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)

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)

Old Garbage to take care of

How you like me now, Bitch!?