Rick Block (talk | contribs) |
Gill110951 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 394: | Line 394: | ||
:I'll repost this in some form on the mediation page. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC) |
:I'll repost this in some form on the mediation page. -- [[user:Rick Block|Rick Block]] <small>([[user talk:Rick Block|talk]])</small> 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC) |
||
::Thanks very much indeed Rick, for responding in both places! I responded a bit on the mediation page where, as you will have noticed, though I tried hard to be polite, I was riled because I felt that some of your comments were specifically aimed at discrediting specific editors. You know that we had been instructed to focus on the ideas put forward, not by who put them forward. For instance you wrote there that professional mathematicians should go home! Was that addressed to me, or was it addressed to me? (No offense taken, by the way). |
|||
::But we have lots of points of agreement. You know, I'm all for meta approaches. And please believe me, I am not aware that I am presenting any argument that is fundamentally novel. I admit that I have a fondness to present views which I know are less prominent. The collaborative editorial process and wikipedia policies will determine how much space they get. |
|||
::BTW, a professional mathematician has skills in recognising when mathematical arguments are correct or not, whether all the stated assumptions in a mathematical chain of reasoning are actually used or not, and so on. Call this own research or not, I think that anyone writing on MHP on Wikipedia would be well advised to at least try to understand the logical relations between different approaches which are all "out there" in reliable sources. This *can* be a good guide to efficient (for the reader!) organisation of material, of avoiding unnecessary duplication, of assigning weight, and so on. I think that any wikipedia editor writing a new article on a topic dear to their heart starts by organising and prioritizing the material which they think is relevant. Systematizing the material is "own research" at a meta level, which every good editor does day by day. After all, we don't copy old encyclopaedias, do we. We are *not* merely scribes. So maybe some mathematicians are actually very well qualified to be wikipedia co-editors of at least part of the MHP story? |
|||
::On the other hand you and a few others are fighting by waving wikipedia policies, and elucidating them again and again, but can't we leave that to the mediators? They are supposed to help us to come to agree on where we differ. Essays by us warring editors on wikipedia policies take a lot of space, distract from the (constructive) line set out by the mediators, and often (destructive) *appear* aimed at *persons* not content, so I don't think they belong in the mediation procedure as set out by the mediators. |
|||
::Yours respectfully, Richard [[User:Gill110951|Gill110951]] ([[User talk:Gill110951|talk]]) 13:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 13:03, 17 August 2010
If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page (so the question and answer are together). I ALWAYS watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a while. If you , I'll respond here unless you ask me not to.
Archives: 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004
Listify category based on activity levels
Hi Rick,
You may remember me from such threads as Wikipedia talk:List of administrator hopefuls. I was wondering if you could create a similar list for Category:WikiProject Video games members?
It should reside at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Members and break it down as follows:
- Users with at least 30 edits in the last 2 months
- Users with fewer than 30 edits in the last 2 months
- Users with no edits in the last 2 months
Updated at your convenience? (Maybe fortnightly or monthly) Thanks! –xenotalk 14:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Xeno, I'd be happy to make the source available for the bot that updates WP:LA and WP:HOPEFUL, but I think I'd rather not add this task to it. It determines a user's activity level by doing a special:contributions and limits the query rate, so doing this takes a fair amount of clock time. I'm not sure I see the value of maintaining activity status of a more or less random WikiProject (if this one, then why not all of them?). In any event, if you're interested in the source just let me know (it's basically a unix shell script using awk for text processing and meta:pyWikipediaBot and mw:api for interacting with en.wikipedia). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- Could you perhaps do a one-time run? The reason is because of a recent thread that wants to find out what the "biggest wikiproject" was, and WP VG was put up as a possibility, but our membership list includes inactive members. Else, just send it over to xenowiki at gmail.com and I'll try to figure it out. (I can use pywikipediabot but I haven't used any *nix since my teens =) –xenotalk 23:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
- I really can't spare the time at the moment (real world has been quite intrusive lately). The main script for WP:HOPEFUL is at User:Rick_Bot/scripts/gethopefuls. It uses User:Rick_Bot/scripts/listcat. If all you want is an activity list it would take some ripping and hacking, but those two scripts would be a good start. You wouldn't even need a bot account to run them (just a machine that can run bash - I run them on a Mac, no guarantee they'd run unmodified on any particular flavor of Linux). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
About my "Re-verification" section in the "Japan mergers/dissolutions" article
Prior to March 31 1999, there were the following numbers:
1. - Tōhoku - 67 districts; 400 municipalities (63 cities, 252 towns and 85 villages)
- 1.1 - Akita - 9 districts; 69 municipalities (9 cities, 50 towns and 10 villages)
- 1.2 - Aomori - 8 districts; 67 municipalities (8 cities, 34 towns and 25 villages)
- 1.3 - Fukushima - 14 districts; 90 municipalities (10 cities, 52 towns and 28 villages)
- 1.4 - Iwate - 12 districts; 59 municipalities (13 cities, 30 towns and 16 villages)
- 1.5 - Miyagi - 15 districts; 71 municipalities (10 cities, 59 towns and 2 villages)
- 1.6 - Yamagata - 9 districts; 44 municipalities (13 cities, 27 towns and 4 villages)
2. - Kantō - 64 districts; 453 municipalities (163 cities, 220 towns and 70 villages)
- 2.1 - Chiba - 10 districts; 80 municipalities (31 cities, 44 towns and 5 villages)
- 2.2 - Gunma - 12 districts; 70 municipalities (11 cities, 33 towns and 26 villages)
- 2.3 - Ibaraki - 14 districts; 85 municipalities (20 cities, 48 towns and 17 villages)
- 2.4 - Kanagawa - 7 districts; 37 municipalities (19 cities, 17 towns and 1 village)
- 2.5 - Saitama - 9 districts; 92 municipalities (43 cities, 38 towns and 11 villages)
- 2.6 - Tochigi - 7 districts; 49 municipalities (12 cities, 35 towns and 2 villages)
- 2.7 - Tokyo - 5 districts; 40 municipalities (27 cities, 5 towns and 8 villages)
3. - Chūbu - 110 districts; 668 municipalities (134 cities, 348 towns and 186 villages)
- 3.1 - Aichi - 16 districts; 88 municipalities (31 cities, 47 towns and 10 villages)
- 3.2 - Fukui - 10 districts; 35 municipalities (7 cities, 22 towns and 6 villages)
- 3.3 - Gifu - 17 districts; 99 municipalities (14 cities, 55 towns and 30 villages)
- 3.4 - Ishikawa - 8 districts; 41 municipalities (8 cities, 27 towns and 6 villages)
- 3.5 - Nagano - 16 districts; 120 municipalities (17 cities, 36 towns and 67 villages)
- 3.6 - Niigata - 16 districts; 112 municipalities (20 cities, 57 towns and 35 villages)
- 3.7 - Shizuoka - 12 districts; 74 municipalities (21 cities, 49 towns and 4 villages)
- 3.8 - Toyama - 7 districts; 35 municipalities (9 cities, 18 towns and 8 villages)
- 3.9 - Yamanashi - 8 districts; 64 municipalities (7 cities, 37 towns and 20 villages)
4. - Kansai - 78 districts; 395 municipalities (103 cities, 256 towns and 36 villages)
- 4.1 - Hyōgo - 20 districts; 91 municipalities (21 cities, 70 towns and 0 villages)
- 4.2 - Kyoto - 12 districts; 44 municipalities (12 cities, 31 towns and 1 village)
- 4.3 - Mie - 14 districts; 69 municipalities (13 cities, 47 towns and 9 villages)
- 4.4 - Nara - 8 districts; 47 municipalities (10 cities, 20 towns and 17 villages)
- 4.5 - Osaka - 5 districts; 44 municipalities (33 cities, 10 towns and 1 village)
- 4.6 - Shiga - 12 districts; 50 municipalities (7 cities, 42 towns and 1 village)
- 4.7 - Wakayama - 7 districts; 50 municipalities (7 cities, 36 towns and 7 villages)
5. - Chūgoku - 62 districts; 318 municipalities (49 cities, 232 towns and 37 villages)
- 5.1 - Hiroshima - 15 districts; 86 municipalities (13 cities, 67 towns and 6 villages)
- 5.2 - Okayama - 18 districts; 78 municipalities (10 cities, 56 towns and 12 villages)
- 5.3 - Shimane - 12 districts; 59 municipalities (8 cities, 41 towns and 10 villages)
- 5.4 - Tottori - 6 districts; 39 municipalities (4 cities, 31 towns and 4 villages)
- 5.5 - Yamaguchi - 11 districts; 56 municipalities (14 cities, 37 towns and 5 villages)
6. - Shikoku - 35 districts; 216 municipalities (30 cities, 145 towns and 41 villages)
- 6.1 - Ehime - 11 districts; 70 municipalities (12 cities, 44 towns and 14 villages)
- 6.2 - Kagawa - 7 districts; 43 municipalities (5 cities, 38 towns and 0 villages)
- 6.3 - Kōchi - 7 districts; 53 municipalities (9 cities, 25 towns and 19 villages)
- 6.4 - Tokushima - 10 districts; 50 municipalities (4 cities, 38 towns and 8 villages)
7. - Kyūshū - 82 districts; 570 municipalities (94 cities, 387 towns and 89 villages)
- 7.1 - Fukuoka - 17 districts; 97 municipalities (24 cities, 65 towns and 8 villages)
- 7.2 - Kagoshima - 12 districts; 96 municipalities (14 cities, 73 towns and 9 villages)
- 7.3 - Kumamoto - 11 districts; 94 municipalities (11 cities, 62 towns and 21 villages)
- 7.4 - Miyazaki - 8 districts; 44 municipalities (9 cities, 28 towns and 7 villages)
- 7.5 - Nagasaki - 9 districts; 79 municipalities (8 cities, 70 towns and 1 village)
- 7.6 - Ōita - 12 districts; 58 municipalities (11 cities, 36 towns and 11 villages)
- 7.7 - Saga - 8 districts; 49 municipalities (7 cities, 37 towns and 5 villages)
- 7.8 - Okinawa - 5 districts; 53 municipalities (10 cities, 16 towns and 27 villages)
8. - Hokkaidō - 70 districts; 212 municipalities (34 cities, 154 towns and 24 villages)
- 8.1 - Abashiri - 4 districts; 26 municipalities (3 cities, 20 towns and 3 villages)
- 8.2 - Hidaka - 7 districts; 9 municipalities (0 cities, 9 towns and 0 villages)
- 8.3 - Hiyama - 5 districts; 10 municipalities (0 cities, 10 towns and 0 villages)
- 8.4 - Iburi - 4 districts; 15 municipalities (4 cities, 9 towns and 2 villages)
- 8.5 - Ishikari - 3 districts; 10 municipalities (6 cities, 1 town and 3 villages)
- 8.6 - Kamikawa - 5 districts; 24 municipalities (4 cities, 18 towns and 2 villages)
- 8.7 - Kushiro - 5 districts; 10 municipalities (1 city, 8 towns and 1 village)
- 8.8 - Nemuro - 3 districts; 5 municipalities (1 city, 4 towns and 0 villages)
- 8.9 - Ōshima - 5 districts; 17 municipalities (1 city, 15 towns and 1 village)
- 8.10 - Rumoi - 4 districts; 9 municipalities (1 city, 7 towns and 1 village)
- 8.11 - Shiribeshi - 9 districts; 20 municipalities (1 city, 13 towns and 6 villages)
- 8.12 - Sorachi - 4 districts; 27 municipalities (10 cities, 16 towns and 1 village)
- 8.13 - Sōya - 5 districts; 10 municipalities (1 city, 8 towns and 1 village)
- 8.14 - Tokachi - 7 districts; 20 municipalities (1 city, 16 towns and 3 villages)
Hey Rick, the numbers I put were found on this document, which is in PDF format:
The part of the problem is on page 20 entitled "Table 6 - The Progress of Mergers according to each Prefecture", which has the data that I posted earlier. But can't find those municipalities that were between April 1, 1999 and March 31, 2004. Hope that answers for you. jlog3000 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm still not sure what you're asking. What I've been working on (not actively for a while) is described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Gappei. I'm less interested in the historical numbers than accurate current data. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- So you're saying that you suggest me to ask or tell about my issue in Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Gappei. But did you at least check out the link I've posted before you replied? jlog3000 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I'm saying I don't understand what your question is. Is there something you want me to do? Is there a problem with some article that you'd like me to look at (if so, which article)? I have looked at the link you posted. What is your point? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Query concerning bot updates of Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2009
Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2009 seems to be missing quite a few articles from Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2009. Any technical or obvious reason for this I'm missing? Just wondering, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Assuming these are all recently promoted articles, the issue is that articles are only added when I run the bot manually assisted (it also runs fully automated, but doesn't do this task then). I haven't done this for nearly a week, but will some time in the next 24 hours. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Should be up to date now. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Re:
That's correct. Sorry for any confusion! Cheers, iMatthew talk at 02:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Monty Hall reference section
Hi Rick, you undid revision 318535828 by David Callan citing: Reference section is for cited references. Pure research articles are often limited to cited references, but what's the rationale in general survey articles? What's the objection to a comprehensive bibliography?
The Callan ref in question is clearly relevant to the Monty Hall problem and likely to be of interest to anyone making a detailed study of the problem. How can I make it available to readers of the article?
David Callan (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Detailed response at user talk:David Callan#About references vs. further reading, and welcome. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Re: Monty Hall reference section
Hi Rick, your points are well taken, but it is hardly fair to say the item "appears to be at best self-published". It appeared in College Mathematics Journal, a respectable math journal where all contributions to the Problems and Solutions section are, of course, refereed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Callan (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- My mistake (sorry) - I was looking at the online link which points to what appears to be your homepage at wisc.edu. BTW - both Barbeau references in the article are basically literature surveys. There's a fairly recent book as well, The Monty Hall Problem: The Remarkable Story of Math's Most Contentious Brain Teaser by Jason Rosenhouse. This book (and others) should probably be mentioned in the history section. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Sean Salazar
Hello Rick, My name is Rubi Romero and I am a campaign volunteer for Sean Salazar, I would like to ask you why did you delete the information I added to Sean's information. I have Sean's full permission to use his bio information from his web page.
Thank you,
Rubi Romero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.103.74 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Sean Salazar
Hello Rick, thank you for your response. I have written my own version of Sean Salazar's Bio and also providing the references where I got the information from (mostly from his website/Bio), but I also used other sources as well. I just want to make sure that I did it right this time. I also moved the page from Sean Salazar to Dr. Sean Salazar U.S. Senate Candidate 2010, Washington State.
I don't know if you have can access to it, but if you can, please check to see if it's okay and if it is can you direct me to where can I get information on how to publish it (as Wikipedia has changed). My e-mail is rubiromero.7@gmail.com
Thank you,
Rubi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubiromero (talk • contribs) 06:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
edit conflict at Monty Hall talk page
I have refactored. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
On reflection, I think that this was a mistake on my part since my proposal was intended to be a way forward acceptable to glkanter and Jeff rather than an alternative suggestion. It gives more detail on how the article might be structured. I have asked Jeff and glkanter to comment accordingly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
MHP
It seems the discussion is going to continue as unproductive as it has been for years or to freely translate a term the Germsn Wikipedia uses to tag such discussion - it is a "infinitely boring discussion" ("unendlich öde Diskussion"). For that reason my time is better spend elsewhere in Wikipedia, So i probably will drop out of the discussion soon. However if you need urgent help to avoid total nonsense creeping into the article, feel free to notify me (again). Regards and keep up the good work, --Kmhkmh (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm filing a mediation request naming you as one of the interested parties. Are you OK with that? And, BTW, danke. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes I can be around be around for that. However if the mediation itself turns into a neverending story I'd probably opt out. As far as the mediation is concerned the thing we can "give" Martin without compromising the article are imho: An article lead without Morgan and featuring the unconditional solution (carefully phrased) as an appropriate solution (with a symmetry assumption or as a reasonable heuristic) without an direct criticism in that section and morgan in a separate section. What he cannot have however is having Morgan or his criticism removed from the article (i.e. order or placement is negotionable but not content). Also framing the conditional solution as different problem or a mere variation of the "real" problem is something he cannot have either. Nor can the article in anyway define the "real" via simple editorial consent (rather than resources). regards--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Sympathy
You have my sympathy, but I'm afraid that I'm deadly busy at work over the next month or so, and any time I spend on Wikipedia I probably oughtn't. I doubt that I could approach the situation with the care and patience demanded. Best wishes, and good luck to you. I don't know how you've stuck with that article for so long. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
- In the short term (before the MedCab gets up to speed, if ever) about the only thing that you probably can do is seek the informal assistance of another admin. Unfortunately, what you'll probably find is that there will be complaints that you've just brought in another teammate for 'your' side. It's a bit of a lose-lose situation, but I can't see what else you could try, short of giving up on the article outright. Ideally you'd be able to find a mutually agreed-upon admin who is respected (or at least tolerated) by most of the participants. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Re: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-12-06/Monty_Hall_problem
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
At first glance, the volume of discussion on this issue seems immense and convoluted. As you are a bit more familiar with it, do you know off-hand if anyone has issued a third opinion in the past 6 months or so? It's not that big a deal, but if everyone agrees to informal mediation, it would be significant in reviewing the situation.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- There was a recent poll of sorts that pretty much explains the opinions of most folks, see talk:Monty Hall problem#Changes suggested by JeffJor, Martin Hogbin, and Glkanter, and the subsequent "comments" sections. Pretty much everyone who has taken part in previous discussions on the talk page was requested to comment, with an open invitation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics. This was not a third opinion request (more like an RFC), but there are roughly 6 or so folks actively commenting so it's not obvious to me a third opinion would be very useful (not obvious it wouldn't be, either). -- Rick Block (talk) 00:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
The FAQ
It looked like you and Glkanter were starting to carry the battle into the "FAQ" page, so I attempted to make a more neutral presentation there. I hope you agree this is better. Dicklyon (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Pink Floyd's First Album On August 5
I am writing this to ask why Pink Floyd’s first album should be removed for the August 5 page. Are you deputing the fact that The Piper at the Gates of Dawn did not come out on this day. Well check The Piper at the Gates of Dawn Wikipedia page if you want to check the facts. Also you might say that this is just trivial and of no importance to the page, I would have to disagree with that statement because it is not. On that day Pink Floyd revolutionized Psychedelic music and eventually Progressive Rock. So in short it is important and should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.208.196 (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Copied to talk:August 5 and replied there. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-12-06/Monty Hall problem
You are listed as an involved/interested party in a request for mediation. This message is an invitation for you to participate in the discussion here. Please join us in the conversation at your earliest convenience.
--K10wnsta (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
MH date removal
So now the history links to those sections don't work. You didn't think you could do something that profound without a complaint did you Rick ;) hydnjo (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- History links from where, the talk page? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monty_Hall_problem&action=history ? I've never actually clicked on one of those - I always use the diffs. And, I'm sure Glkanter will complain plenty. BTW - any particular reason you haven't entered an outside view at the RFC? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Mediation
I did respond, hopefully in the proper way.Nijdam (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Template:BDInDecade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Request for mediation accepted
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
Rick Bot issue
Wasn't sure if you were watching the bot's talk page, so just a heads-up: [1]. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
- The bot has (had) issues with renames. I believe I've implemented a fix. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Re: Mediation
Hi Rick, what you mention is a common problem with mediations, on Wikipedia and (I suspect) other participation-sporadic online forums. I used to ask all participants for opening statements but that inevitably resulted in delays or difficulties in communicating due to too much enthusiastic opining followed up long pauses of activity. But thanks for notifying me that there are fairly active contributors watching, and I will ramp up accordingly. Andrevan@ 05:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
- I've taken a first stab at establishing a point to discuss. If you disagree that's fine, and you shouldn't take it as bias on my part. While I have been exposed to this topic in general as well as the Bayesian take, I have no strong opinion as to the correctness and prevalence of the Morgan analysis or whether it is sufficiently critical of the popular solution to be more important. Andrevan@ 06:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
I was in Colorado for a few days for a conference for work. But I will be getting back to it this week. Andrevan@ 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Rick, I wish I had something to say. Technically, Glkanter's comment, while not particularly helpful, isn't against any policy. I don't think comments like that are the norm for this dispute and I don't see that sort of issue impeding progress, and anyway it's not the mediator's place to admonish unhelpful comments, especially when everyone in this dispute is pretty mild and well-behaved. I'd like to give the mediation another shot so look for that in a few days to a week. Andrevan@ 23:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Rick Bot
Hi Rick,
can I ask you to have a look at WP:Bot requests#Admin category cleanup drive please?
Thanks, Amalthea 00:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Denver
I changed the name to just Denver since the mention that is a city and county is mentioned several times in the first, second sections of the article. See: San Francisco. But, if im wrong sorry for the mix-up! LabradorLover456 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Re: Denver's Name
Thank you for passing on that information; sorry for the mix up! LabradorLover456 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Rick Bot and Wikipedia:Featured topics promoted in 2010
I just noticed that Rick Bot is doing something weird at Wikipedia:Featured topics promoted in 2010. There are several duplicates of the same red link topic. Gary King (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know about this. The bot had a hard time with parenthesized titles. I've made a change. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
- Also, why did the bot strike through some of the featured topics? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- There were two issues, corrected by this edit and this edit (and the bot would have fixed the strikethroughs the next time it runs, but they've been manually fixed). The issue with Battlecruisers of Germany was that the bot (for some reason) was fetching a stale version of WP:FT. It seems to get the current version now, but I'm not entirely convinced anything I changed is directly related to this. Please keep an eye on it and let me know if you see any more problems. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
- Also, why did the bot strike through some of the featured topics? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Hi Rick
I was wondering what to do if I want to edit your page at User:Rick Block/MH solution. Should I just edit it there or should I copy it somewhere else, like my user page, first? Thanks! Colincbn (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
- Feel free to edit it - but if you're making major changes it would be better to copy it someplace else. -- Rick Block (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
A question about game theory
This is copied from Gill110951's talk page
In reading and participating in the MHP discussion I have learned more about probability then I ever intended, or thought possible. I must say it has been an interesting ride. I also noticed that Rick brought up Game Theory in the posts above. That reminded me that I wanted to ask someone knowledgeable about the bit under 'Variants' that says "The host is rewarded whenever the contestant incorrectly switches or incorrectly stays = Switching wins 1/2 the time at the Nash equilibrium". This seems to imply that if the producers want to make sure the contestant never gets a 2/3 chance to win the car all they have to do is give Monty a cookie if the contestant chooses wrong. Which is counter intuitive to say the least. Can you explain this in more detail? Thanks, Colincbn (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- @ Colincbn, that's really interesting, I hadn't noticed that one. I will have to go back to the sources to get the details exactly right, and then do the calculations to check the answer, and hope that doing all this give me a good intuition. If the rewards to the host don't match the losses to the player and vice-versa we don't have a zero-sum game. The minimax theorem is no longer true, but there is a weaker kind of equilibrium called Nash equilibrium. Non zero-sum games have counter-intuitive properties, since they are games where the contestants could actually both win more by collaborating. But since they don't know if the other will collaborate they both choose to do something else, which results in them both losing... To say it differently, if you know the other guy is a collaborative type you win more by not collaborating. But if the other guy is suspicious he will realise this...
- Your remark about the cookie changes the game into a three-party game, and moreover a non zero-party game. Monty Hall wants a cookie. The producers want to hold on to the show's cadillac. The player wants to ride it home. (I'm assuming the producers have an infinite store of cookies so the value of the cookie to them is zero. I take it you want the value of a cookie to Monty Hall to equal the value of a cadillac to the producers to be equal to the value of a cadillac to the player. Now we can sit down and look up the Nash equilibrium on wikipedia and do the math).
- PS for me it has been a roller coaster ride too. I have changed my mind dramatically several times, learnt a lot, had a lot of fun, hopefully made more friends than enemies... Gill110951 (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately the conversation got sidetracked after this and I still have not been able to figure out this bit. Is this a mistake or will any reward suffice to change the probability to 1/2? Colincbn (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Are you asking whether it's the size of the reward the host receives that matters? I don't know (but I'd guess not) and, unfortunately, whoever added this didn't add a source (sigh) so I don't even know exactly what the rules are for this version. There is an "opposing interests" analysis in an appendix to the Mueser and Granberg paper cited in the article. In this version, the host is trying to keep the contestant from winning the car - and may (but doesn't have to) open a door, and may (but doesn't have to) make the offer to switch. One equilibrium for this version is the host only opens a door and makes the offer to switch if the player initially selects the car, so the player never switches and wins 1/3 of the time (the other 2/3 of the time, when the player initially picks the goat, the host simply says sorry, you've won a goat). If the host must open a door and must make the offer to switch, the average chance of winning by switching (averaged across all players) is 2/3 - so in this "reward the host for incorrect choice" variant the host must NOT be compelled to do this. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah that makes perfect sense to me. I don't see why Monty getting a cookie (or any other reward) would make a difference by itself, and since that particular variant does not offer any other new rules besides the reward bit it seems that is the only thing that needs to happen in order to change the probability. But I have zero understanding of game theory so I would not want to remove that variant myself. I figure who ever put it in simply forgot to add some relevant information, unfortunately I am not qualified to figure out what it is. Regardless I feel we should either find a way to make that bit more clear or remove it until we find the answer. Colincbn (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Conditional solution in separate section
What exactly is the objection to putting the conditional, Morgan, and Bayesian stuff in a separate section and simply linking it with a text anchor from the "simple" explanation? Andrevan@ 18:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- This is not what Martin wants. He wants the conditional and Bayesian stuff presented in a subservient fashion, i.e. he wants the article to endorse the POV (his POV) that the "simple" solutions are complete and correct. There is clearly dispute about this, so to be NPOV the article MUST NOT take a stand on this. Martin is demanding that the article take a stand - and not just any stand, but a stand in opposition to a widely held expert, "academic" POV. This would be more clear if he were to draft actual text (which he refuses to do). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
- BTW - you can tell separate section is not what he's talking about since the stuff he objects to is already in a separate section. It's not just separate he's after, but separate and subservient. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Monty Hall's Problem external reference
Rick, hi:
I wonder why you have removed my external link. This is a good and relevant demonstration that highlights often overlooked approach to solving Monty Hall's problem. There are also further links that could be of interest to the wikipedia audience. The link is certainly no less deserving than the ones you already have there. Do not you object to having Wolfram's Demostration Project linked from every possible page? Is it less spam than the link I posted?
With best wishes, Alexander Bogomolny (69.142.104.34 (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
- The Wolfram page is not apparently selling anything and the source of the simulation is available for review, for free. Your site has ads and you're apparently trying to sell the applet. From WP:ELNO: "4. (avoid) Links mainly intended to promote a website." This clearly applies in your case. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
- Won't you consider both the Denostration Project and the Mathworld as the selling points for Mathematica? Just look at my site - you certainly have a misconception about it. I do not write applets for sale nor write pages to place advertisement on. I do that because I like doing it. There is certainly an expense involved in maintaining the site and the server. I do not force anybody to subscribe or buy applets. The site is absolutely free. I am trying to retrieve the maintenance expenses through ads and offering applets. Do you think I am getting rich through the site? For God's sake, is NY Times (to which you do have a link) altruistic organization? No Rick, it is simply unfair. (Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC))
Monty Hall problem
Rick, I have requested that the MedCom chair reassign the case or refer it to Arbitration. I apologize that I was unable to make meaningful progress. I wish you luck with the next step. Andrevan@ 18:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Bold
I see that you have unbolded my text. I disagree with your decision. The text that I highlighted is extremely important and should be easily visible to all users upon looking at the page Monty Hall Problem. Thanks! Gabithefirst (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). Bold is not used for emphasis, so it definitely shouldn't be bold. Whether this particular phrase needs emphasis is an editorial decision. Feel free to bring this up on the article's talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
simple solutions are not correct at all for these variants
Hello Rick, please consider that this is not "three prisoners" etc., but that this is the MHP. And in the MHP the simple solution (2/3 by switching) is always "correct". Just in case that additional info is revealed, the answer can become "closer", so from 2/3 to either 1/2 or to 1 (3/3), just a "closer" result. So, what the MHP is concerned, the "simple solution" can be said "not to be correct enough", never to be "not correct at all". It is just confusing and not helpful if a statement, treating quite another issue, is cited in the MHP without pointer/advice. Confusion? Please give me your view of what is helpful and what isn't. Regards, --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Rick, for your answer you gave in the article-discussion.
- Your argument that the "simple solution" was "not correct at all" was incorrect and confusing. The "simple solution" (viewed from the player's knowledge) never is "not correct at all" (your words), but is always "correct". Of course, if s.o. should assume that opening of one door could be accompanied by any additional information then, at most, the answer exceptionally could become "slightly closer" by such a hint, but on a large scale never leaving the range of 2/3, so forever proving the result of the "simple solution". In order that such exceptional "closer hints" could become of any relevance however, such "closer hints" had to be visible to the guest. Otherwise this is purely an irrelevant "what-if" fiction, a reformulation of the rules for training purposes for math students only, not addressing the meaning of the vos Savant question, not addressing the MHP. Math doesn't have to "prove" anything in the MHP, a "mathematical answer" just proves that it answers the specific presuppositions of the underlying assumptions. Never more. As such "assumptions" are not implied at all in the original vos Savant question, they are quite irrelevant in the MHP, treating different variants.
- You are not admitting that all "conditionals" obviously treat quite other issues, and that, remaining in the large scale of 2/3, such "what-if" fictions always prove the 2/3 answer, but that they never address the original question. This is nebulizing and confusing. You are preventing that these basics are made clear and obvious in the article. Please consider what can be helpful for the article and what isn't. Regards, --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Richard tries to cut the crap
Hi Rick, I have spent all day "doing my stuff" on the MH mediation page. In an effort to decrease my verbosity I put up some footnotes to some new mediation page contributions by me, on my own talk page. Still struggling with how to do links in wikipedia and how to get notifications when important things are changed. I hope you have time to take a look and do please comment, in whichever way you like. Gill110951 (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Richard tries to pursue discussions of Truth in appropriate places
Dear Rick,
Since I'm a mathematician I am dedicated to the Truth and if I see someone screwing up elementary maths or logic on Wikipedia, I'll let them know. Of course I can't do other than give way to what normal Wikipedia procedures result in, so I don't always have to get my way. If I don't, then either I was wrong or I did a bad job at getting my point across. Both very useful learning experiences (defeats teach you much more than victories, both about yourself and about "the enemy").
Now, mathematical truth can be checked by computer programs. But we are not discussing mathematical truth here at all, when talking about the MHPP. The transition from a verbal problem sketch to a mathematization is much harder. And there almost never is a unique good translation, not if the problem is actually interesting, and that is exactly why we're all here, because MHP *is* interesting. Moreover, anyone who makes the transition should also think about what they get when they follow the reverse track. The real world meaning of the conclusions depends on the real world meaning of the assumptions.Moreover, anyone who makes the transition and gets some conclusions is well advised to spend a little thought on the question, whether they could have got the same conclusions for less assumptions. ...
On a more personal note, but trying to be constructive. Your references about how the article was before some people whose points of view you apparently don't appreciate started messing with it come across to me as part of the problem, not part of the solution. No doubt you feel the same in reverse about me, no hard feelings mate.
Now, since I'm not American I can safely disagree with you about God, but I'll take Motherhood and Apple Pie, so how about we all get friendly by agreeing on the Motherhood and Apple Pie first? I think that's what mediation is about. It's about defusing conflicts, not about escalating them.
An aside, did you know that I was co-originator of The Quantum MHP and wrote it with a bunch of guys mostly during a delightful long bar discussion about what should be The Quantum MHP?
Finally, I do strongly disagree with all the hidden assumptions implied by your (1) and (2). I think that in this mediation we are letting someone else help us come to consensus first on the problems to be resolved, and then secondly to let us happily resolve them once we have agreed on what we disagree on. You are welcome to your Opinion what are The Problems but it does come across like you're trying to dictate them to us.
I'd love to discuss what I see as the hidden assumptions inside your (1) and (2). In public, semi-private or in private as you like.
You obviously have a different approach from mine. Great, maybe our approaches are complementary! As a professional mathematician both pure and applied my professional approach is first to determine The Truth. In my restricted field, I'm supposed to be an expert on that. Next, on Wikipedia, where my professional expertise is relevant, I try to inform other editors what I think it tells us. Normally, where there is a will there is a way, and there is typically absolutely no conflict between the absolutely sound and naturally binding Policies of Wikipedia and The Truth. It's like in law, and it's like in science, we work in a multi-agent field where we need social rules which are supposed to guide us in our search for justice, scientific knowledge, etc and where the social rules are designed to avoid contradiction between manifest truth and manifest justice and the outcome of the social process. Since otherwise the outcome of the social process is not secure because it causes more problems than it delivers. However just as in Law and in Science as in all social enterprises, some people are good at using the rules of the game not to deliver the intended collectively wanted end-product but to further their own personal agendas. I am not accusing you of this, it just comes across as if that is your method, and that in the long run wouldn't actually further your personal agenda, if it was true, anyway? Get my meaning? It's a bit complex.sorry.
Yours, Richard Gill110951 (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Reading this message could be to your advantage
Please take a look at [[2]]
There you will find out why the answer is "2/3" or "switch", as you like, and the method is unconditional, but the assumptions are NOT what some people like to call the standard assumptions, but the result is much much better, since much more useful in practice, much more often applicable, and just as easy to argue, whether formally or informally. And if you like you can refine or complete it, if you like, by proving that 2/3 is the best answer and this is the best strategy. Hellpimp showed us the way but no-one noticed. Now the economists and game theorists know all this too and have frequently published on it so there is no problem backing it up with reliable sources. Moreover it is such a clean and different simple argument that is "out there" I think it deserves some consideration. I am not talking about pushing it onto the MHP page in order to push my POV, I am talking about something which I think is worth thinking about, if one likes to think of oneself as an authority on MHP. Gill110951 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Is there some reason you think I don't understand this? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- There are some reasons why I wondered if you would understand it, but mostly I wondered if you were aware of it. Now you are aware of it for sure, and if you understand it too, that's great, since then one could continue in a semi-offline discussion of another possibly reliably sourced and in my opinion definitely interesting approach to MHP in a constructive way. Which doesn't mean to say it has to go on the MHP page, obviously.
- Build trust and confidence? Defuse conflicts? Have fun in a productive way on Wikipedia, both productive for wikipedia and personally? Gill110951 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes we have a POV but it's not about (1) or (2)
I think it's about (1) or (2) or both/neither. Here's why:
You wrote:
- I have been suggesting for some time that we have a POV issue and that we're actually arguing about
- 1) whether the article (as of the last FARC or even currently) is NPOV or whether it endorses the POV of the "conditionalists" (those sources who argue that the simple solutions typically presented are not quite responsive to the question).
- Just for the record: Right now, I think recent versions endorse the conditionalists though the strength of the endorsement has been reduced. I think we need to go further. Gill110951 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- 2) whether the structure of the article should be to focus first and foremost on presenting the simple solutions in an attempt to convince the reader that the chance of winning by switching given the standard interpretation is indeed 2/3 and not 1/2, or whether doing this creates a structural POV effectively saying these solutions are the correct and proper way to understand the problem (i.e. endorses this POV).
- Just for the record: Right now, I think the structure of the article should be to focus first and foremost on *good* simple solutions (for many, many sound reasons), and in particular those simple solutions which *are* correct and proper ways to understand the problem or for instance correspond to informal versions of correct and proper ways. I believe that there is not a unique correct and proper way to understand the problem. I don't think this constitutes violation of WP by picking and choosing on a basis of a POV. I think it corresponds to good taste and balance in selecting from the wealth of material which is "out there". Thus I think one certainly *may* use The Truth to guide the collaborative and distributed selection and editing process in pursuit of and in compliance with Wikipedia aims and policies. If an editor seems to claim (or seems to report that a reliable source claims) all three of (A) and (A => B) and (not B) simultaneously, with no comment at all, one might wonder if he/she is up to his/her job. So other editors should bring this little matter of The Truth up in discussion, in good collaboration with all concerned Wikipedia editors, naturally. Wikipedia is never finished. Because time never stops still. We are following a moving target. Gill110951 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I propose the both/neither alternative. There are good and proper interpretations of the MHP which the conditionalists will love. There are good and proper interpretations of the MHP which the unconditionalists will love. Both those parties also seem to miss that there are good and proper interpretations of the MHP which fall in neither category, especially those that I one could label economical or opportunist or taking a higher view: it's the point that you don't just get the choice switch/stay but also the initial choice of door in the first place. Choose it uniformly at random and you are safe, you needn't make any "unwarranted" assumptions whatever.
OK I see this through the POV of a professional pure and applied mathematician. On the one hand, biased. On the other hand, trained and competent to spot holes in arguments, to spot structural relations between apparently different results. I have made an in depth study of the reliable sources.
Hence all we have to do is to adopt an NPOV. Now indeed there exists verifiably a controversy between the fundamentalists. And of course these guys make a lot of noise and get a lot of attention. But there is actually also a sound middle of the road in which everyone gets there due and by integrating the use of basic clear logical thinking and all the Wikipedia Policies there are, one can come to a great article. But not if you first insist on the wrong question being answered in favour of one or the other fundamentalist school. We want a NPOV, right? We also want to get the article back to being a justly great article again. It got a bit unbalanced and new guys elbowed in with new ideas. And the world turned round and Morgan et al retracted, Tsirelson exhibited some beautiful mathematical short cuts, some other people finally figured out what all the economists had been thinking about all these years...
vos Savant's words are "out there". They still stimulate original thought. Taking those words as describing informally a lay person's idea of a problem which needs to be mathematized to be solved, the professional mathematical scientist will also watch out that the chosen wording doesn't lead them into a narrow blind alley when the girl who posed the question would obviously have been more than delighted if her words had been reformulated a tiny bit and thereby making obvious what is the question you really want to ask. vos Savant asks: what should you do. I say: you will of course have thought a bit ahead. You have of course already noticed that you have TWO decision moments. You're focussing on the second but actually the first is equally important, let me tell you why ... Gill110951 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Gill - as Will has said: "When we're Wikipedia editors we are concerned with what is verifiable rather than what is true. See WP:V and WP:TRUTH." It actually goes a little further - we're concerned with the prevailing opinion (or opinions) expressed by reliable sources. We're scribes, not original thinkers. When writing articles here, we're presenting the opinions of reliable sources not our own. It's like Will's exercise of writing for the opponent. We need to determine what opinion or opinions are expressed by reliable sources, and write those.
- This is simple in cases where there is universal or near universal agreement (among sources) about the truth, as is often the case in math and science - meaning what a rational person thinks of as the truth and what sources say is the truth match, so writing what you think is the truth is the same thing as writing what sources say is the truth. In cases where the truth is more slippery, like say history or philosophy or any of the arts, there is a distinct chance that what any individual person believes (no matter how "rational" that person may be) does not match the prevailing opinion of sources. In these cases we must put aside our personal opinions and write what the sources say, whether we agree or not. Deep expertise in a topic often interferes with this, which is why writing about oneself is highly discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). The point is usually expressed in terms of bias, but it is just as much an inability to distinguish what you know to be the truth from what has been published. This is equally the case in any area where you have deep personal expertise.
- What all this means to the article here about the MHP is that no matter how brilliantly insightful it may be we simply cannot present an argument that is fundamentally novel. The question the article is addressing is not "what is the best approach", but "what are the approaches presented by reliable sources". It's a "meta" approach, focused on prevalence of opinion (among reliable sources). After reading the article you should be able to draw a pie chart showing the differing views (as slices) sized roughly in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.
- I'll repost this in some form on the mediation page. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks very much indeed Rick, for responding in both places! I responded a bit on the mediation page where, as you will have noticed, though I tried hard to be polite, I was riled because I felt that some of your comments were specifically aimed at discrediting specific editors. You know that we had been instructed to focus on the ideas put forward, not by who put them forward. For instance you wrote there that professional mathematicians should go home! Was that addressed to me, or was it addressed to me? (No offense taken, by the way).
- But we have lots of points of agreement. You know, I'm all for meta approaches. And please believe me, I am not aware that I am presenting any argument that is fundamentally novel. I admit that I have a fondness to present views which I know are less prominent. The collaborative editorial process and wikipedia policies will determine how much space they get.
- BTW, a professional mathematician has skills in recognising when mathematical arguments are correct or not, whether all the stated assumptions in a mathematical chain of reasoning are actually used or not, and so on. Call this own research or not, I think that anyone writing on MHP on Wikipedia would be well advised to at least try to understand the logical relations between different approaches which are all "out there" in reliable sources. This *can* be a good guide to efficient (for the reader!) organisation of material, of avoiding unnecessary duplication, of assigning weight, and so on. I think that any wikipedia editor writing a new article on a topic dear to their heart starts by organising and prioritizing the material which they think is relevant. Systematizing the material is "own research" at a meta level, which every good editor does day by day. After all, we don't copy old encyclopaedias, do we. We are *not* merely scribes. So maybe some mathematicians are actually very well qualified to be wikipedia co-editors of at least part of the MHP story?
- On the other hand you and a few others are fighting by waving wikipedia policies, and elucidating them again and again, but can't we leave that to the mediators? They are supposed to help us to come to agree on where we differ. Essays by us warring editors on wikipedia policies take a lot of space, distract from the (constructive) line set out by the mediators, and often (destructive) *appear* aimed at *persons* not content, so I don't think they belong in the mediation procedure as set out by the mediators.
- Yours respectfully, Richard Gill110951 (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)