole knowledge/information thing, but then I was like, perhaps thats my bias and are so many paragraphs that I think we can agree need improvement, its better to focus on the big stuff first and start debating individual words when the rest of it is tidy). So be bold.

Dmmd123 (talk) 04:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'll not be surprised to learn I agree with this.

However, my reason for writing is to tell you that you forgot to sign it.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this edit. Thanks. I wasn't comfortable with that phrase, but wasn't sure what to change it to. I agree that complete removal is the best solution, and am annoyed that I didn't think of that! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Quite an improvement.

However, regarding "Should really move the text in here which describes the process of data mining out.", what is "the process of data mining out"?

If you meant: "Should really move the text in here which describes the process of data mining.", which text are you referring to? (Are you referring to the "Process" section?) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pdfpdf, thanks for the feedback. What I intended to say was that below the paragraph I edited, there is some information (knowledge??) which probably belongs in the process section. This includes, metadata, and the difference between KDD and prediction and perhaps even verification. Moving them is not as simple as copy and paste, so I left them there.Dmmd123 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I'm not sure I agree. I'll think about it. (And probably end up agreeing with you!) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(BTW: That does NOT mean I intend, or intend, to change/revert it).

Oh dear! "Meta data here is being used to described feature vectors from the processing section. Not needed." - I'm afraid I'm an "inclusionist" and react very strongly and negatively to the use of the word "need". Let me quickly acknowledge that this is MY problem, NOT yours. In my biased opinion, "need" is NOT a primary criterion for WP - I feel that usability and understanding are FAR higher priorities. I'm NOT asking you to or suggesting that you change your edit - I'm just asking you to use a more descriptive word than "need" in your edit comments. Please. There endeth today's ~~lesson~~ rant. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]