Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Glkanter: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Dicklyon's comments about what's going on
 
Line 4: Line 4:


The proximal cause of the ruckus was my revert of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=prev&oldid=330258625 this edit] by Glkanter, which initially looked to me like malicious disruption of somebody's serious attempt at a chronology. Before I actually did the revert, I did realize that it was his own work that he was editing, but that, to me, was not enough reason to not revert, and as I say in my edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=next&oldid=330258625 here], I took it to be "Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism." I took one additional step to convert his "pointy" chronology to somethat that might be worth discussing, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=next&oldid=330264725 here], and finally a bit of cleanup and response to the point [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=next&oldid=330265008 here]. Whatever one may think of my attempt to patch up the chronology, which was his work, his subsequent reactions were way over the top, culminating in gross incivility, which he repeated both on the article talk page and on his own talk page, to no apparent purpose. So I just left that article as intractable and didn't worry about any more until Rick told me was filing this conduct RfC, which I obviously agree with.
The proximal cause of the ruckus was my revert of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=prev&oldid=330258625 this edit] by Glkanter, which initially looked to me like malicious disruption of somebody's serious attempt at a chronology. Before I actually did the revert, I did realize that it was his own work that he was editing, but that, to me, was not enough reason to not revert, and as I say in my edit summary [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=next&oldid=330258625 here], I took it to be "Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism." I took one additional step to convert his "pointy" chronology to somethat that might be worth discussing, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=next&oldid=330264725 here], and finally a bit of cleanup and response to the point [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=next&oldid=330265008 here]. Whatever one may think of my attempt to patch up the chronology, which was his work, his subsequent reactions were way over the top, culminating in gross incivility, which he repeated both on the article talk page and on his own talk page, to no apparent purpose. So I just left that article as intractable and didn't worry about any more until Rick told me was filing this conduct RfC, which I obviously agree with.

ps. my "obviously incorrect" statement referred to the positioning of the paragraph "''Devlin and many others write articles and text books as reliably sourced references using only the unconditional solution. They make no mention of Morgan or conditionality.''" before the publications of any of the relevant articles by von Savant, Devlin, or Morgan.


[[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
[[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 05:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:41, 22 December 2009

Dicklyon's comments about what's going on

Here's my take on Glkanter. He seems to be not so much a wikipedia editor as a Monty-Hall Problem groupie; 99% of his editors are of the Monty Hall Problem talk page, and he's frustrated that he can't convince everyone to throw out Rick Block and his approach and do it differently; he's not alone in this, and I tend to be closer to his side than to Ricks, and my attempts there have been to find the some compromise to settle the arguments that have been going on for over a year. I've given up on that more than once now, most recently due to the toxic reaction from Glkanter.

The proximal cause of the ruckus was my revert of this edit by Glkanter, which initially looked to me like malicious disruption of somebody's serious attempt at a chronology. Before I actually did the revert, I did realize that it was his own work that he was editing, but that, to me, was not enough reason to not revert, and as I say in my edit summary here, I took it to be "Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism." I took one additional step to convert his "pointy" chronology to somethat that might be worth discussing, here, and finally a bit of cleanup and response to the point here. Whatever one may think of my attempt to patch up the chronology, which was his work, his subsequent reactions were way over the top, culminating in gross incivility, which he repeated both on the article talk page and on his own talk page, to no apparent purpose. So I just left that article as intractable and didn't worry about any more until Rick told me was filing this conduct RfC, which I obviously agree with.

ps. my "obviously incorrect" statement referred to the positioning of the paragraph "Devlin and many others write articles and text books as reliably sourced references using only the unconditional solution. They make no mention of Morgan or conditionality." before the publications of any of the relevant articles by von Savant, Devlin, or Morgan.

Dicklyon (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]