User talk:Glkanter

I answer your message on my talk page. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

From my talk

[Mv here because it will be easier to follow, I think William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)]

As I describe on the Monty Hall Problem discussion page, under the heading Conventional Wisdom, I do not know the intricacies for Conflict Resolution on Wikipedia. This does not diminish the need for intervention. Glkanter (talk) 10:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at Monty Hall problem. It's not obvious what is wrong with it. I've looked at the talk page. It's interminable. I can assure you that no-one is going to read it. So if you want me to care, please post a concise summary of the first (or most interesting) thing that is wrong with the current page, or a link to a self-contained diff that does the same William M. Connolley (talk) 21:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I came upon the puzzle on Wikipedia looking to better understand it. What I found was what I consider to be way too much editorial content on the puzzle. I found it confusing, mis-guided, and, I believe, erroneous. I came to these conclusion because I belive this proof satisfies the Monty Hall Problem:

Every time I choose a goat, Monty reveals the other goat, leaving the car

2/3 of the time I will choose a goat

Therefore, I increase the liklihood of winning the car by switching doors

My contention is, if this proof is valid, then my initial reaction is correct.

The Solution section offers up some overly wordy explanation, and a chart, then this paragraph:

Although the reasoning above is correct it doesn't answer the precise question posed by the problem, which is whether a player should switch after being shown a particular open door (Morgan et al. 1991). Answering this question requires determining the conditional probability of winning by switching, given which door the host opens. The difference is whether the analysis, as above, considers all possible scenarios or only the scenarios where the host opens a specific door. The conditional probability may differ from the overall probability depending on the exact formulation of the problem (see Sources of confusion, below)...

So, my first problem is that the Article offers an explanation, then immediately discredits that explanation. Then the rest of the article essentially addresses other 'more rigorous' solutions, since the first one has been discreditted.

This matter came to your attention because since 2005, various editors have attempted to improve the article in much the same way, and for the same reasons as I propose. I am at loggerheads with Rick because when I ask him to either dis-prove my proof or accept my reasons for changing the article, he answers that I am not solving the required conditional probability problem.

Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Glkanter (talk) 02:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. I have some sympathy with that. I'll have another look, now I know what you mean. Without having re-looed, two things spring to mind: when it comes to a dispute, WP content is dictated by verifiability, not truth. This applies to maths articles too. Just being right is not good enough, alas. Which brings in the second: how authoritative are the ext sources? If Morgan is extensively quoted, then that is one thing. If it's just a pet ref from one editor, that's another. This is a question you might usefully ask of any professional mathmos you might have access to William M. Connolley (talk) 09:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the Marilyn Vos Savant era of the problem, the entire debate was waged using the unconditional probability problem. And it was a huge debate. She wrote that she heard from 1,000 PHDs, who overwhelmingly told her she was wrong. Parade magazine, where Marilyn published, was not going to subject it's readers to a discussion that could only be understood by people who 'got' 'the random goat constraint'. And that certainly wasn't why Marilyn wrote about it in the first place. Nor is that why its a famous paradox. Then a group of 4 professors, known as 'Morgan et al' or 'MCDD', made their disagreement with the unconditional probaility problem known.

But, ultimately, they had this to say:

"In fairness, MCDD do moderate their tone later on, writing, "None of this diminishes the fact that vos Savant has shown excellent probabilistic judgment in arriving at the answer 2/3, where, to judge from the letters in her column, even member of our own profession failed.""

http://www.math.jmu.edu/~rosenhjd/ChapOne.pdf page 48

I just posted this on the talk page:

So, if the unconditional probability proof was good enough for Marilyn, Monty, 1,000 PHDs, and 10s of millions of Parade magazine's general interest readership, why is it not good enough for the Wikipedia readers of today?

Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

As to who is extensively quoted, as you ask above, I offer this from the MHP Talk page:

Carl - having lived with this for several years, the least contentious approach has seemed to be to use quoted versions of the problem description (and a fully explicit version constraining the host to pick randomly between two goat doors is necessary to justify the Bayes treatment). The "vos Savant" version is far and away the best known, but it's not only conditional (sic) but under-specified. The conditional/unconditional thing is mentioned in the Solution section, and again under Sources of confusion. If we're to expand it (which I suspect Glkanter and others will argue against), I think the natural spot would be the "Sources of confusion" section. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Glkanter (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, as I understand it your proof is:

1. Every time I choose a goat, Monty reveals the other goat, leaving the car
2. 2/3 of the time I will choose a goat
3. Therefore, I increase the liklihood of winning the car by switching doors

Reading Morgan et al. ([1], only the first page, alas) your proof looks very much like their F1, or first false solution (put it another way: do you think F1 is a valid solution?). Since we're all agreed (are we?) that M et al. is a WP:RS then the wiki article is obliged to follow M et al.. It doesn't matter if you think you are right, or even if I agree that you are right, we have no choice but to follow what the refs say (this has some exceptions but you'll have to be very convincing to get one in this case) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your continued interest in the MHP. In the big picture, Wikipedia not withstanding, I just don't understand how my proof is not 'proof'. Maybe you could help me understand when an unconditional proof is sufficient. Honestly, I don't understand where a condition exists in this puzzle.

As for Morgan et al, yes, they are published and they are professors. Now, relative to the MHP article, are they the majority opinion of the experts? Or, when speaking of the MHP, is it understood that Marilyn vos Savant 'won' her arguement with the 1000 PHDs? But, really, I'm just repeating my point above, "If it was good enough for Marilyn, Monty, 1000 PHDs..."

Specifically, I was trying to settle an argument over the MHP the first time I read it on Wikipedia. Got to the Solution section, found a simple proof, it's a little wordy, so far so good. Then the 'but really, the proof we just showed you is insufficient' hit me in the face. So, I don't have a reference to settle my arguement, after all. It seems to me that the article, and it's Owner, claim that in order to solve the MHP, one must understand 'the random goat constraint'. I can't swallow that. That's not why it's a famous paradox.

I'm no longer trying to convince Rick that I may edit the page based on the unconditional proof being 'right'. At long last for me, and 4 years for some people, I understand that the published sources are what matter. I can't tell if you read my entire edit above, but I posit (and document) that Morgan et al are the minority (or at least late to the party), that they backed off on their criticism, and that MHP and Marilyn vos Savant are forever tied together in the public's mind. That's not how the article is set up.

Any comment on my Ownership complaint?

Glkanter (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't find the ownership issue very interesting. I believe that the article is about the actual MHP, *not* about what the public thinks about it - though that comes in. If you now understand that published sources are what matter, then we are making progress. I think we now need to clarify what your objection is. Is it (a) your simple proof (equivalent to M et al's F1) is *correct*, and therefore the wiki page should say so? (b) M et al are wrong to say that F1 is wrong? (c) you don't know whether F1 is wrong or not?

You say: But, ultimately, they [M et al] had this to say: "In fairness, MCDD do moderate their tone later on, writing, "None of this diminishes the fact that vos Savant has shown excellent probabilistic judgment in arriving at the answer 2/3, where, to judge from the letters in her column, even member of our own profession failed."" I think you misunderstand M et al: they retract nothing, but merely say that von S got the right answer for the wrong reasons.

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I sincerely do not understand the failing of the 3 line proof, or any like it that are published. I would welcome your assistance. It's no longer germain to my Wikipedia quest, it's just that I thought I knew how to properly calculate the probability of events, using the appropriate tools.

The article should reflect 'something'. I'm repeating myself, but it's not a famous paradox because of 'the random goat constraint', so I disagree with that being the core of the article. I 've read that 'pet' sources are not to be favored, but that's all I've found regarding this topic.

Glkanter (talk)

I just re-read the Morgan link page. I don't know why F1 is wrong. And I don't know why they say in the preceding paragraph that Monty's actions make this a conditional problem.

Glkanter (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, in that case I think we've reduced your original problem to a different one. You were attempting to edit the page, on the basis that F1 was right. Since (what we assume to be) the best available professional literature says F1 is wrong, that caused problems.

So now the question is, why is F1 wrong? At the moment, I don't know: I'll have to go off and read up. Do you have access to the full M et al paper? William M. Connolley (talk) 09:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen beyond page 1. But, I think I read that Rick purchased the article. Glkanter (talk) 10:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Belated welcome

Your questions about how the social process works perhaps begin to cover ground too far from the Monty Hall problem, so I'll take it over here instead.

First of all, it appears that nobody has ever thought to issue you a copy of the Big Friendly Standard Welcome Greeting Card With a Somewhat Scary Abundance of Interesting Links, so I attach one below. Don't try to follow all of the links in one sitting if you mind suddenly discovering that it's 5 AM. Do sample them one at a time when you feel like a break -- and do take breaks when you feel disagreement is getting to you. Remember that we're all volunteers, and it's supposed to be fun!

As for "super editors": We have admins, who have powers to block misbehaving users from editing for a time or indefinitely, as well as a few other generally janitorial tasks. They are bound by a few core rules and a lot of common sense, and we condition them strongly against using their powers to promote an opinion about how the article should be written. What they are concerned with is how constructively and civilly the common folk behave while agreeing on a text.

Upwards from admins are a variety of mainly clerical and bureaucratic fleeflah concerned with keeping the Wikimedia Foundation running, overseeing admin appointments and so forth. And near the very top, the Arbitration Committee, a supreme court of sorts. Even more than the admins, they find it extremely distasteful to decide anything about actual article content, and focus exclusively on behavior, civility, collaboration. Bothering the ArbCom is a risky business; in a significant fraction of their cases they find that the plaintiff is the jerkass and sanction him instead of the defendant.

In general I think you'll find many questions answered at WP:Dispute Resolution and links from there.

After that, I can recommend starting out at WP:Simplified Ruleset. And then, without further ado:

Hello, Glkanter! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! –Henning Makholm 08:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I Willingly Play By the Rules

Thank you, Henning Makholm, for posting the above with your insights.

I consider myself a pretty good rule-follower, both in the letter and spirit.

I've made one edit to the article in 4 months. What I deleted was so bad, that Rick enthusiastically agreed with the deletion. He even offered to do it himself!

For almost 4 months, I was arguing about the 'rightness' of my solution. And Rick was right there, telling me I'm wrong. Turns out, finally, that the real discussion is about verifiable sources. But the resolution process talks about 3rd party input from subject matter experts, etc, so maybe being 'right' does have some import.

Like I lay it out at the beginning of the Conventional Wisdom section of the MHP, it's never easy, or comfortable, challenging the powers that be. Which, simply, is Rick. Maybe he is the MHP representative appointed by the Math Guru clique. I did not expect his compadres to be so protective. I should have expected it, I guess. I was just taken aback by their knee-jerk reaction and incivility. I expected some un-biased investigation. Like I said, fool me once... Glkanter (talk) 13:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This guy is a POS

This user has a Doctor of Philosophy degree in mathematics.

Glkanter has taken a look at the responses and decided they verify his accusations of ownership (he wrote "All these other Wikipedia Math gurus already knew about Rick's MHP article Ownership issues!") If you are interested in your response not being misused, I suggest leaving a comment on the MHP talk page. I left a comment in the most recent section created by Glkanter, "WP:Ownership Allegation Update." --C S (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Above you claimed that the project members have verified Rick's supposed ownership issue ("All these other Wikipedia Math gurus already knew about Rick's MHP article Ownership issues!"). That is false. We are all familiar with Rick and this article. What we are familiar with is that occasionally people unable to understand simple probability come to this article, argue for ages on the talk page, and accuse Rick of a bunch of stuff. Then he argues and discusses in good faith with the person, very patiently and correctly, while enduring a verbal assault. --C S (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? Your presumptions are arrogant. I am familiar with all past discussion on this page and related discussions on the WikiProject Mathematics talk page. I see nothing new in what is going on in this current discussion. It's the same thing again. I have noticed no disagreement of my assessment versus others in the WikiProject. --C S (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife? Your presumptions are arrogant. I am familiar with all past discussion on this page and related discussions on the WikiProject Mathematics talk page. I saw nothing new in what is going on in this current discussion, and yes, I did read through this whole page before making my comment. It's the same thing again. I have noticed no disagreement of my assessment versus others in the WikiProject. --C S (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you like to misrepresent Boris' quotes, perhaps we could press him on whether the turbulence is caused by your refusal/inability to understand basic probability. --C S (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

What documentation is relevant to your lack of mathematical understanding? --C S (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this situation needs to be hammered down more precisely. In the Morgan et al article, the situation considered is when door 1 is picked; host will always open a door, and always one without a car behind it; avoiding contradicting previous assumption, he opens door 2 with probability p and door 3 with probability 1-p. Then they arrive at your formulae.

I think this situation needs to be hammered down more precisely. In the Morgan et al article, the situation considered is when door 1 is picked; host will always open a door, and always one without a car behind it; avoiding contradicting previous assumption, he opens door 2 with probability p and door 3 with probability 1-p. Then they arrive at your formulae.--C S (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Wife-beater comment was in response to your own wife-beater style question. I'm not here to help you push your ignorant points or false accusations either. Misrepresentation of quotes? Maybe I see it that way because I'm more familiar with his style of comment, whereas you want to read any nuanced, non-committal response as being in your favor. Like I said, if you believe your repeated quoting of him is justified, we can always ask him to clarify.

As for Rick's supposedly damning words, he's merely stating the obvious. Ignorant people come by Wikipedia articles all the time, trying to change article to crap. Usually they don't try that on a Featured Article. In any event, doing so is just going to fail. Rick is correct. You are so wrong you don't even know why you aren't going to garner any consensus. A less patient editor than Rick wouldn't have even bothered wasting all this time on you. --C S (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

As for Rick's supposedly damning words, he's merely stating the obvious. Ignorant people come by Wikipedia articles all the time, trying to change article to crap. Usually they don't try that on a Featured Article. In any event, doing so is just going to fail. Rick is correct. You are so wrong you don't even know why you aren't going to garner any consensus. A less patient editor than Rick wouldn't have even bothered wasting all this time on you. --C S (talk) 05:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to be dense about my reference to a standard loaded question, there's nothing I can do to help you. Learn what a loaded question is and not to use them, like you did before. --C S (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

None of these people are saying what you think they're saying. And yes, I read their comments. They're certainly not backing your proposed revisions to the article either. If you truly believe they are supporting your changes, ask them to come here and support your proposed removal of the "wrong" explanations. --C S (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I am referring to [2] where Connelly does in fact tell Block there is no reason to continue discussion. So how am I interpreting other editors' postings to fit my POV? You've been doing that, so you seem to feel it's a good tactic to accuse me of kind, but I'd like to see a single example. By the way, you like to accuse people of breaking WP:CIV (apparently partly based on your inability to understand English idiom), but you know, stopping a comment short like "Hostile mother" doesn't fool anyone. Consider this an NPA warning and tone down your language in the future.

As I said, I already read that. And nobody disagrees with what you and Boris wrote in that section anyway. Everyone here (including Rick) agrees that is the solution to the "unconditional" MHP. So you see here how you don't even understand what is going on here. --C S (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't want to get into this, but since you keep thinking Boris is somehow in perfect agreement with what you're saying, let me make a comment here. First, you'll note that Boris didn't regard your "proof" as a proof, only as a solution, and indeed he comments it is even "too concise". This is not a pedantic distinction because it actually is relevant to your queries. A solution is just an answer. If you say the probability is such and such, and it's correct, then you gave the correct solution. Your reasoning might be bogus, or only partly bogus, or somewhat confused, or even correct. Correct reasoning, and enough spelled out to be an explanation to someone else, that is what makes a proof.

If you truly understood the problem well, you would have no problem understanding Rick Block's comments above. The crux of the matter is that there are different ways to interpret a problem like Monty Hall; one distinction is what's been called conditional vs unconditional in the above discussions. If you interpret the problem in a conditional manner, i.e. assume particular choices of doors, the host's behavior on how he chooses between two goat doors becomes important (assuming he always opens a door and always shows a goat). This choice is not actually important when you consider what you've been calling the "unconditional" problem. If you don't understand this, then I don't think you can say you really understand the problem.

The point about the unconditional solution not addressing the problem: it's a common mistake to read the problem as conditional, but then give the unconditional solution. That's just wrong. It happens that numerically the answers are the same if you assume the host chooses between two goat doors with equal probability, but that's hardly correct mathematical reasoning. Now, as alluded to before on Boris' talk page, a mathematician worth his salt would be able to use the symmetry of the host's choosing to realize that the conditional probability should work out to be the same as the unconditional probability. But there is something going on here, some reasoning based on the symmetry of the situation. --C S (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I gotta get going soon (but if you respond, I'll try to respond later too). Looking over some of my responses above, I see I've been short-tempered, for which I apologize. But it was partly due to having read the whole page (I know you keep thinking I haven't read the above, but I did), and being peeved at, I think, rather unfair treatment of Rick Block.

Actually, I don't believe this material is over any reasonably intelligent adult's head. So let's give it a go. Let's address why people might think Marilyn's statement is conditional. By the way, I hope I haven't given the impression that I think the problem must be understood as conditional. As for Marilyn's exact statement, I think it's ambiguous enough on several fronts, and there's no reason to state with absolute confidence it should be conditional.

Marilyn's wording:

Suppose you're on a game show, and you're given the choice of three doors: Behind one door is a car; behind the others, goats. You pick a door, say No. 1, and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door, say No. 3, which has a goat. He then says to you, "Do you want to pick door No. 2?" Is it to your advantage to switch your choice?

Note there is a lot of stuff being left out here. Let's just be naive here, taking nothing for granted. First, we have no idea what the host is up to. Why did he even offer a switch? Is it because you picked the car? Or does he always offer a switch? Now, since we can't expect to really ever understand the mind of Monty, most people assume something like, Monty is fair and always offers the switch. And he always shows a goat, not a car, as that would make the game silly. These might be considered pretty reasonable assumptions, none of which were explained by Marilyn. But how does he decide which door to open if he can choose between two goat doors?

At this point, you might decide, why should it matter how he chooses? And here's where the conditionality assumption starts coming in. The question, as stated, seems to be asking what you would do in this situation that you picked door 1, Monty showed door 3 had a goat, and you are offered to switch to door 2. As stated above, you can assume he always shows a goat and offers the switch, but that in this instance he opened that particular door instead of door 2. So if Marilyn was asking what would you do in this situation, you really need to know how he is choosing doors. Let's say that he always likes to open door 2 when there isn't a car behind it. You would be sure to win if you switch: probability of getting a car is 1.

Now the way Marilyn stated the problem, she said, "...say No. 1..." So a reasonable interpretation would be that these door numbers don't matter, since people often say "...say" to mean "for instance" and not to specify an exact instance. On the other hand, she didn't have to mention the door numbers, so a straightforward reading would be to assume that any information given in the problem is actually necessary. The funny thing is that in most types of problems it wouldn't be necessary to make this distinction. But in probability problems, it's really important. Did Marilyn intend these door numbers to be useful, or were they just extraneous bits she didn't think to edit out? Of course, to further confuse the situation, remember Marilyn never specified the host's choosing between two goat doors. If you assume the unconditional problem, this information is not necessary, since as you pointed out, you only had a 1/3 chance to begin with of getting the car, so if you can switch, you should. On the other hand, a reasonable person might assume that Monty picks either door with equal probability. And with that, you can indeed solve the conditional problem. Amusingly, you end up with the same answer either way. But that only further confuses things for people. --C S (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Completely and totally out of line

Regarding your comments on talk:Monty Hall problem#In conclusion: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Your behavior here seems to be becoming increasingly unacceptable. You haven't apparently listened to anything I've said before, but please listen to this. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Someone just edited my edit.

I was making a point on the MHP, and some guy, I think you know who I mean, deleted a couple of lines out of the middle of my edit. Not an 'undo', but an editorial style edit.

Is that within the rules? Who do I go to if he continues? Should I do something pre-emptive?

See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable. What I did is acceptable under Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Removal of text. Perhaps you've missed this point, but I am an admin here. This is another area where I know what I'm talking about. What you should do is not make any further personal attacks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not post comments on my page. I often find you an un-reliable source of information, to wit:

"Removal of text Policy shortcut: WP:RPA

There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project even if they are directed at you. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate."

Thank you in advance for your co-operation. Glkanter (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You continue to amaze me. Wikipedia's policies are nuanced. Note "typically" in what you've quoted above. Also, please read the section a little further down the page at Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Consequences of personal attacks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Yeah. I've Edited Articles.

I have made a single edit to Wikipedia articles.

I removed this from the MHP article:

The overall probability of winning by switching is determined by the location of the car.

It was the first sentence of the Solution section. I believe that edit had a positive affect on the quality of the article. Glkanter (talk) 14:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Monty Hall problem

If you're unwilling or unable to understand the solution, it's probably best if you simple leave the article and the talk page alone. It's not really within the scope of the work we do here to convince you. Many editors have spent way too much time on this already. If you really want to understand this, my suggestion would be to seek out a very patient mathematician who will work with you. We're not really geared for that kind of work here. Also note that posts like this one make it sound like you're here to debate and try to score points, rather than being here to improve the article. If you keep going down that path, it may not take long before people start considering you a disruptive editor. Friday (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

If you edit a section, rather than a whole page, your edit summary will include the section name. If you don't see "edit" links next to section headers you can change your preferences to enable "section editing". See Special:Preferences. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have noticed your recent posts have been more civil (well, not so much this one), and I very much appreciate it. Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a bit of backsliding in this one. Dicklyon (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You have defamed me on at least 3 occasions now. I don't know you, I don't want to know you, and don't care to discuss your gross transgressions any further. Is there something you want or need of me? I have no idea whatsoever it may be. Freak. Glkanter (talk) 04:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just one question. Who the fuck does this guy think he is?

Is this roughly how we got here, today? Glkanter (talk) 14:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Glkanter (talk) 23:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Roughly. But if you try to keep it more accurate, you will do better making your point. Dicklyon (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you're way out of line with those edits. But if you support the proposed changes, I won't mention it again. Glkanter (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Really? No unconditional papers by reliably sources were published between Selvin and Morgan? I find that unlikely. Glkanter (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I see Dick Lyon discusses his numerous edit wars on his user page. I cannot compete with that. What is my best approach to take to return my interpretation of how events happened, which I want to share on this talk page, to it's original form? Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Look at this edit summary from Dicklyon:

(cur) (prev) 11:34, 7 December 2009 Dicklyon (talk | contribs) (792,974 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Glkanter; Obviously incorrect, pointy addition, bordering on vandalism. (TW)) (undo)

I don't deserve that. What, I vandalized a section I just created? Why would someone write that? Glkanter (talk) 17:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dicklyon, I don't want any trouble. I just want my interpretation of the chronology to be on this talk page. Unedited, but certainly commented on below. So, do you want this section, and I'll start a new one? You want to start a new one, for your interpretation, and I'll fix this one back to my vision? Just let me know. Thanks. Glkanter (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You can just write a sensible summary instead of interspersing repeated stuff as a roundabout way to make a point. And my user pages doesn't discuss most of my edit wars, just the "dramatic" ones. Dicklyon (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Dick, deleting material from a talk page is rarely justified and not so in this case. Maybe glkanter could have formatted his contribution better but that is no reason to delete it. It certainly was not vandalism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I removed any actual material, just interspersed repetitions of a statement that made the chronology hard to follow. If he or someone wants to put it back I won't bother with it. Dicklyon (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Despite very strong opinions this discussion has remained completely civil, let us keep it that way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course; I hope I didn't do anything that hinted otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 19:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's quite a Wikipedia education I was administered today. And I want to give thanks to the man who taught me this lesson, Dicklyon.

Thank you Dicklyon for:

Vandalizing my edit

Then, accusing me of being the vandal (That was outstanding. Really. Not many can pull this one off successfully! Kudos!)

Calling my personal opinion on a talk page 'obviously incorrect'

Lecturing me on the proper 'tone' to use on Wikipedia talk pages

Denying in carefully chosen words that you did any of the above

Making it necessary for another Wikipedian to defend me. That does wonders for my self esteem.

Teaching me who the baddest edit warrior on Wikipedia is.

Giving me permission to return the section I created to it's original status.

Assuring me that you won't further violate Wikipedia rules regarding my edits in talk pages

I'm sure there is much more I'm overlooking. I'm only human.

But anyways, an apology is in order to all you Wikipedia editors who were forced to sit through this.

In the spirit of the guy who got shot in the face by VP Dick Cheney, I apologize to Dicklyon for being the recipient of your unprovoked savage violations of my good faith edits to a Wikipedia talk page. Glkanter (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You really are a piece of work! Your current rant is no less disruptive than this edit that I reverted thinking it looked like vandalism. If it was not intended as disruptive, I misinterpreted your intention; is that my fault? Dicklyon (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it your fault? No, of course not. I read your edit warring exploits. It's never your fault. This time, it's my fault, like I said above. You just out of the blue decide to edit some guy's stuff on a talk page? How could you be to blame? I see you as the victim in this situation. In fact, I would speak on your behalf about how, despite your benevolence, Glkanter has wronged you. Glkanter (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Good, then we agree: my misinterpretation of your intentions was your fault. Case closed. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To avoid further drama, I'll take this article off my watch list again, as I had the good sense to do last April when it was clear that progress would not be possible. I hope nobody invites me to comment again, as I might repeat my failing and come back for more. Dicklyon (talk) 07:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen. We do not need this. Despite strong feelings on both sides the discussion has remained civil. As I said above, I think Dick went a bit too far when he deleted text from the talk page, but he has said the he will not object if it is restored. Glkanter, why not just restore the text and leave it at that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And, there you have it. This unknown Wikipedia editor vandalizes my Monty Hall problem talk page edit, and calls me a vandal while doing it. And it's all my fault.

"Good, then we agree: my misinterpretation of your intentions was your fault. Case closed. Dicklyon (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monty_Hall_problem#Is_This_Chronology_Correct.3F Glkanter (talk) 16:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And then here's how Rick, who said not a single word while I was being violated, explained the above to someone he was seeking guidance from: "...But one of the editors on the "other side" views me as the "enemy" and has been become increasingly disruptive (on the talk page), to the point of even driving away another editor (one he basically agrees with!)..." Rick Block (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC) (my bolding) Glkanter (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and who the fuck do I think I am? I am an honest man, motherfucker! That's who the fuck I am! Glkanter (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I also like this variant (big fan of the variant, see the Monty Hall problem discussions):

Oh, and who the fuck do I think I am? Fuck You! That's who the fuck I am! Glkanter (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC) (actually posted a few hours earlier)

Old Garbage to take care of

How you like me now, Bitch!?

To Whom It May Concern:

Yes, we went through this in February, also when I was advocating loudly for changes to the MHP article.

This time, it's different. I'm part of a consensus. Please, shed as much light on this situation as you possibly can.

Thank you,

Glkanter (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Rick Block just informed me that his request for Informal Mediation has been closed, and we've been advised to file for Formal Mediation. It seems likely either I, or someone else from the consensus will be filing this request promptly. Glkanter (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's Rick's 1st draft of his RfC on me. Rick and I see the nearly all aspects of the world 180 degrees differently. All you need to look at is the detail of the Dicklyon vandalism as shown on my page above, vs what Rick selectively linked to, in order to build his specious case against me. It's comical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rick_Block/DraftRFC

Glkanter (talk) 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I have signed my endorsement on the RfC. This is one area where Rick and I are in agreement. If you feel he misrepresented the situation, I recommend you post a link to my so-called vandalism and explain. Dicklyon (talk) 02:04, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep me out of this until it's filed. You and Rick agree? Funny thing. Only Martin commented on it at the time. Rick said nothing. How can you agree with someone who made no comment? I recommend you not file it. Glkanter (talk) 02:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice that what I put my endorsement on was his draft. It's now done correctly. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear about this, are you saying above that you have no intention of deleting the objectionable material from your user and talk pages and that you will not stop treating the content issue at MHP as a personal battle? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:08, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Rick, to your text that you typed above, I say this: mu. Glkanter (talk) 03:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Glkanter)

Hello, Glkanter. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/GlkanterTemplate:Highrfc-loop]], where you may want to participate. Rick Block (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Watchwords

Integrity
Honesty
The Emperor Has No Clothes
No Enabling
Wikipedia 'Civility' = passive-aggressive false collegiality

I get it that personal attacks are unacceptable. I follow that in letter and spirit to the best of my abilities. What about discussing other editor's motivations or biases? Why should every editor *have* to figure each other out for himself? What if you perceive an editor as being less than straightforward? Or worse? Is there any way to bring it up? Not formally, just in conversation. Nothing's secret, why not be allowed to summarize where you think someone else is coming from? It can, and maybe does, work the other way. People get commended, I imagine. So everybody is either commendable or neutral? Sounds sorta like the children of Lake Woebegone. Glkanter (talk) 00:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

the FAQ

It looked like you and Rick 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) 05:14, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it necessary for you to continue to try to polarize the discussion to the extreme there? Dicklyon (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer that you not leave messages on my talk page. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 07:25, 27 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)

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Monty Hall problem has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Rick Block (talk)

re snide

To clarify, what I'm referring to as snide is "Strange that you can't see that, Rick". I've made my point. If I now went on to say "Strange that you can't see that, Glkanter" that would be snide. Of course, you already knew that. So then for you to go on to say "Yes, Rick. Quoting people in context is 'snide'" is ALSO snide. I imagine a mediator would at this point tell us both to shut up. Or delete your original snide comment. Or talk to you privately about it. I'm trying that here, but based on our past experience I don't have high hopes that you'll listen. What I am hoping is if a mediator says something to you, you'll listen. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For those keeping score at home, here's what I wrote:

"Martin made an edit and explained his non-POV reasons why. Nijdam reversed it giving ONLY his Morgan-POV reason shy. Seems clear to me where NPOV is being violated. Strange that you can't see that, Rick. Glkanter (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)". I guess 'Strange' could have been 'Typical', or perhaps 'Inconceivable'. Glkanter (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The Undead

They just never stop! Glkanter (talk) 15:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem. For the Mediation Committee, Seddon talk and Xavexgoem (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I just realized...

I have posted my disputes with 2 editors above.

One of them is on a one year wiki sabbatical. The other is semi-retired. Glkanter (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop harassing me

I've asked you before to stop harassing me. I've really had quite enough. Seriously, stop it. -- Rick Block (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

As usual, you and I interpret things in exactly the opposite manner. With my recent posts, I've simply cataloged a very small (4 brief items) sampling of your most note-worthy unsupportable comments which have for over 5 years, and for me personally, over 18 months, impeded making necessary corrections and other improvements to The Monty Hall Problem Wikipedia article. Glkanter (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Rick Block (talk) 01:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Do what you gotta do, Rick. I'm at peace with my actions to date. Glkanter (talk) 01:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Eventus stultorum magister. Glkanter (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reported your actions at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you end up blocked, it won't be by me (I'm involved, so can't block you). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reported you again. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI - if you keep edit warring after a block, your next block will be longer. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Monty Hall problem. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. B (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Victim Of Long Term Gamesmanship

Decline reason:

I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  • understand what you have been blocked for,
  • will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  • will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information.  Sandstein  19:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. I added a 2-row table following the only reliably sourced solution that did not have one. The results of this solution/table are very detrimental to the POV/Bias that Rick Block maintains over the article and it's editing. After first claiming to not understand it, then claiming it was flawed, Rick has personally offered 5 different substitutes of inferior quality. this shows the changes made by Rick. These changes are made by Rick solely for reasons of his personal semantics. Certainly not because these changes benefit the reader. And not because they are improperly sourced. It's all part of his long-standing Gamesmanship that I have been subject to. While a strong step, I am hopeful that this dispute between myself plus other editors, and Rick plus other editors will receive some attention./

Decline reason:

None of this addresses the reason you were blocked: edit warring. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Umm, you have reverted seven times in the last two days and four times in the last day. Revert warring is considered inherently disruptive. Attacking the motives of those who disagree with you doesn't make it acceptable to revert repeatedly. --B (talk) 20:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What is the proper venue to address the complex violations of POV and Gamesmanship, among others? Glkanter (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation is one (it looks like there have been several?) WP:3O provides an outside or "third opinion". WP:DR details the various options for dispute resolution. Please note that "I don't agree with them" is not the same as "they are trying to force a POV". You aren't going to get anywhere if you assume bad faith regarding those whom you disagree. --B (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

[The following was written prior to your response.]

Please note that I previously included this diff in my unblock request. In it I wrote:

"Additionally, column 5, Probability (unchanged), was removed entirely. This column held the same values as the 'Original Probability' column. A pretty important column, as we'll discuss later."

Well that reason is that Nijdam claims '1/3 <> 1'3' and mandates certain editing of the article because of this.

Here's how he proposes to deal with the situation just minutes ago:

"I suggest we remove the table in the article. It is no more than OWN RESEARCH, and adds nothing. Nijdam (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)"

I'm not attacking motives. I'm describing disruptive editing via Gamesmanship by Rick Block and Nijdam.

All I can say is: WP:NOTTHEM. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. It would mean a lot if you'd take a brief look over the talk page. Maybe put some 'faces' with all this dry talk. Thanks. Glkanter (talk) 21:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, That Table 'Modification' By Nijdam Was Vandalism

He didn't really want that crappy table he replaced mine with to be in the article. Here's what he suggested later:

"I suggest we remove the table in the article. It is no more than OWN RESEARCH, and adds nothing. Nijdam (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2010 (UTC)"

[3]

Glkanter (talk) 23:01, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Nijdam's comment, it is not just own research, but it is unsourced too; so no wonder the table you added is going to be challenged and removed. Minimac (talk) 05:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Minimac, if you're still watching this page, you may want to take a look at this comment this morning fron Nijdam. Glkanter (talk) 09:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I created this section on the MHP talk page on Friday:

Is The Table That Supports Carlton's Solution OR?

I agree that he didn't include the table, but the 2 row 'choice-centric' design of the table is certainly consistent with his solution.

The column headings and the values in each cell come directly from:

Whitaker's letter (which doors serve which purposes)

Carlton's paper (the before-a-goat-is-revealed probabilities of 1/3 and 2/3),

Simple math (the after-the-goat-is-revealed probabilities) as shown:

(Probability of being a car * Probability of host revealing a goat (aka, a 100% condition) = Probability of being a car after revealing a goat)

1/3 * 100% = 1/3

2/3 * 100% = 2/3

I spent some time looking, and didn't find any WP policy prohibiting editor-created tables, as long as they are reliably sourced, NPOV, and verifiable. I think the table in it's current form meets these requirements. Glkanter (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Morgan Walks Back Own Paper

Morgan now says the same thing as the simple solutions. Maybe they weren't ever 'false' or 'incomplete' after all?

© 2010 American Statistical Association DOI: 10.1198/tast.2010.09227 The American Statistician, May 2010, Vol. 64, No. 2 193

Morgan, J. P., Chaganty, N. R., Dahiya, R. C., and Doviak, M. J. (1991),

“Let’s Make a Deal: The Player’s Dilemma,” The American Statistician,

45 (4), 284–287: Comment by Hogbin and Nijdam and Response

Response

[Begin Quote]"Our kind thanks to Mr. Hogbin and Dr. Nijdam for correcting our mistake. We will add that should the player have observed any previous plays of the game, those data, too, will modify the prior, and can produce posterior calculations other than 2/3 even with a symmetric prior. This, of course, is something else that we should have pursued. In any case, it should not distract from the essential fact that 1/(1+q) ≥ 1/2 regardless of q. Simply put, if the host must show a goat, the player should switch."

...

"We take this opportunity to address another issue related to our article, one that arose in vos Savant’s (1991) reply and in Bell’s (1992) letter, and has come up many times since. To wit, had we adopted conditions implicit in the problem, the answer is 2/3, period.[End Quote]

Carlton's solution is extremely similar. The contested table shows why Morgan's new conclusions work. Glkanter (talk) 06:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Soi, that's 3 acknowledged mistakes. Makes you wonder about their other points. Makes me especially wonder about their conclusions and accusations against vos Savant and the various simple solutions. I wonder if they plan to re-write their original column for clarity? Glkanter (talk)

Blocked again

You have been blocked for a period of seventy-two hours for edit-warring on Monty Hall problem... again. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 02:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request an unblock as the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. I am in good faith trying to discuss the validity and value to the article of the table [4]. There was an often-critical editor who modified the table in the article today, rather than delete it, with this Edit summary: "If, then complete" [5]. Rick Block reverted the table without responding to my new section or otherwise discussing the table [6]. And I am proposing for a 2nd time a NPOV article design [7].

Decline reason:

You've just come off a block for edit warring and immediately returned to the same article and repeated the same behavior. It seems that the block is indeed necessary to prevent disruption. When your block expires, please consider completing discussions on the article's talk page before reverting. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I explained in my earlier requests for unblocking that one of the reverts I made was due to Vandalism by editor Nijdam. Minimac disagreed with my evaluation. I also defended my actions based on NPOV violations and Gamesmanship. All to no avail. Today, Nijdam posted [8]. I summarized his posts and my response here [9], which is the very next section of my talk page. I think Nijdam's posting, and many others that preceded it, support my contentions of innocence. Thank you.

Decline reason:

When you find yourself in an editing dispute, there are many useful things you can do about it. Edit-warring is against the rules because it is always disruptive and never useful- others can revert just as often as you can, but that doesn't establish consensus or make a long-term change in the article. In fact, edit-warring, just makes everyone tense and angry with one another, and makes it more difficult to peacefully establish consensus. Instead of edit-warring, establish consensus on the talk page first, and then make the changes you've all agreed on together. Please don't use the word 'vandalism' as a synonym for 'disagreeing with me.' Vandalism is a word with a specific meaning that doesn't apply to anyone involved in this disagreement- using it, like edit-warring, just makes everyone tense and angry without helping to resolve the disagreement. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Glkanter#Nijdam.27s_New_Ultimatum

Thanks. We are in meditation, although it's on hold, awaiting a replacement mediator. I don't know what else to do when faced with, as demonstrated by Nijdam's links, an editor who has no regard or respect for Wikipedia's policies on Reliable Sources and NPOV. How does one build a census, when there is no good faith give and take (as has been demonstrated by Nijdam's recent posting)? The 'delaying' game satisfies his goals very well. Glkanter (talk) 15:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request an unblock as the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption. Editor Nijdam is intentionally completely disregarding the Pillars and Policies of Wikipedia. He has introducing highly debated POV into the article as 'fact:'

"Several authors point to the fact that this and some other simple solutions, are not complete, because they do not distinguish properly between the probabilities before and after the opening of a door by the host. (See the probability section for more details.)" [10].

The placement of the offending comment is very near the beginning of the 'Popular Solutions' section. This is a deliberate, bad faith, maneuver on his part to lead the reader into favoring his POV [11].

And this NPOV-violating, reliable-source-contradicting commentary is his 'justification' [12]

Decline reason:

None of this addresses your continued edit warring or suggests you intend to stop. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Nijdam's New Ultimatum

"==Rose?=="

I really do not like the way Gill is intervening, acting like the elephant in the porcelain shop. I'm also very disappointed by him still defending the simple problem. A door (I do not care which one) has been opened before the player is given the offer to switch! Just the "simple" reader of the article will and should have this picture in mind. There is nothing to compromise. So, from now on, I suggest we start with the correct problem and the correct solution, be it in simple wording. Further on in the article we may mention some authors consider simplified versions of the problem! I'm through. Nijdam (talk) 08:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

May be someone can explain to me where from the problem formulation it may be deduced the player is given the offer to switch BEFORE the door with a goat is opened?Nijdam (talk) 08:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, giving the right numerical answer on basis of wrong reasoning, is as bad as giving the 50-50 answer.Nijdam (talk) 10:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

[13] [14]

Now, would someone, anyone, tell me how Carlton's solution and the new table fail to meet his requirements?

"An even simpler solution is to reason that switching loses if and only if the player initially picks the car, which happens with probability 1/3, so switching must win with probability 2/3 (Carlton 2005)."

Contestant's Door Choice: "say No. 1"	Initial probability	Host Reveals Goat Behind a Door: "say No. 3"	Remaining: Door 2	Probability After Revealing a Goat
Car	1/3	Goat	Goat	1/3
Goat	2/3	Goat	Car	2/3

Maybe a decision tree would be more acceptable. This shows the 100% condition that a goat will be revealed. It's starting to resemble a decision tree, with the exception that the Initial Probabilities of 1/3 and 2/3 each need to be shown 'straddling' two rows.

Contestant's Door Choice: "say No. 1"	Initial Probability	Host Reveals Goat Behind a Door: "say No. 3"	Frequency	Remaining: Door 2	Probability After Revealing a Goat
Car	1/3	Goat	100%	Goat	1/3
Car		n/a	0%
Goat	2/3	Goat	100%	Car	2/3
Goat		Car	0%

Glkanter (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. Rick Block, the long time admin, has never said anything to Nijdam regarding NPOV, and I don't expect him to this time. Glkanter (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Nijdam's POV-Laden Edit To The MHP Popular Solution section - So contrary to the published literature

"Several authors point to the fact that this and some other simple solutions, are not complete, because they do not distinguish properly between the probabilities before and after the opening of a door by the host. (See the probability section for more details.)"

(cur | prev) 03:56, 19 June 2010 Nijdam (talk | contribs) (59,359 bytes) (restored older version, but without the controversial table. Gill's changes are premature) (undo) [15]

Not only is it POV, by calling it a 'fact' it is intentionally incomplete, inaccurate, misleading and unreferenced.

Really shows bad faith as an editor. We argue about this ALL THE TIME. There are plenty of editors who are against this type of editorializing/commentary in the article. It's false, and violates every founding Wikipedia principal. Glkanter (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't understand the math well enough to take a side in this dispute. But there are plenty of editors at Wikipedia who do understand the math, so I'm certain that you'll be able to use the helpful suggestions at WP:DISPUTE to get consensus on a version that is best for the encyclopedia, and you won't have to edit-war to do it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:50, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. We are in Mediation. It's currently on 'hold' as they seek a new mediator.

I'm not asking anyone to take a side. Please read his 'justification' [16]. He boldly announces that Wikipedia's rules, which he is knowledgeable of, won't be applying to him. Nijdam's edit, as well as at least one of his edits that I reverted are counter-productive to the goals and methods of Wikipedia. He is clearly making the article represent his POV. That's one of the hallmarks of the MHP, the existing literature is inconsistent with regards to the math. That's one of the things we constantly argue about. Well, in my absence as an editor, Nijdam just edited in his POV. Ask Rick Block. He won't volunteer this information, but if asked, he will concur.

So, I have this 2nd ban because I violated the letter of the 3rr/edit warring rules. But I didn't harm the article. In fact, it will be shown that I was making it better. Nijdam is violating the letter and spirit of the rules with his POV/Bias and Gamesmanship, but nobody wants to step up, acknowledge this, and take appropriate actions. Thanks for reading all this. Glkanter (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That comment, which you've linked to several times, doesn't really reflect badly on User:Nijdam. He's simply saying that he is certain that you are wrong, that he thinks you are behaving badly, and that the article should start with a simply stated problem and solution. I don't know whether or not you are wrong, but you are behaving badly with your continued edit-warring (and it sounds like you still don't understand what a very serious problem that is), and starting the article with the problem and its solution isn't an unreasonable suggestion. Note that the 'letter of the 3rr/edit-warring rules' don't actually entitle you to three reverts every 24 hours, and that if, when your block expires, you go back and undo edits in that article again, you're quite likely to be blocked again on even your first revert. It's a very disruptive way to behave, and it seriously interferes with the important work of actually reaching consensus. What harm is there, in the long run, if the article is "wrong" for a few days or a week while the discussion happens? None at all. I suggest that you don't make any edits to the article at all until consensus on the talk page is very clear. If you are right, others will see how right you are, and you'll get your desired edit ultimately. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand very well your point that there is no 'entitlement' to make reverts, especially for an offender like me. After nearly 20 months, about the last 6 - 8 in various stages of informal and formal Mediation, I felt that table that kept getting reverted was the final straw. I simply don't know how else to deal with 2 editors who are not participating in good faith.

Nijdam's comment wasn't directed to me, at all. As a rule, Nijdam does not acknowledge my edits on the various talk pages. It was directed to Gill, who, like Nijdam, is a mathematics PhD. And has been reliably published on the MHP. And to Martin, who I believe is a PhD physicist. It was immediately after that comment that Nijdam reverted all of Gill's edits, and added the false text in the Popular Solution section.

I think Nijdam is actually saying the opposite of 2 points you made. He says it's WRONG to give a simple solution first. Unless you point out how 'phony' it is at the same time. And he's been arguing for a very long time that reader's who 'think' they understand the puzzle via a simple solution they read in Wikipedia are being irreparably harmed. Really. He argues these, despite countless reliable sources providing simple solutions. This reliably published sources includes Selvin, the PhD Mathematician who first devised the problem and named it the Monty Hall Problem in The American Statistician, a peer-reviewed professional journal, and vos Savant, who made the problem HUGELY popular by writing about it in her weekly column in Parade magazine. They both offer, and defend, their simple solutions.

Again, thank you for your time and interest. Glkanter (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The following is "Sarcasm". Humor used to make a serious point.

Nijdam has included this very prominently in the Popular Solution section of the MHP article:

"Several authors point to the fact that this and some other simple solutions, are not complete, because they do not distinguish properly between the probabilities before and after the opening of a door by the host. (See the probability section for more details.)"

I don't suppose anyone would mind if I added this prominently to the Probabilistic Solution section:

Several prominent authors, including Morgan, et al, who originated the 'simple solutions are false' school of thought (see below for their revised POV), point to the fact that this and other conditional solutions, are not necessary, because the simple solutions properly solve the problem, and that Whitaker did not mean exclusively doors 1 & 3. Solving the problem using the simple solutions correctly solves the problem for all door pairings, including Doors 1 & 3. (See the Sources of Confusion section for more details.)

On the other hand, if Nijdam's edit is still in the article after 48 more hours... Glkanter (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Morgan now says the same thing as the simple solutions. Maybe they weren't ever 'false' or 'incomplete' after all?

© 2010 American Statistical Association DOI: 10.1198/tast.2010.09227 The American Statistician, May 2010, Vol. 64, No. 2 193

Morgan, J. P., Chaganty, N. R., Dahiya, R. C., and Doviak, M. J. (1991),

“Let’s Make a Deal: The Player’s Dilemma,” The American Statistician,

45 (4), 284–287: Comment by Hogbin and Nijdam and Response

Response

[Begin Quote]"Our kind thanks to Mr. Hogbin and Dr. Nijdam for correcting our mistake. We will add that should the player have observed any previous plays of the game, those data, too, will modify the prior, and can produce posterior calculations other than 2/3 even with a symmetric prior. This, of course, is something else that we should have pursued. In any case, it should not distract from the essential fact that 1/(1+q) ≥ 1/2 regardless of q. Simply put, if the host must show a goat, the player should switch."

...

"We take this opportunity to address another issue related to our article, one that arose in vos Savant’s (1991) reply and in Bell’s (1992) letter, and has come up many times since. To wit, had we adopted conditions implicit in the problem, the answer is 2/3, period.[End Quote]

Reported you for edit warring again

Just FYI, I've reported you for edit warring again, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing and refrain from any of the activities it describes. In addition to edit warring over your diagram, nearly all of your recent edits are simply nothing but disruption, e.g. [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22].

Please stop. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

You're a menace that needs to be stopped. Glkanter (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like, arbcom is thataway. They might reject a request out of hand since we're still in mediation, but since it's on hold they might open a case. If you pursue this, you'll want to read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration first. And, I'll caution you that you might get the exact opposite of what you want. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Monty Hall problem/Arguments. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. GorillaWarfare ^talk 15:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I wrote 'Get over yourselves'. That's not an attack. Glkanter (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Whether you consider it an attack or not, the point remains: please be more civil. GorillaWarfare ^talk 18:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You are suggesting I engage in 'false collegiality.' My reply was to a sarcastic paragraph which was a put down of another editor and by extension myself. Your comments, sir, appear to reflect a lack of awareness as to the above described situation. Please let me know if I can provide you with more infopmation on this topic. Cheers! Glkanter

I agree, I am not familiar with what the dispute was on that page. I did question whether or not the paragraph to which you were responding was also borderline. I'm sure you have gotten my point by now, however, and I will drop the point. Happy editing! GorillaWarfare ^talk 19:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, as I stated originally, I did not make a personal attack on any editor. Nor was my responce uncivil. I do not understand your reason for comments. I am happy to discontinue this non-productive discussion. Cheers! Glkanter

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of seventy-two hours for edit-warring on Monty Hall problem. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Wikipedia:Appealing a block. -- tariqabjotu 08:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact that you now limit yourself to reverting the same material just once or twice a day doesn't make it any less disruptive. -- tariqabjotu 08:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am requesting to be unblocked for the following reasons: I am staying within the policies of Wikipedia. The text I removed paraphrases one set of reliable sources plus editorializing OR that criticizes the solution to the MHP of another set of reliable sources, with the express purpose of casting doubt on the latter's solution. While there is a place in the article for inclusion of links, etc to both reliable sources, putting the criticisms and OR immediately preceding the solutions given by the reliable sources they criticize is a prima facie NPOV violation. There is of course, no accommodation in Wikipedia for the editorializing OR. I have discussed this NPOV violation in recent days at the following diffs:[23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28]. I think you're banning the wrong guy. Glkanter (talk) 11:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC).

Decline reason:

I appreciate that you were involved in discussion on the matter, and that's precisely what is supposed to happen. However, while discussion was ongoing, you continued to revert the article, despite objections to your doing so. Your evaluation of the material is disputed by other editors, and that dispute needs to be resolved before the article can be reverted, ether to your version or a different one as consensus dictates. Your edits constitute edit warring, and thus you appear to have been properly blocked. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I agree with you 100%, as shown by my diffs, above. Unfortunately this article has very adamant editors on both sides. There seems to be no resolution to the dispute (for me, almost 2 years, others for maybe 6 or 7 years now), as the MHP article was accepted for Formal Mediation in December, 2009. Except for 2 brief attempts, there has been no mediator for nearly the entire period since then. My edits remove a POV from the article. This is a statement of fact. That there are editors who dispute this is beyond my explanation. If you haven't already done so, please read the text I've deleted. It's not very long at all. POV and OR violate Wikipedia's 'pillar' guidelines of NPOV and reliable sourcing. Disciplining me does not resolve these violations. In fact, it perpetuates them. Would it bolster my argument if I were to include diffs showing the 'thought process' behind the various editors I disagree with, and how their motives are not in concert with Wikipedia policies? Glkanter (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There is no right and wrong in an edit war. The only exception to the edit warring policy is the reversion of blatant vandalism. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:43, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Glkanter (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My editing method was unchanged from the previous time I was reported, but not blocked. It seems to me that the 'rules' or the 'interpretation of the rules' have been changed without my knowledge, as follows: "Seems as if the editor concerned has learned from previous blocks and is ensuring not to revert more than three times in 24 hours - to be blocked for breaking 3RR, learning your lesson and then get blocked, even though you have stayed within three reverts would be rather harsh. If he is guilty of edit warring, then I would suggest the same applies to all the editors who are reverting the article more than once. Perhaps an admin could protect the article, while discussion continues. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 1:59 am, 5 July 2010, Monday (1 month, 1 day ago) (UTC+10)" [29] Accordingly, I request the return of my editing privileges. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your block has expired. Happy editing. Closedmouth (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

MHP

Is the Monty Hall problem, the solution to which I make no comment about, such an important article thast it is worth edit-warring about to the point of block?--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I have received similar counsel before. I guess all I can say is, 'Yes, to me, it is'. But I don't consider myself an edit-warring outlaw who deserves being blocked. And, without the being blocked part, there are a few more editors who devote as much time and effort to this article, maybe more. The whole thing defies rational explanation, but here we are. And the article continues to be riddled with NPOV and OR editorializing violations, to the readers' detriment. You should read the version from October 27-ish, 2008. It was even worse, then. So to some extent, all this has produced a benefit. Thanks for asking. Glkanter (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in any of this have you admitted that you were edit warring, or agreed not to do it in the future. In the future if you don't want to get blocked again try requesting page protection. If the forms of dispute resolution used so far are not working out, move on to some other type. Just don't edit war, it doesn't accomplish anything except to get you blocked. If you can understand and abide by our policy on edit warring you can be unblocked. If you can't even admit that you were edit warring then your chances of having this block lifted are very slim and your chances of being blocked again in the near future are very high. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me begin my response by saying I understand that by engaging me in this discussion, you are going beyond the call of duty. I appreciate that you are doing this in an effort to make me a better editor and contributor to Wikipedia.

I am certainly willing to use all methods of dispute resolution available. As far as I can tell, none of the editors on the MHP are aware of what those may be, as we have already tried the Mediation Cabal, and are still waiting for a Formal Mediator to be assigned. If you know of other avenues towards resolution, please share them with me (us).

I am familiar with the 3RR. I am also aware that about one month ago, one admin wrote that blocking me for my editing pattern didn't seem right to him, and a second admin agreed. Instead, the second admin scolded all the reverting editors, and protected the article for 30 days. Yesterday/today, that same second admin decided that my same pattern of editing, after a single day, was, indeed, edit-warring. With no warning to me, he blocked me for 72 hours. Then you confirmed his actions, and explained that only as a response to vandalism could I justify my editing pattern. If I look at that statement closely enough, you are describing a 0RR or 'zero revert rule'. But that's different than what 2 admins wrote a month ago. And that's where I have a hard time admitting I did something wrong. Perhaps you could provide a link to this 'vandalism only' policy?

Thanks for your interest in the MHP article. Glkanter (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I had not read about Edit Warring until I followed your link just a few minutes ago. I see that I am on target as I describe 0RR. I also see that reverts are allowed in cases other than vandalism, like when a major policy is being violated. I think POV and OR meet this criteria. Otherwise, my reading is that the admin's judgment is an important component in the block decision. Glkanter (talk) 02:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

POV and OR are clearly not a reason to break 3RR. You're also only allowed 1 unblock request at a time - right now you have 2, and neither will get you unblocked because they do not address the reason you're blocked properly so you might want to remove one (or both). You are validly blocked for edit-warring because you reverted when you officially could not. Read WP:EW and WP:3RR - and most especially WP:BRD.

Thank you for the info. I will remove one of the requests. I did not violate 3RR, wasn't even close. I was blocked for some other reason. Glkanter (talk) 10:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter, you can't have it both ways. You complain about the protection, but then you complain about your block. Obviously, the protection was necessary as we see you resumed edit warring less than an hour after the protection was lifted. So, what do you want to do? Protect it again, having finished more than three weeks of protection? There's a limit to how much blanket protection should be used in lieu of going after individual editors. When there's one editor, in this case you, who consistently revert wars over the article, feeling whatever fight he's fighting is -- as you admit -- worth edit-warring to a point of block, that person needs to be stopped. In the past month and a half, as your block log suggests, you have continuously edit-warred on this particular article, with the only respite coming because of the protection I placed on the article. As I said, it's disruptive, and I will not allow you to wikilawyer your way out of this. If you interpret this as a suggestion for 0RR, fine, all the better. -- tariqabjotu 13:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I do not recall complaining about the protection. I think a warning that the previous reasoning for not blocking me was no longer in affect would have been more appropriate than the block. As for 'Wikilawyering', I do not appreciate personal attacks, regardless of who they come from. Glkanter (talk) 13:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I interpreted this --

I am also aware that about one month ago, one admin wrote that blocking me for my editing pattern didn't seem right to him, and a second admin agreed. Instead, the second admin scolded all the reverting editors, and protected the article for 30 days.

-- as a suggestion that the protection was without good reason.

In any event, let me remind you about what happened just before the protection. First, I'm not sure what 'first admin' you're talking about; I'm the only one who responded to the request. Second, I said "Yes, Glkanter was a -- and maybe the -- major instigator..." I did not say blocking you didn't seem right; I was simply saying there was a long-term problem on the article that wasn't all about you. This brings me back to what I said just now; I can't keep protecting the article forever when you're the major instigator. -- tariqabjotu 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as per my open unblock request, I included this diff [30], where the following was posted:

"Seems as if the editor concerned has learned from previous blocks and is ensuring not to revert more than three times in 24 hours - to be blocked for breaking 3RR, learning your lesson and then get blocked, even though you have stayed within three reverts would be rather harsh. If he is guilty of edit warring, then I would suggest the same applies to all the editors who are reverting the article more than once. Perhaps an admin could protect the article, while discussion continues. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! 또라이 (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)"

I only mentioned the article protection in order to show that the admin response in 2 nearly identical situations was different, without warning or explanation. You, and others, suggest I should consider what I will call 'self-blocking', rather than removing the POV and OR stuff. That has the exact same affect as being blocked, except it is self-inflicted. I respectfully decline the suggestion. Glkanter (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What's your point? Sennen is demonstrably wrong. The purpose of the three-revert rule and the edit-warring policy isn't to stop people from reverting more than three times in a day (or any greater or lesser times per day). It is not intended to create a bright line, which defines what's blockable. The point of the policy is to encourage people to resolve disputes by actually talking to people on the talk page, instead of reverting until they get what they want. You, as demonstrated by your reversion less than an hour after the end of protection (followed by subsequent reversions), along with your poor track record here, have suggested to me that, regardless of what is happening on the talk page, you feel it worthwhile to continue to revert to your version. You are unwilling to wait for a mutual resolution, and I'm not even sure you'll accept a resolution unless it is yours. As I said at the point of the block, this is blatant disruption. -- tariqabjotu 15:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your thoughtful responses. I disagree with your conclusions, but I abide (what choice do I have?) by Wikipedia's policies. If you haven't already done so, please respond to my open unblock request. Thank you. Glkanter (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Re-starting Mediation on The Monty Hall Problem Paradox

I like our chances. Besides being 'right' in the Wikipedia sense, we have this Historical List Of MHP Editors.

Nicely done, Martin.

Glkanter (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote this a long, long, long time ago...

I wrote this after 4 tedious months of discussing the MHP on Wikipedia. None of the people I was arguing with had mentioned to me that the only thing that mattered was the reliably published sources. Armed with this knowledge, I have revised my estimate. Maybe 10% of the current argument fits within Wikipedia policy, not the 5% I originally estimated. Not a single other word requires change.

Conventional Wisdom

I've been re-reading some past postings. According to Rick, this article has been reviewed on 2 occasions as a 'Featured Article', and that much of what I find inessential actually was a (by)-product of those reviews. Rick is proud of 'shepherding' this article through at least one of those reviews.

So, in some ways, I seem to be arguing against Conventional Wisdom. But I don't feel that way. I have a few college courses on this topic, over 30 years ago, and a lifetime of being a data analyst. My viewpoint is, 'There is no possible way I am wrong about this'. To me, this whole discussion has as much to contribute as a discussion of whether the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning.

How does a single voice effectively confront the Conventional Wisdom? This is a question not just for Wikipedia, but any societal system. In the US, a swindler set up a Ponzi scheme on Wall Street. Individual investors went to the regulatory agency numerous times, but to no avail. The guy didn't actually get caught. He turned himself in! How does a minority, but important, voice get heard?

Yes, I look at this entire article, excepting maybe 5% of it, as an elaborate hoax. I think everyone went along because they did not want to admit to limited knowledge of the subject matter. Everybody drank the kool-aid. And the emperor is wearing no clothes.

2/3 of the time I will select a goat. Therefore I should switch. Glkanter (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

original diff

posted on my talk page Glkanter (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of material from case page and archiving of talk page

I've responded to your request by removing it and archiving the talk page. So there is now a clean slate. There will be a period of adjustment as the article talk page ceases to be "that page on my watchlist where I get a regular emotional charge." The mediation will not replace it and will move ahead slowly. Here's hoping the adjustment phase will not be too "bumpy." Sunray (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just searching for the Truth. That's all. Glkanter (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Simple solutions must be accompanied by 'criticisms'

Thanks for your quick and enthusiastic reply to this request. However, I hope speed won't be a big factor in this mediation. Given time to reflect, could you find ways of describing the other view in a more sympathetic manner?

Abraham Lincoln, before his election to President, would challenge his children to argue one side of an issue and then the other, and they couldn't tell which side he supported because he could speak for either side so well.

Anyway, feel free to improve your entry in keeping with the spirit of the exercise.   Will Beback  talk 

Thank you for your inquiry.

No, I cannot accommodate your request. And I do not say this 'regretfully'. To do so would be untrue to the facts, and a disservice to your readers and myself. I can provide links to postings from Nijdam in the last 2 weeks that support the facts and the tone of my writings. Plus, many more earlier such postings. And comments on reverts to my edits. I'm sure I could find similar items from Rick Block, though they would be couched in a more collegial, but no less, imho, NPOV violating, manner.

As for Lincoln, I *could* argue their side (or rather, their view of the opposition's side), but Rick Block and Glopk have both made it's solitary point for me.

Take your time. Do this thing the right way. We had 2 others try doing this the wrong way already. We're well on our way to bringing this to closure. Glkanter (talk) 10:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Other than removing the quotation marks from 'criticisms' in the title of my response, I don't see anything that is unnecessary or not within the spirit of the ground rules you've laid out. I focused solely on the argument, not the editors. If you want me to remove their names, and substitute 'the opposition', or 'the opposing viewpoint' I could do that. But I will not leave that paragraph written with my name associated to it without attribution. Glkanter (talk) 10:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to describe the attitude of "the other side" in explaining the "opposing views"

Hello Glkanter, you said "Martin calls out the insistence that only conditional solutions are true", but that is not his view: Every member had been asked by the mediators to try to "explain the opposing views", as a first step of the mediation, just to show that the opposing arguments have been understood. Each participant is to show that he has understood the opposing arguments, in reproducing them in his own words, and Martin tried to formulate the "opposing view". He is right, the opposing view really insists that only "conditional" solutions were "correct solutions". That's the attitude of our opponents, not Martins. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course. 'Call out' is an idiom, which in this case means 'show the fallacy of' their argument. Glkanter

To decrease verbosity, sub-crap moved to own talk page, please read and comment

Hi Glkanter. I have spent all day "doing my stuff" on the mediation page. In an effort to decrease my verbosity I put up some footnotes to mediation page contributions by me on my 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)

Reading this message could be to your advantage

Please take a look at [[31]]

There you will find out why the answer is "2/3", "switch", and the method is unconditional, but the assumptions are NOT the standard assumptions, the result is much much better, just as easy. Hellpimp showed us the way but no-one noticed. Gill110951 (talk) 18:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this earlier today. It doesn't impact me quite the way it does to you. My rush came with Carlton's conditional decision tree showing that the 'host bias' of 50/50 isn't a requirement to solve the puzzle. Even though on a game show it is required behaviour. Morgan basing their entire paper on this 'missing premise' (mising from vos Savant, but not Selvin) shows how their paper is a waste of ink. But, I stress at this point, in Wikipedia it's the reliable sources, not who is the cleverest at math, or the cleverest at denying ones errors. Glkanter (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you don't realise the big difference it means in the real world to thinking that you think that all doors are equally likely, so initially you'll go for 1, and to realising that you don't know a thing, but you can finesse this by choosing your initial door randomly.

Personally I am committed to the truth not to wikipedia. On wikipedia I try to be a good boy, though. I can take it if the majority of wiki-reliable sources were evidently written by fools. I will try however on the talk pages to get this to cause some embarassment. Gill110951 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess we see a couple of things differently. I'm playing on Wikipedia's ball field, with their ball. Therefore, each reliable source's POV deserves some amount of attention in the article. With their 2010 letter, I have doubts about Morgan being a reliable source, but there are other reliable sources who agree with portions of Morgan's paper. And I have no interest whatsoever in arguing math or 'rightness', as I think Wikipedia's policy is that those concepts are not foremost when editing an article. They take a back seat, as I interpret the policies, to reliable sources and NPOV. Accordingly, I would be happy to discuss the contestant's door decision and it's affect on the outcomes, in some other venue. Glkanter (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Great. Let's do that. You will notice that the "contestant chooses door randomly and then switches" is both a different answer to your answer, and a different question to your question, making different assumptions. I don't want to debate which one is a better question, better assumptions, and better result. But this is an approach which is reliably sourced and which both has an informal version which is good to know and a more sophisticated version which all the smart guys (financial engineers, business school, economists) know about. Take fate into your own hands by throwing your own dice. Finesses all possible complications. You can't think when you're under the lights in the last round of the game show, that's why no-one ever switched, except for the occasional pigeon. You must think this through in advance. You must think out of the box and realize that you have TWO not one decision moments and the first is just as important as the second. Gill110951 (talk) 14:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Secondly of course we are playing on wikipedias ball park when editing wikipedia articles but right now we are in mediation and we have two wize patient competent smart active mediators who have laid out some ground rules, which we have all signed up to. So you don't have to start getting upset when someone else breaks those rules. Wait a moment till the mediators tell them off, and make them lose face. Moreover, when you don't follow the mediator's guidance, you lose credibility with them and you lose face too. Gill110951 (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way how I see things at the moment there are kind of two levels. You can convince everyone that switching is better than not-switching because 2/3 is better than 1/3. I am talking about an unconditional probability here. For whatever reasons I am ignoring the door numbers. Some people think this result is not complete. From the mathematical point of view they are right, because though we've proven "switch, whatever" beats "stay, whatever" we haven't shown there is something else that is better still. But no-one in their right mind can possibly believe one can do strictly better (unconditionally) than 2/3. If so, vos Savant or some smart guy doing computer simulations would have found it long ago. So either we believe this or we prove it, but it sure is true. It follows from this both that all the conditional probalities are at least 1/2 and that the solution "2/3" is *optimal* solution from the game theory point of view. Gill110951 (talk) 14:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In real life, Monty never offered the switch as described in the problem. I think he says that in Selvin's 2nd letter. Hopefully, the Mediators can differentiate between my methods of arguing (perhaps occasionally not meeting their standards of civility, per Wikipedia), and the arguments themselves, calling for for the article to be based on reliable sources without a POV, per Wikipedia. And I don't understand your first sentence about 'different questions' and 'different answers'. I'm the guy who wrote in February, 2009 "2/3 of the time I will select a goat. Therefore I should switch.' I have no idea what this argument is about. Glkanter (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter a damn what Monty said in real life, it matters what is a reliable source on the MHP phenomenon. Secondly I do have an idea what this argument is about, and it's about understanding arguments. Let's examine a small piece. Why are you sure that 2/3 of the time you will select a goat? Do you mean, 2/3 of the time when you picked door 1, or 2/3 of the time you picked any door? How can you be sure of that? Because you have no idea or because you picked a door at random?Gill110951 (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Gill. I only know what I've learned and what I can reasonable conclude. Glkanter (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you can learn a bit more? Or conclude that you can't reasonably conclude quite so much? Please call me Richard. Gill110951 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, Richard, small bites at a time. 1 car, 2 goats, 3 indistinct doors. I don't know the producer's patterns, he doesn't know mine. Which doesn't exist. I say every time I walk on that stage, it's 2/3 I choose a goat. Regardless of which door I select, and why I selected it.

Your criticism "It doesn't matter a damn what Monty said in real life, it matters what is a reliable source on the MHP phenomenon." stings. Because I answered in response to your statement "...that's why no-one ever switched..." Not only did Monty say it, but he said it in a reliable source, Selvins's 2nd letter.

Maybe you can explain the ground rules for this discussion? Because I'm confused. Richard, I'm as 'coachable' as any other 'student' you have or have had. But I respond badly to being criticized for my legitimate response 'In real life, Monty never offered the switch." to your earlier statement, "...that's why no-one ever switched...". And I don't just buy counter-intuitive arguments at face value. For example, I don't believe in the 'Invisible Hand' guiding markets perfectly into a sweet spot. I have no axe to grind with you, but I will offer the layman's view when I think it is different than you're describing. Glkanter (talk) 09:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, never take counter-intuitive arguments at face-value! Trying to follow your layman's argument I translate it into an argument of a professional. Your conception of probability is frequentist, you are thinking of many repetitions. You are *assuming* that 2/3 of the time we will first pick a door which hides a goat.

Do you agree that the following three scenarios are different? Which one do you find most interesting or relevant? Which one should we pay most attention to on the Wikipedia page, following wikipedia standard policies?

Repeat many times always choosing door 1

Repeat many times always choosing a door at random

Repeat many times always choosing a door at random, but then only look at the smaller set of times where door 1 was selected

At random means here completely (or uniformly) at random, which means in this context with probabilities 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. Gill110951 (talk) 11:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Pardon for the intrusion (MHP): The characteristics of the three doors not being further described.
So, when I explicitly say: "You pick a door at random, say No. 1", – is the same evidence already strictly implied in the formulation:
"You pick a door, say No. 1", as well? – As for me, I would say yes.
As for me, the formulations: those three doors have numbers (1-3) .... you pick a door at random, say No. 1 and: the doors don't have numbers, .... you pick a door at random, let's call it "door No. 1" and: You pick a door, say the leftmost, so let's call it "door No. 1" all seem to be identical. Or aren't they? Can that lead to a controversy? Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome, Gerhard! You're right I was not clear enough. For my present purpose, which is to try to open an avenue of communication with my friend Garry, the doors are three distinguishable doors labelled, in advance, with the arabic numerals 1, 2, 3. (But we could also label them red, green, blue; or left, middle, right; or A, B, C; or I, II, III.) Gill110951 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my focus was the word "randomly" or "at random" in picking one of three doors. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard, Garry: Please can you help me on my talk page here? Thank you! Gerhardvalentin (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, as I understand things, I am not a frequentist. 3 doors, 2 goats. 2/3 chance I select a goat. Regardless of which door I select, and why I selected it. Glkanter (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Garry I don't care if you think you are a frequentist or not. *You* talked about many times so for you probabilities appeared to me to be relative frequencies in many repetitions. You are assuming that 2/3 of the time you'll first pick a goat, you said "2/3 of the time I first pick a goat".

Secondly please could you answer the questions! The preamble, which was me thinking out loud, is irrelevant for you. Gill110951 (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I said 'every time I walk on that stage...' If that implies 'frequentism', then I regret using those words. What I *have* said all along is this: "2/3 of the time I will select a goat. Therefore I should switch'. If the conversation is going to continue in this berating fashion, I will choose not to participate, Richard. What is the question you want me to answer? Glkanter (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not mean to berate. OK, 2/3 of the time you walk on the stage, not 2/3 of the time you walk on the stage and select door 1. Let me ask 2 different questions then

(1) How do you know for sure it will be 2/3? (i.e. what is it that you know for sure about game shows which I don't know?)

(2) Are you also sure that it will be 2/3 of the time that you walk on the stage and choose door 1, and 2/3 of the time that you walk on the stage and choose door 2, and 2/3 of the time that you walk on the stage and choose door 3?

I'm just trying to understand your understanding. This is a fascinating job which I have much experience in (understanding the understanding of scientists in other fields) since I consult to all kinds of interesting people in interesting professions, from law to rocket science, one might say. I can only do useful work for them once we are able to communicate. Gill110951 (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard, did I get it correct: No matter how the (secret) original distribution of the three objects may be, but if the guest makes her first choice uniformly at random, she will have a chance of 2/3 to pick a goat! Please have a look [here] also. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

This Is What I'm Hearing...

1. Suppose you're on a game show...

2. "If the contestant chooses doors uniformly at random, the likelihood of initially selecting the car is 1/3, a goat 2/3."

Therefore:

3. "If the contestant does NOT choose uniformly at random, the likelihoods may be different values."

4. I reject the notion that the contestant's method of making that door choice affects the probabilities in the Monty Hall Problem Paradox. Glkanter (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you are not hearing that, because it wouldn't be logical, and you can be sure I only use logically correct arguments. But you are sure you will hit a goat 2/3 of the time, however you choose a door. It's a mathematical theorem that this means that the car is being hidden by the organizers of the quiz show uniformly at random. Gill110951 (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Gill, I'm not formally trained. There's nothing more that I can tell you. Somewhere recently (maybe on one of Martin's talk pages) you wrote something like 'as long as the contestant chooses uniformly at random, he has a 2/3 chance of selecting a door with a goat behind it'. That is the statement I do not agree with. If those were not your words, then I apologize, and we can end this discussion.

Otherwise, please tell me which of the above statements is flawed. Thanks. Glkanter (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am formally trained, which can be both an advantage and a handicap. Let me rephrase my sentence. If you choose your door uniformly at random, you can be certain the chance is 2/3 that your choice hides goat. If you don't choose your door uniformly at random, you can't be certain the chance is 2/3 it hides a goat. (I don't say it isn't 2/3, I say you can't know if it is 2/3 or not). Interesting discussion! Probability is a tricky concept! If you say that the probability is 2/3 because you don't know anyting at all, then you are a subjectivist. Wouldn't it be to your advantage to learn a bit about this fundamental controversy about what it means when we make probability statements about the real world? Does probability reside in our heads, it is about the information we have in our heads about a situation, or does it reside in the situation, objectively. People who use probability have been fighting about this for 250 years, without making any progress. Gill110951 (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right, but I will go on happily in my ignorance, making the best decisions I know how.

(A)

Richard: How did you arrive at your selection of door #1?

Glkanter: I used a random number generator.

Richard: Then the probability is 2/3 that you picked a goat.

or

(B)

Richard: How did you arrive at your selection of door #1?

Glkanter: It's my lucky number.

Richard: Well then, you can't be certain the chance is 2/3 it hides a goat. I'm not saying it isn't 2/3, rather that you can't know if it is 2/3 or not.

I guess that is meaningful to you and those that care to argue about it. Sorry, that does not include me. Glkanter (talk) 23:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It's meaningful to me because it brings me a step closer to understanding your meaning and hence the total rationality and correctness of your argument in its own terms. You're saying, I think, that for you a distinction between (A) random number generator and (B) lucky number is completely irrelevant. That means that in your world, as you walked onto the stage and was asked to choose a door, each door was equally likely to hide the car, and of course your choice method was irrelevant. For the same reason, Monty Hall's choice method when he has one is irrelevant. For the same reason, the door numbers (or colours, or positions) themselves are irrelevant. Since they're strictly irrelevant there is no implication whatsoever in naming them for convenience or concreteness as Selvin, vos Savant and so many before and after have done. Probability for you is about your rational beliefs. It's epistemological, not ontological; "subjectivist" not "frequentist". Like Laplace and a great many other very great and very rational thinkers, past, present, and future. I think that Martin Hogbin also holds instinctively to the position that probability describes rational belief. When one looks at the roots of the word one finds the same view. When one tries to look in the mind of the typical intelligent man in the street, you'll find the same view. According to many scientists in the field now, the "objectivist" position has been a brief aberation for a large part of the 20'th century (roughly: the 20's to the 90's). However, as such, it certainly has played a major role in making great advances in science and technology. Right moving to a new synthesis. Personally I am on the side of the synthesis, the debate had been polarized hence fruitless for too long already. The first step is for each side to realise the self-consistency of the other's view, and to realise that there are situations which call for either view. Gill110951 (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

False Collegiality

God, I hate this aspect of Wikipedia. Rick Block went crying to the mediator about a non-issue. He thinks some recent edits haven't been following the 'mediation groundrules'. The mediator said he didn't see any issue. Rick comes back, this time with a 'starting point' diff of where he thinks the trouble began.

Of course, the 'starting point' diff is one of mine. Rick, intentionally, of course, leaves out the very 1st diff in the thread, the one where his buddy Nijdam makes some specious claims about reliable sources. The one I *responded* to. Typical gamesmanship by Rick. Typical lack of good faith. No way was it not intentional. But, on the mediation page, I can only point out the facts of the omission, provide the link, and wish everyone a happy day. Glkanter (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)