The correct place to discuss that is with the editor who removed the comment, not on the article's talk page. Adding an off-topic section to discuss the removal of off-topic comments just makes matters worse. Use the editor's user talk page. Thanks. Guettarda (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your 'advice'. The problem that I have is that I am unlikely to get any sensible response from the tag-team member who removed my comment. In order to get anything done, I need to attract the attention of other editors. There clearly is a band of editors exerting total control over this page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --TS 13:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Martin,
Ref [1] please note that asking for an explanation of a revert is completely acceptable and should be done on talk. However undoing a revert whilst asking for an explanation, on an article on probation, in my view is edit warring. There is a fine line in an edit war as each side inches a little further forward and there is a degree of arbitrariness on when the line is crossed which is why I am dropping you a note rather than taking action. I am sure that you wish to contribute constructively to this article: please do not edit war. --BozMotalk 07:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. I am not sure that a single revert could be classed as edit warring. Regarding article probation, this requires all editors to act to the highest standards. Reverting a good faith addition (even if inaccurate) with no edit summary and with the change being marked as minor is also not acceptable, especially on an article on probation, and I was bringing this to the attention of all editors as this type of activity seems to be endemic on the GW article. I have mentioned this before on the talk page, only to have my comments deleted. To contact each editor in turn to make the point is not practical.
I accept that my action was a little over zealous but, had the reversion had a short edit summary saying something along the lines of, 'Text not supported by cited source', then I, or any other interested editor, could have checked my facts before reverting. The editor concerned has apologised and that is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Let us hope that everyone has learned a lesson. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this [2] can be regarded as a good-faith addition. Sourcing something clearly controversial to the Daily Mail is not acceptable, even if the material is good, which in this case it wasn't. In 2010, some of the world's most eminent climate scientists said is nonsense. Martin: if you really know the GW topic so badly that you can't recognise this text as obviously unacceptable, then you should make a habit of discussing your proposed edits on talk *first* rather than reverting them back in William M. Connolley (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The text may have been unacceptable and should have been reverted, but not without without comment. A terse edit summary would have done the job. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Martin. That's fine, I am sure you realised I also complained to CC about the lack of edit summary at the same time but I am not sure that I accept the original edit which you reverted back in was good faith; aside it itself being done under "minor" with content which Dalej78 must have realise would be unacceptable, I have been through the last couple of years of Dalej78's edits and it is unclear to me that there have been any positive contributions at all since 2007, just deliberate attempts to undermine the atmosphere. I think the Dalej78 account as it stands would qualify for indef blocking as vandal only. Therefore although I do not doubt your good faith, someone reverting Dalej78 as a minor edit without comment was also understandable. --BozMotalk 10:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do understand the frustration felt by the regular editors of a FA when poor quality material should be added. I also agree that, in many cases, immediate reversion is appropriate, but in the case of a highly contentions topic like this, that is also under probation, there is an onus on both sides to act properly. As I said above, a terse edit summary would have allowed interested editors to check the facts. In the current climate (no pun intended) this should be the expectation for all edits except genuine minor ones (typos etc).
I cannot accept that Dalej78 is a vandal just because his edits do not meet the standards required for an FA. He is clearly trying to balance the article by adding to the 'Debate and scepticism' section. He may be making a bad job of this, but that is not vandalism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit to List of scientists
Whilst I don't disagree or agree with your edit this page has had a lot of wrangling over the text and most changes are discussed on the talkpage, so don't be surprised if it is undone. I do disagree with your edit summary. The page is not a list of 'climate scientists' who oppose the mainstream view, it is a list of 'scientists'. If we had a list of climate scientists first of all it would be difficult to define and secondly we might actually find it difficult to find enough who fit the criteria for a list. Therefore majority does not really properly address this, "vast overwhelming majority" might but then those are words we tend not to use on wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are saying but the article made no sense as it was. I am sure that there are some climat scientists who disagree, so to start with 'climate scientists agree' is nonsense. The first section, and indeed most of the text seems to be promoting what it is that the list of scientists disagrees with. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Monty Hall problem mediation
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.
Hi Martin. I worry that part of the problem at Global Warming is that there are many ways to change the article but only one way for it to stay the same.
I wonder if it would be worth listing the different views on what direction the article should be taking. eg
(The "Improvement "Chart" removed from here and placed at my TalkPage here). MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:25, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience attempts to organise the improvement of a page rarely succeed. Some editors will not participate in your scheme, others will start up their own schemes.
In my opinion the most important problem on the GW page is that of oppressive editing and page ownership, especially the rapid deletion and archiving of discussion. Once these issues are resolved it might be easier to move forward. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a massive problem of page ownership and oppressive editing and it's obvious to a lot of people. TalkPage deletions of other people's comments and rapid archiving are a big part of it. I wondered if a table might highlight the fact there were about 6 editors rejecting all suggestions for improvement, and up to 20 who have changes they'd like to make. The stone-walling we see damages the cooperation that many other editors long to embrace. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would find that any attempt to poll editors in the way that you suggest will be rapidly sabotaged. By all means give it a try. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about hosting it on your page? I could lift the whole thing and put it on mine, were mine not sullied by very respected but angry-looking experts making accusations that "of course the article is fit for purpose, how dare you suggest otherwise".
In the not too-distant future, some editors might face demands "if your name is not linked to a view on Martin's page it must be because you're fringe and progress here will continue without you". Two can play at the game "you're not main-stream, therefore we can ignore you". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your page would be better. It is your idea. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you feel that any of the options fully reflect your current position and would you be willing to enter your name, and a synopsis of your position, in the appropriate place? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to add my name. I think one section should read 'Censorship currently makes cooperative editing and improvement possible'. This is the key issue to me. Also maybe 'the section on debate and skepticism should reflect the views of sceptics' Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There we are, make any other suggestions and I'll take it away. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is all yours. Now we need to get the views of other editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine this being a slow-burning project and I'm contacting critics of the article first. If I can get a reasonable turn-out (perhaps 20 or so) then I can list and/or request that supporters of the current article show their hand. All suggestions gratefully recieved. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should formulate this as a RFC. Contacting critics of the article first seems like a poor choice of strategy. Surely the opinions of the uninvolved would be more useful. --TS 16:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to help with this important project, you'd be very welcome. You could start by adding your name to the "basically going OK" category, with any caveats you have. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have been requested by Awickert (talk) to provide examples here of "GW article reads like an advertisement". MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I remarked to MalcolmMcdonald on a separate subject:
You're becoming a stuck record, ignoring the clearly stated comments of other editors and coming back again and again to the same rejected suggestions, like an old fashioned gramophone whose needle has stuck in part of the record, replaying the same section of music repeatedly.
You've asked the same question repeatedly on talk:global warming: [3][4][5]. The answer to this question, you've been told, is complex, yet you repeat the question demanding an answer. This seems unrelated to improving the article (and thus the potential problem here is more egregrious than in MalcolmMcDonald's case).
There are appropriate forums and blogs in which you could pose this question and argue over the reponses. Wikipedia is not one of them.
Please clarify how you see this line of questioning improving the article, and stop simply parroting the same question. --TS 16:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind remarks. I have covered the issues that you have raised on the article talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have repeatedly made real and detailed suggestions to improve the Global Warming article, my own particular gripe (backed by numerous examples) being that the article fails to be informative. I've yet to come across examples where the article could be descibed as informative. For this I suffer personal attack.
Other people have other serious gripes about the article, eg "Include politics of GW", "the views of sceptics are not represented properly", "Censorship makes cooperative editing and improvement extremely difficult" and "Article reads like an advertisement". I don't understand why it's such a problem to write this article to be useful to readers. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Conformance to the Copenhagen Accord must have had some expected gain in GW terms. It would be useful and informative if the article were to state a value for this. What is the problem with doing so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of this article or suite of articles is (presumably) to make information easily accessible. Instead of which, it sometimes appears that the article is being made as un-helpful as possible. Sorry to bang on about things, but "Amazon" and "desertification" have been taken out - how can that be helpful? No mention of the Antarctic - an astonishing omission! If people can't answer questions on TalkPages, then it becomes doubtful they can write articles that answer questions either. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Malcolm you are confusing "not anwering" with "not knowing". Wikipedia policy does not allow for talk-pages to become a question&answer forum. We are "refusing to answer" questions that is not going to improve the article. You have to turn to blogs or other forums to get answers to your questions. We are also not here to seek the WP:TRUTH, but instead to describe the subject, as seen from science.
Some of your questions btw. are answered on Wikipedia, but they are answered on sub-articles, since every topic cannot be discussed at the top-level article.
There are so many different sub-topics that are related to global warming, that the top-level article only summarizes some articles, which again may have summaries of several other articles. At each step details are lost, that is not from ignorance, but from necessity. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see people not being helpful in direct interaction and it immediately explains what I and so many others have noticed, the product of this labour is almost completely unhelpful. I've proved that so often, from so many angles, that I'm getting sick of repeating myself.
Then I make suggestions to improve the article and I'm told off for "advocating". I cannot deny it. I advocate that the article should inform its readers/provide answers to their questions. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 19:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule against collecting opinion from already involved editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I didn't think there should be. But I need to do a list of all the people to ask. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 21:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The trouble is, from what i can detect, that your defintion of how the article would be "usefull" isn't encyclopedic. An encyclopedia "attacks" a topic/subject from a standpoint significantly more like a text-book, than a Q&A/Debunking angle. We are here to describe what science says about the subject, and from the balance/view that scientists consider important. What you seem to be looking for is something that can answer your questions about the current news-cycle on global warming, and for that you need to go to other sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is entitled 'Global warming' not 'The science of global warming'. It should therefore cover the whole subject, including, science, causes, effects, mitigation, adaptation, and politics. The mitigation action of states, for example, is not controlled by science but by a mixture of science and politics. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I always thought an encyclopedia was written to answer questions, to solve arguments, to inform. I never realised that articles were intended to teach along the line of text-books. In fact, I wonder where that comes from. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@ Martin Hogbin - making some other changes, I've taken out the part where you said the chart is for the GW article only. Though you may have a clearer idea on this than me and be right. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 12:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is your chart, so I guess that I should have left you to answer the question. Might I suggest that you create a special page in your user space for the table. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
For [6]. I was probably silly not to start a new section. BTW I think it was Boris not TS who complained (but I think it is fine, and if you do kind of break any rules along the lines of "now we know what we want lets russle up a lynch party" I will try to discuss it with you first). --BozMotalk 13:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's right. My comments were that it might be better as a RFC and instead of involved parties (for and against the global warming article in its present form) it might be more helpful to seek opinions from those uninvolved. --TS 14:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Improvement Chart is a work in progress to try and discover what changes have widespread support amongst people who've tried to make other improvements. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you tried analyzing how the successful improvements in the article actually take place? By examining these and comparing with those that have been proposed but failed, you might get a good handle on how to make successful proposals. --TS 14:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know how "improvments" are done. Just when a discussion on the value of key-words is attempted (maybe they're the single most important and valuable aid to readers navigating for specific information/references?) and shortly after we were told we're stupid for not doing this already, vested editors come along and further reduce the small number of key-words in the article. That happened during a process where there were editors trying to stop the censorship.
WP:PRESERVE states "Try to preserve useful content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained and the writing tagged if necessary, or cleaned up on the spot". Care to guess how that works in practice? MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
TS, I do not need to make proposals. This is Wikipedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Please tell me why you would not want key data on AGW mitigation to be in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can I possibly plea for the article to be shorter not longer? BTW there are fixes on the key words which work for search engines using section redirects (create an article with the name you think the search should win and e.g. Freaking Hawking put in something like #REDIRECT [[Stephen Hawking#Appearance on the Simpsons]] of course we need to decide whom we wish to send where, and a lot of admins get tetchy about articles created to redirect but you don't have to mention the key word to get the query whereever you want, and if you do it with a bit of discussion first it should survive trial by fire. --BozMotalk 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure this on the right page, I have no idea what you are talking about. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry mainly it was at Malcolm ref the comment above on keywords. Agree I will tell him somewhere else sometime. --BozMotalk 22:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very interested to hear from you on this subject. But my proposal does not concern raising the article in Google ratings, but including key-words in each article (eg "Amazon" and "Antarctic", puzzlingly missing from the main Global Warming article) with links leading to sub-articles containing the detail. It's not difficult to get to the articles, it's the difficulty of navigating them that is so frustrating. As we were told, Good grief, how much spoon-feeding do you need?, we're meant to navigate by "search" on words within articles. Unfortunately, this won't work unless we facilitate it by providing the "key-words" people will tend to use. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that no one wanted to discuss what you had to say on talk:Global warming. But thank you so much for showing the good faith and trying to start a new section on content. So it goes :( Awickert (talk) 03:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Amendment to Arbitration
Hello, Martin Hogbin. This is to inform you that there is a request for amendement regarding an arbitration case that you have commented on.Likebox (talk) 05:03, 8
Standing in the way of a productive mediation
You seem to be spending more time criticizing me or your opposing parties than contributing to a productive mediation. Furthermore I urge you to be open-minded as to the real-time option which has "unstuck" many intractable mediations in the past; your statement that you "will not accept mediation through those media" is obstructionist and unhelpful. Andrevan@ 21:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not criticized you or those you call my opposing parties. You asked (referring to IRC) , 'Does everyone feel comfortable with that sort of approach?'. I have replied that I am not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modification of Brews' sanctions
Thanks for your generous support in modification of my sanctions. Unfortunately, and for no stated reasons, no change is likely. I am sorry that no assessment of the suggestions and evidence was made. Brews ohare (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed only fair to me that you should be able to express your own opinion in your own user space. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that Pedant17's motivation does not seem so clear cut to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, it was not I that came to the assessment that Pedant17 was motivated by E-Prime, but multiple different editors previously-uninvolved with this particular article, and I agree with them. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Paywall source?
Regarding this request: I've sent you an email. I'll see if I can locate an online transcript of the Feynman lecture. Gabbe (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your sugestion, I'm sorry an editor dismissed it so flippantly. I would hope you could participate in the discussion further the article could benefit from the neutral perspective of uninvolved editors. Respectfully, RomaC (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know if you'll see this. But I've been blocked from articles, discussion pages, and even, it seems, most talk pages. And as I pointed out that the blocking was unjustified, I don't expect that will change any time soon. So I don't know if you'll even see this. 216.239.82.80 (talk) 10:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your message OK. How long have you been blocked for? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A higher up person in Wikipedia persisted the blocking. Now I'll probably be in trouble for being on another IP. 216.239.88.76 (talk) 07:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC) also known as 216.239.82.80[reply]
My suggestion would be that you register then explain that you are currently blocked for edit warring and ask to be unblocked. Registering gives you a fixed identity on WP. Once you are unblocked you need to take care to remain within the rules of WP by not holding discussions on the article page and not edit warring. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
April 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Doctor Who. 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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. magnius (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I note that you do not appear to be a recent contributor to the article or an administrator so I am not sure on what basis you are contacting me.
Your comments on the matter in question would be of interest as there seems to be a number of non-British editors having a bizarre argument with some native British English speaking editors as to the normal word used in British English to refer to a set of episodes. I note that you use the term 'series' on your user page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are not limited to participants who speak a particular variant of the language. The discussion is a bit bizarre but you started said discussion, which is about the use of "season" or "series" relating to the classic episodes of Doctor Who and not what is the normal word for all British television programmes. Please take care to not misrepresent your fellow editors when restating their comments. Many scores of people have Doctor Who on their watchlist. The above warning likely comes from seeing the article in their watchlist. That is how i came across the discussion. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 21:02, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tesla vs. Marconi deletion
I dispute your assertion (again) that the Tesla vs. Marconi section within Invention of radio is irrelevant to the article. Please do not remove it again without obtaining consensus on the article's Talk page. HarryZilber (talk) 00:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you would like to discuss the issue on the article talk page then. I have been trying to do this for some time, with no response from anyone. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi martin. Given the disagreements we had concerning evolution as fact or theory, I thought you might wish to weigh in at this discussion at the NPOV page. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for thinking of me. I will take a look. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IPA
Thanks for chiming in. I agree with everything you say. For months I tried to argue the same things you are saying, but I got bullied off the discussion with abuse, personal attacks, and downright insulting behaviour, but I refused to be drawn into incivility by the two defendants of everything that's wrong with their private version of the use of the IPA and its implementation in the Wikipedia.--Kudpung (talk) 15:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I am new to this subject, I was drawn in by the Worcester RfC but soon realised that the issue was much broader than Worcester.
As I see it, a relatively small bunch of editors have attempted to deal with the issue of multiple English pronunciations and have come up with a half-baked scheme that abuses the IPA and is ill-suited to the needs of WP. Worse still they are attempting to enforce their scheme throughout the encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your perception is 100% accurate. It is sad that (bunch = 2) they are totally intransigent and remain so by blinding normal readers with pompous linguistic jargon (God knows, I' a linguist...), smoke screens, strawman arguments, deliberate off-tracking, and even exceptionally insulting behaviour. Ironically also, neither of them appear to be even qualified linguists, or to have a first hand knowledge of British English! I have prepared a proper RfC with a neutral proposition, with the help of some friends, to discuss this IPA issue. If you wish to see the draft and make any suggestions, you would have to let me know how I can contact you off line, because while it was in my sandbox it just caused more abuse and ill sentiment.--Kudpung (talk) 00:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is free to email me at wiki@hogbin.org Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Survey
Hi Martin,
I am a PhD student at the Open University of Catalonia. I am currently preparing a research project about the governance processes in online collaborative communities, and I would like to kindly ask for your collaboration based on your experience in Wikipedia. Interested in participating? Please drop me a note in my talk page. This would take around 20 of your time.
Thanks for your note. Looking forward to getting your answers. Aresj (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional solution references in lead and/or explanation
Do you object to including sentences like, "The Monty Hall problem can also be solved by a conditional probability problem, see #below." being placed in the lead or the initial explanation sections? Andrevan@ 17:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we had all agreed that the lead is fine as it is. What is the sentence supposed to mean? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead wasn't the key point I was asking about, so feel free to disregard it. Andrevan@ 22:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a typo? I do not understand what it means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I asked if you objected specifically to including references to an explanation of the conditional probability analysis of the Monty Hall problem and related sub- or parallel problems in the sections which are actually primarily dealing with the simple approach. Andrevan@ 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC) 00:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I object strongly to anything that might make the reader believe that the simple solution might give the wrong answer or answer the wrong question or that even sows the seeds of doubt in their minds about these things. "The Monty Hall problem can also be solved as a conditional probability problem" [presumed typo corrected] could suggest that there are two answers to the problem, one obtained by the simple solution and the other by means of conditional probability. Thus the reader may feel that to get the 'real' answer they have to study the conditional solution.
I also see no purpose in a statement that tells the reader that there are two ways of solving the problem when this will be self-evident from the fact that, immediately after, we show two ways of solving the problem. Any talk of 'other ways' or conditional probability etc should come at the start of the conditional solution section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clafication
Hi Martin, I just wanted to let you know that my edit summary ("Removed bad advice" ) for this removal of the two sections at Talk:Theory of relativity was not referring to the advice you gave at the bottom, but to this anonymous remark. The idea was to avoid talk page degeneration into another sci.physics.relativity madness ;-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. I thing the OP was a genuine young enquirer and probably did look at the pages that I referred him to, but I understand your point. The talk pages are not really the place for teaching and learning about the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. By the way, your further assistance might be needed here or on the relevant page and talk page. Thanks - DVdm (talk) 10:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to help. I have already commented as you have probably seen but I will try talking to the guy. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification
As you have commented in an ANI thread or RfC relating to User:Pedant17, this is to notify you that the same user's conduct is being discussed here, along with sanction proposals. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly time to go to the Conflict of Interest noticeboard
I have left some advice on Blackash's userpage and told her that I am considering reporting her to the Coi noticeboard. She was reported once before but the discussion seems to have simply fizzled out. I plan on waiting about 48 hours to see if it sinks in before acting on this. I imagine you agree? If not please let me know what you think the best option is. Thanks, Colincbn (talk) 14:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the talk page, I propose to move the page to a neutral title. If, after I have done that, if Blackash's reverts I think that would show a clear conflict of interest which should be reported to the COI noticeboard. If the new title holds then we can start discussing a new title more sensibly. I still would not rule out reporting a COI but I think it would be best to move the page first. What do you think? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like either COI noticeboard or user RfC are the only options left now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Arborsculpture
If there is any “wiki-legal” way to re-open the proposal to change the title of the article about arborsculpture to “Arborsculpture” that is exactly what we should so. THIS is the verifiable, written evidence I would have introduced had the debate not closed so quickly. --Griseum (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the talk page, I am planning to move the page to a neutral title. We can then start the discussion about where it should finally be. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like either COI noticeboard or user RfC are the only options left now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we can't change the title to match the article another option might be to change the article to match the title. In other-words rewrite the article to be about actual "tree shaping" and not Pooktre. Then the impetus would be on other editors to show the term "tree shaping" is not used to mean that which it is used to mean. Colincbn (talk) 03:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not a good idea. It would be seen by many as disruptive. Like you, I have no real interest in arborsculpture but I see what is happening on that page as an attack on the integrity of WP. It seems that one editor is able to manipulate the whole system for commercial advantage. I think COI noticeboard and user RfCs are the only way to go. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except for User:Blackash, everyone who has opined on the matter of the arborsculpture article, even those disagreeing with us, seems to have the improvement of Wikipedia as a motive. Please keep that in mind as we proceed. While I empathize with your level of frustration, statements like “...I suggest that you do not give up your day job” aren't going to help our cause. Thanks. --Griseum (talk) 09:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is hard to know what to say when dealing with frivolous non-sequiturs but I take your point. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
She is now trying to rid the entire article of the word Arborsculpture. I have never brought another user to the noticeboards, but I think someone must. I do not know the procedure but if someone can point me to the right way of doing it I suppose I would be willing. Colincbn (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only suggest a user conduct RfC. I do not know exactly how you do this but I know it need two complaints. I am happy to support you in opening one. The alternative is just to revert all removals of the 'Arborsculpture'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This is the draft I wrote on fermentation process for the article kimchi which you suggested me to write. Please have a look and tell me what you think. I sent the same draft to User:Knorrepoes too, and asked him to proofread and revise it. Thanks. Hkwon (talk) 17:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The vegetables are sliced, highly seasoned with ingredients such as red pepper, onion, and garlic, and fermented in brine traditionally in large earthenware jars. Dried and salted shrimp, anchovy paste, and oysters are sometimes used as additional seasonings. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).The fermentation process is initiated by various microorganisms originally present in the raw materials, but is gradually dominated by lactic acidbacteria. Numerous physicochemical and biological factors influence the fermentation, growth,
and sequential appearance of principal microorganisms involved in the fermentation.[1] The early and intermediate phases of fermentation are considered crucial to the taste of kimchi. When optimally ripened, acidity increases with sourness and a unique flavor with refreshing and coolness results from ethanol and other products.[2]
During fermentation, which takes approximately one month depending on weather conditions, the kimchi jars are stored totally or partially underground in cellars or sheds built expressly for this purpose. Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page). Recently, however, kimchi refrigerators have become very popular in South Korea. This household electronic device maintains the temperature for the proper fermentation of kimchi, saving the trouble of burying kimchi jars underground. [3]
It looks OK to me but I know nothing about the subject. I was also hoping that thes section might say when kimchi is fermented and under what circumstances it is eaten unfermented. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling of Spitsbergen RFC
I've refactored my comment, and replied to your question at the RFC. Let me know if there are any further issues. Mjroots (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it was my mistake, I misread the heading - see reply on talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I have replied on the mediation page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
interjections in talk
Martin - You've lately been breaking up comments without making it clear who's saying what. I've fixed a couple of these but can you please be more careful about this? In general, there's usually no reason you need to interject. Adding your comments at the end is almost always just fine. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it makes it easier to address individual points, I will try to be more careful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! beat me to it! I was drafting a proposal for just that. Xyl 54 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the entry for Oligarch in "Merchant ships" was the same; did you have a reason for not doing that too? Xyl 54 (talk) 23:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just missed it. Pleas feel free to change it, we seem to have a consensus. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No reason for this to be a separate article. This appears to be mainly about the speed of light rather than the Metre. The main article on Metre already mentions this redefinition as is the appropriate place for this.
I have nominated Redefinition of the Metre in 1983, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Redefinition of the Metre in 1983. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 13:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MHP analysis
Okay Martin how general do you want the problem to be?Nijdam (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Standard game rules, Monty always offers the swap and always opens an unchosen goat-hiding door. Initial car placement, player initial door choice, and host goat door choice not specified. Was there something in particular that you were thinking of? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Spitsbergen, (again!)
Hello Martin
Ive moved your comment down, as it was confusing where it was ( I trust you take no offense) and Ive replied (it's here).Xyl 54 (talk) 22:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I was just trying to make my position clear, which is that the place is now properly called 'Spitsbergen' in English. I agree any historic names of other things ,such as the 'Spitzbergen group' of ships should be spelled as thay were a the time. Please let me know if this is not clear and I will clarify. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
reformat
Hi. I reformatted because at first I didn't see your comment that was within my message unsigned and it might be confusing to others by being placed that way, as far as who said what. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge decision for Redefinition of meter in 1983 at DRV
Thanks for drawing my attention to this. I have responded at the deletion review - basically, I made a mistake in judging the consensus in this case, and would support the decision being overturned to no consensus. Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. What happens now? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm not sure. From the DRV, I would have thought that it will be overturned - but how that's done (and when) I'm not sure - it'll be an education for me too! I assume that the admin who closes the DRV will do the deed. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, it's too bad I didn't see the message in time to participate. I would have suggested "overturn to keep" based on 1) existence of multiple reliable sources, 2) WP is not paper, and 3) the fact that it was an especially important redefinition of the unit. Also, this is fundamentally an editing question (structurally speaking, how can we most effectively present the information about the history of the meter) rather than a notability one, so it is not proper for AfD's, but should rather be discussed on the talk pages.
It's an example of a growing awkward side effect of the AfD culture - that related topics tend to get crammed into big unreadable monster articles, lest each part individually get deleted. In the big picture, this is detrimental to one of wikipedias core structural advantages over paper - namely the "mass of concise readable articles nicely interlinked" paradigm. It also makes it difficult to maintain interlinks to specific sub-topics. For example, if a reader is on a page about scientific redefinitions and clicks a link to the 1983 redefinition of the meter, she will get redirected to the article on the meter, when she is only looking for information about the particular redefinition. This happens to me all the time when I'm simply reading wikipedia and it's very annoying. AfD hero (talk) 05:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your interest. The issue has been resolved now, the article was reprieved and it has now ben expanded to incluse the whole history of the metre. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation resumes
The mediation of the MHP case has re-started. If you wish to participate, would you be willing to check in on the case talk page here? Note that the mediators have asked that participants agree to certain groundrules. Sunray (talk) 06:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martin. 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 my new mediation page contributions 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)
SoL and the asymmetry of the krypton line
I thought I'd reply here to your question about how the asymmetry of the krypton line increases the measurement uncertainty of the SoL measurement, as I don't think it's controversial and the section on the talk page is getting very long ;)
What happens with an asymmetric line in interferometry is that the interference fringes get "smudged out" – that is, they are broader than would be expected for a simple Lorentzian line shape and so the fall-off in intensity between fringes is more gradual. As you're not actually "counting" fringes, but measuring intensity over a (relative) length scale, so as to be able to get "thousandths of fringes" for example, the lower variation in intensity over length means that you can be so sure as to how far along the fringe you are (for any given precision of intensity measurement, to which there are of course limits). So yes, this appears in your random measurement uncertainties as well.
I hope this clarifies things for you, feel free to drop me a line if you want to discuss it further. Physchim62(talk) 15:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Time out?
Hello Martin, do you take a break or something alike, or can we continue the analysis of MHP?Nijdam (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am still here. I must have missed your most recent posts. Please could your read and respond to my comment on the analysis talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, please continue the discussion on the combined doors solution. Nijdam (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're willing, I would appreciate some feedback and criticism from you on trimming "bloat", smoothing out the parts where the text was merged, indicating important points that should be included, and whatever else on a draft for a merged article to replace the Centrifugal force and Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame) articles. In writing the draft and in the rationale for a merger, I'm looking at example #3 at Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Deciding_to_disambiguate where this would be the primary topic for the most common usage, with a hatnote to the one other usage of the term (the reactive centrifugal force). I realize that it is still a bit of a frankenstein cut-and-paste from the other two pages, but I didn't want to lose some of the good work and wording by other editors. I've found that it is helpful when advocating for a change to present a concrete example of an alternative rather than an abstract idea, so I'd like to get a polished (but not necessarily perfect) draft together before restarting a merge discussion. So like I said, any feedback and criticism would appreciated. --FyzixFighter (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we sandbox this somewhere. Rather than a hatnote to another article I would suggest just a section 'Alternative meanings'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: sandboxing - do you mean a sandbox in article space as opposed to my userspace? In other words, where is the appropriate "somewhere"? --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No anywhere is fine with me. Actually I am not so sure it is a good idea to do it this way round now. I think it be difficult to get consensus for replace a whole article with a pre-written one. I think it would be best to work on the two articles as they are now with a view to proposing a merge again. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
arbitration case
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Monty Hall problem and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk) · @144 · 02:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin - a number of the edits in your evidence section are anonymous - is this you logged out? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry I forgot to log in. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're still a bit over on your wordcount in the evidence section (around 350 words). It is a valuable contribution, but do you think you could rewrite it a little shorter, or indicate if anything you have said is a direct response to evidence elsewhere (as that is generally not included in the 1000 words). Thanks. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oblateness in the plane of rotation
So what caused the oblateness of the earth in its plane of rotation?WFPM (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Everything below is from the viewpoint of Newtonian physics.
Some philosophy of physics
You can ignore this bit if you like.
Physics does not purport to explain in an absolutely fundamental sense why things happen. Physicists leave that to philosophers and the religious. Physics aims to generate an accurate, and preferably philosophically pleasing, quantitative model of what does happen, that is all.
I certainly agree with that!!!!WFPM (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Frames of reference
You said that you were confused about frames of reference. A reference frame is a conceptual framework (it has no physical reality) against which all distances and motion are measured. You might think of it as a grid of invisible lines. These lines could be in a rectangular grid, like 3D graph paper or in polar coordinates, like the lines of latitude and longitude on the Earth. Whether we measure something to be moving or not, or whether we measure it to be accelerating or not depends on what frame of reference we measure it against.
When I was reading Einstein about his theory of relativity he made the point that when an observer was stationary or even in non-accelerated motion in Euclidian space, all other non-accelerated motion would be observed to be in a straight line. So when you track non-linear motion, you are in some kind of non-Euclidian motion.WFPM (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Inertial frames
Although whether we measure something to be accelerating or not depends on our frame of reference, there does seem to be a fundamental difference between motion at a constant speed in a straight line, and acceleration. This difference is embodied in Newton's laws, which tell us that a body continues in a straight line at constant speed unless a force acts upon it. A body with no forces acting on it is said to move inertially. A reference frame in which every point is moving inertially is an inertial frame, in other words, if there wire no forces like gravity acting (say in outer space), you could place a marble at every intersection of your grid lines of an inertial frame and it would just stay there. Inertial frames are very natural, and it is only in inertial frames that Newton's laws apply. This sounds like observations made by an observer that is stationary or in non-acceleration linear motion.WFPM (talk) 18:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Non-inertial frames
A non inertial is one which is accelerating in one way or another. This could be linear acceleration or rotation, which is a constant acceleration towards the center of rotation. In an accelerating frame an object moving inertially would be measured to accelerate, thus Newton's laws do not apply in a non-inertial frame, unless we adjust them in some way. Non-inertial frames are weird. Weird to explain with relation to Newton's principles, which still apply to the motion.WFPM (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Measurements in different frames
The values for distance, velocity, and acceleration depend on the reference frame in which we measure them but it is a generally accepted principle of physics (and common sense) that what happens is the same in any reference frame. The Earth bulges at the equator whether you describe the physics in an inertial frame, a frame rotating with the Earth, or a frame rotating in the opposite direction. All that changes is the explanation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you can make statements which don't involve frames of reference, like that the earth is oblate, and infer from that that there is a force of repulsion of material in the outward direction from the axis and in the plane of axial rotation that is a factor in controlling the non-spherical shape of the material of the earth, which would otherwise be spherical due to the action of the gravitational force.WFPM (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The shape of the Earth is, of course, the same in any frame of reference but the explanation as to why this is so differs according to your reference frame, see below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why the Earth bulges at the equator
Explanation in a non-rotating frame
In a non-rotating frame a small piece of rock at the equator is moving as the Earth spins. The only forces acting on it are the gravitational force of the rest of the Earth and any elastic forces between it and the rest of the Earth. It its inertia makes it tend to move in a straight line as the gravitational and elastic forces of the rest of the Earth pull it continuously round in a circular path. Just as the water does in a cf pump, the piece of earth on the equator tends to move outward from the Earth in its inertial tendency to continue in a straight line.
The rock adopts the right position so that the combination of elastic and gravitation forces are just right to cause it to move in a circular orbit of slightly greater radius that the average for the Earth.
So now we have to examine as to what constitutes the so called elastic force that counteracts the so called gravitational centrical attractive force on the earths constituent materials. And then we note that the materials are rotating around the center of gravitational attraction of the earth. And thus on an individual mass value basis we conceive as to the existence of a force of repulsion of the rotating individual mass, and determine its value to be proportional to its kinetic energy value, divided by its radius of circular motion value. and we name that the "Centrifugal force" value. And since it's an operative force, why should we deny its existence.WFPM (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because such a force is not necessary to explain what happens the material that makes up the Earth at the equator tries to continue in a straight line. In a gravitational system the direction of motion is toward the center of gravity. Only in a rotating system is there motion at right angles to the axis of rotation, and that motion has to be constrained to prevent the radius from expanding. And that force of restraint acts against the force of gravitational attraction in the equatorial plane as per Sokolnikoff.
Besides that's what it said in my Sokolnikoff reference.WFPM (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)However, when you get right down to fundamentals, Purists have a right to deny the legitimacy of both the instantaneous centrifugal and gravitational force values on the basis that they are not values in a constant direction but are momentary values in a transient direction. And that's where you get into arguments about the rules of Euclidian geometry activity.WFPM (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't. I thought that you were interested in learning some physics, not telling me about 'Euclidian geometry activity'.Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing my best to learn about the rules of physical activity, and what we have here is what Paul Newman called "a lack of communications" about the details.WFPM (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation in a frame rotating with the Earth
Problems involving the Earth are often ones where use of a rotating frame can make things easier. In a frame rotating with the Earth, every point on the Earth is stationary. To explain the bulge in the equator, we invoke an special force that is required to make Newton's laws apply in our rotating frame, this is the centrifugal force, which pulls the equator out. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)The only frame that I can think of where every point of the earth of the earth is stationary is that at the earth's center of gravity and in a rotating condition matching that of the earth. And from that frame we would never even notice that the earth was rotating.WFPM (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)And if the frame were not rotating, we could notice the lateral motion of the earth's constituents and thus the amount of their angular motion. But we wouldn't be able to measure the axial distance and it would look like the image of our system of starlight illumination and we wouldn't know about the oblateness of the system.WFPM (talk) 20:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC) But if the oblateness exists and we can't avoid the issue, we must assume the existence of some force capable of shaping the 3 dimensional property spacial distribution of the earth's material constituents. And that seems to be due to the fact that in linear motion all the masses components partake equally in the contained Kinetic energy of the system, whereas in circular motion they don't and thus require a special set of rules that explains how the contained kinetic energy is distributed among the constituents of the rotating matter, and which involves the angular rotation and resulting angular momentum value properties of the individual masses of the matter.WFPM (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC) And since both linear and angular momentum values increase with linear velocity values, whereas the kinetic energy value increases as the linear velocity squared, it may be stated that the angular momentum of a rigid system of rotation increases in proportion to the square root of the increase in kinetic energy.WFPM (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)And thus, under a condition of stable rotary motion, there is no way for a linear force to correct this unbalance in contained kinetic energy, but only a way to add or subtract an incremental amount of kinetic energy, which is internally equitably distributed among the rotating system constituent mass values.WFPM (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that your understanding of physics is different from mine, there is no point continuing this conversation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 04:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As to Newton's understanding of the concept of Centrifugal force, you might read what he said about it in Volume 2 of his Principia.WFPM (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am always happy to discuss the subject with you, I have moved the question here and will respond here shortly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same problem with the "combined doors solution".
The chosen door No. 1 has chance 1/3 on the car. Hence the doors No. 2 and No. 3 together have 2/3 chance on the car. As the opened door No. 3 shows a goat, the remaining door No. 2 has chance 2/3 on the car.
Explain, how i.e. door No. 2 can have chance 1/3 on the car, due to the random placement, and also chance 2/3 on the car, as stated in the reasoning. Nijdam (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nijdam, you continue to try to teach me what I already know. Let me start by giving you a brief moment of victory. Using modern probability theory and with the sample space that you prefer and seem to assert is the only possible one to use, what you ask cannot be done. You are quite right, on the basis that you prefer, the "combined doors solution" makes no sense.
However, there are other ways of tackling this problem, even within modern probability theory. Please explain to me why you select the sample space that you do. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:20, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If this is victory, so be it. But you did not explain anything. Sorry, Martin, most of our discussions end by you finally not responding. What sample space are you talking about? Be my guest and select your own sample space and derive the appropriate probabilities. Nijdam (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have done this before. My sample space consists of only two elements. The player originally picks a car having probability 1/3, and the player originally picks a goat - probability 2/3.
The combining doors explanation merely shows what we both well know, that if the player switches they get the complement of their original choice. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your sample space is not appropriate for the MHP. For instance, how do you express that the host opens door 3, or how that door 3 hides a goat. Etc. See, that's why I say, you're still a layman on probability. I've tried to explain you a lot, but somehow you refuse to understand. I say on purpose "refuse", because I'm sure you're capable of understanding. I'll give you the tools: the variables C (car), X (choice) and H (host) may be used to describe the MHP. No one of these three can be left out. Other sample spaces are equivalent. As far as I recollect, we used these on your MHP analysis page. Now back to the question. Nijdam (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say of C, X, and H may not be left out but that is not so. It is quite obvious that door numbers are not relevant to this problem. As Richard Gill has said, there is a stage before you put the problem into mathematical form where you have to decide how to formulate the question in mathematical terms. For a start, you must decide what sample space is appropriate to the problem. You have to make a decision as to what events are independent of the event of interest before you start to put the problem into mathematical terms. You already do this, it seems without realising it. Please tell me why, for example, the event that the host says the word 'pick' is not included in your sample space in any way? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please Martin, not again. To describe any situation in the MHP problem, we need as a minimum C, X and H. That's why I say no one of these can be left out. Of course you may enlarge your sample space, i.e. with an event taking account of the host saying "pick" or whatever. That is not the issue. The issue is you can not do with less than C, X and H (or equivalent). Focus on this, and then respond to the question, at last. Nijdam (talk)
I have already agreed that, with a sample space based on door numbers in the way you suggest, the 'combining doors' solution makes no sense. There is no question to respond to, you are correct.
My question to you is this. Given Whitaker's question, what is it that tells you that a sample space using C,X, and H to represent door numbers chosen by various people is the correct sample space? What exactly tells you that including the word 'pick' is not necessary? What tells you that my sample space of only two elements is deficient? Or to put it anther way, in explaining to one of you students how to set up your sample space based on a natural language problem statement, what advice would you give? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To try and clarify what I am getting at, you say above, 'how do you express that the host opens door 3' in my sample space. My response would be that it is not necessary to express that specific event, given that the problem is totally symmetrical with respect to door number. It is only necessary to specify the event that the player picks a goat or the player picks a car. No doubt, you would respond in a similar manner to my question about the word 'pick'. You would say that it is not important what the host says, the problem is symmetrical with respect to the word 'pick' therefore we need not include terms containing this event in our sample space.
Now, if you were to ask me which is the better way of approaching the problem, I would agree with you. If in doubt as to whether a particular event is relevant to calculating the desired probability, it is always better to include it. Specifically, if a particular event was given as a condition of a problem, we would be wise to include it in our sample space. So we do not disagree about much. Given reasonable assumptions about the meaning of the problem, it is wise to tackle it in the way proposed by Morgan to avoid missing what could be an important point, however, in the totally symmetrical case, this is not the only way to tackle the problem. Symmetry is a very powerful concept. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Makes more sense what you say here. You only forget that speaking about symmetry is only possible in the sample space like the one I gave you. I never denied the importance of the use of symmetry. More than a year ago I already showed how to derive the conditional probability by means of symmetry, other than with Bayes'. That's not the issue. The point is how can i speak about choosing a door, if that door is not in my sample space. What you are aiming at is the reduction of the original sample space, by the use of the symmetry. That reduction, you may already guess, means conditioning. You may argue that for the final answer, the reduction leads to an equivalent sample space, rich enough to get the desired answer, but! also then you have to show the reduction and the equivalence. It is of course, for a sound explanation, not sufficient to just say "I know this". I hope, that, when you come to understand this, you give up your resistance against the criticism of the simple solution (the one without (factually) mentioning the use and significance of the symmetry). Nijdam (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Starting from the start
I still think you are missing my point. You have to get from this:
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?
to a sample space before you do anything.
Suppose I say right at the start that it is obvious from a Bayesian perspective that the door numbers and even the doors themselves are not important. There are only two events in my sample space: I pick a car, I pick a goat. The door number that I pick and the door number opened by the host and the door number remaining are all irrelevant. What is wrong with this approach? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Corrections, make that four terms: I pick a car and swap, I pick a goat and swap, I pick a car and do not swap, I pick a goat and do not swap. Who cares about doors or door numbers? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Before I may get to this, I insist you explain the following. A: The car is with probability 1/3 behind each of the doors 1, 2 and 3. B: The car is also with probability 0 behind door 3, opened by the host. doesn't this strike you ass odd? Or do you have an explanation? Nijdam (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If the question is taken to ask specifically for the probability of winning by switching given that the player initially chooses door 1 and that you must use as condition of the problem the fact that the host has opened door 3 then you are correct. The first set of probabilities that you quote are prior to the condition and the second is after. We all agree about that.
Indeed is the question posed to the player who has chosen a door, be it door 1 or door 2 or door 3, that does not matter for the way of arguing. Your second "if" is just something you come up with to avoid reasoning that you have to condition. Nijdam (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But what if I do not care which door the car and goats are behind? All I care about is whether the player has initially chosen a car or a goat and whether he swaps or not. The fact that the host is stated to open door 3 is not a condition, it is an irrelevance. We know the host must open a door to reveal a goat and we know, from symmetry right from the start, before we set up our sample space, that the door number that he opens is unimportant. Thus we do not include door numbers in our sample space and we do not take the door opened by the host as a condition of the problem, even if the host is stated to open a specific door. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but this is a different MHP, the so called unconditional formulation. At least accept that the full MHP has to be solved by the conditional solution, whereas the unconditional version is solved by the simple solution. And ... the simple solution does not solve the full MHP. This is what you till now refused to accept. If we agree on this, what's left, is what's left in the discussion with Richard, namely which version of the MHP should be considered more acceptable and presented first to the readers. Nijdam (talk) 09:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nijdam's "correct MHP", his "full MHP" is the "conditional MHP", based and conditioned on the given existence of non-existent, but "assumed" records of log lists that allow obscure presumptions about "additional info" on the contents of the remaining two closed diaphanous doors. Nijdam's additional "condition" is the given existence of (non-existing, but "assumed") records of log lists that have to "proof" a very special (but forever unknown) peculiar kind of behavior of the host in giving additional info on the actual secret location of the car behind the two still closed but diaphanous doors, in each and every game. That's his "conditional MHP", his "full MHP". That unconditionally has to be shown first, before proper, famous paradox is allowed to be shown to the reader. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 10:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we can all agree, therefore, that Whitaker's statement is open to different interpretations, some of which do not require the Morgan solution.
K&W formulation
So let us move on to the K&W formulation. Here the door numbers are clearly stated, as is the order of events. The player has to choose after the host has opened a door.
Nijdam, I am sure that you would say that this problem must be solved using a sample space based on the door numbers X, H, and C. I agree that that might be the wisest way to approach the problem since it covers possibilities such as those raised by Gerhard above, that the host might not act evenly.
However, in the K&W formulation, we are specifically told that the host acts evenly, thus, right at the start we are free to observe that, although door numbers are clearly given, and the host has already opened a specific door, the door numbers can, by symmetry, make no difference to the probability of interest (that the player wins the car by switching). We are free to ignore door numbers and choose a sample space that does not depend on them. I do not mean that we start with a sample space based on door numbers, then condition it, I mean that we start with a sample space that ignores door numbers, even though they are clearly given on the question. Whether you wish to use the term 'conditional' or not to describe the problem and solution I do not care. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me first ask you this: is it your intention to show that the simple solution (you know the one without any conditioning or reference to the symmetry) may serve as a valid solution to the full MHP? Even knowing that also Richard Gill admits it is not? Or do you just want to know where the error in your argumentation lies? Nijdam (talk) 18:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the simple solutions are satisfactory solutions to the K&W formulation. I would also be interested to know where you think my error lies. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be sure we understand each other: You say: "satisfactory" solution, does this mean "correct" solution? And with "simple solution" you mean just the following statement: "the car is with probability 2/3 not behind the chosen door 1, hence when you switch you get the car with probability 2/3". Nijdam (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think your terminology is invalid. This is not just one 'correct' solution to any given mathematical problem, there can often be several valid ways of solving it. Mathematical solutions have varying degrees of rigour, ranging from the most rigourous solutions known (which are completely incomprehensible to all but specialists) to hand-waving arguments that demonstrate a degree of plausibility. I believe that the simple solutions, meaning "the car is with probability 2/3 not behind the chosen door 1, hence when you switch you get the car with probability 2/3", are as correct and rigourous as the conditional solutions given in the article.
The point that you consistently miss is the first stage, where you have to turn a natural language statement into a clearly defined mathematical question. There are no formulae or fixed methods for doing this, it can only be done by applying a degree of common sense and logic to the question. In particular, one should always try to find out what is is that the questioner actually wants to know. Failure to do this is a failure to answer the question at all.
So for the sake of this discussion, I do mean that the simple solution, as defined by you, is a correct answer to the K&W problem statement. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The decision asked for will be based on some probability ( if we consider the MHP to be a probability problem). Let us consider the player,knowing having chosen door 1 and seeing door 3 opened with a goat. The player will consider his probability to find the car behind door 1 (or equivalent behind door 2). So he considers his situation as a realisation of several possibilities. Well, several means hre only two possibilities: either the car is behind door 1 or it is behind door 2. The probability law governing this is the conditional probability given door 1 chosen and door 3 opened. The player may take his situation as equivalent to a Bernoulli trial with outcomes 1 and 2, being the number of the door with the car. Do you recognize the similarity with you urn problem, containing 9 white and 1 black ball, and you the third to draw a ball without replacement. Then you had no problem at all to understand the conditional nature. If it is more understandable for you, the player could also compare the probability on the situation (event) with door 1 chosen, door 3 opened and door 1 hiding the car, with the probability on the situation with door 1 chosen, door 3 opened and door 2 hiding the car. And then decides for the one with the larger probability. This is completely equivalent to the more natural description with conditional probabilities.
In your reasoning I do not understand this phrase: the door numbers can, by symmetry, make no difference to the probability of interest (that the player wins the car by switching), Because if there is only one probability of interest it cannot depend on the door numbers, with or without symmetry. So you clearly mean the different probabilities of interest, due to the symmetry, do not depend on the door numbers. And there you are right, but you doesn't seem to understand what these different probabilities are. And, it will not be a surprise to you, they are the conditional probabilities. What else could they be? Nijdam (talk) 21:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem fixated on door numbers. The numbers on the doors are completely unimportant, as are the doors themselves. As have said before, my sample space, which does not have any relation to door numbers or doors, has only four elements (picks car and stays, picks car and swaps, picks goat and stays, picks goat and swaps). You have yet to tell me what is wrong with this way of tackling the problem.
Just because door numbers are given in the problem that does not mean that we have to use them in any way. They are unimportant, irrelevant and I choose to formalise the problem without reference to them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note
It is you who said: the door numbers can, by symmetry, make no difference to the probability of interest (that the player wins the car by switching). What do you mean then??
As the door numbers are given in the problem we must use them. Why else are they given? And the player sees the door he has chosen and the door opened.
You change the problem into the version I called the unconditional problem. It is the version in which we the audience have to decide before anything has happened. And indeed, I've repeated that several times, Morgan says so, it is the version the simple solution applies to.
You cannot consider the full MHP to be the problem of interest and then just concern your sample space to describe it.
Nijdam, I think the points above show where we disagree. If the problem is formalised as a conditional probability problem based on a sample space that uses door numbers then it must, of course, be treated as a conditional probability problem based on a sample space that uses door numbers, so we do not disagree there, so let us now discuss the points above.
You formulate this a little odd. The problem may be formulated in the sense as I described several times, that the player is offered to switch, after the host has opened a door. This is what is called the conditional formulation, like the K&W version. Or the audience is asked whether the player should switch, before he makes his first choice. This is the unconditional formulation. The appropriate sample spaces follow from the formulation. Nijdam (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even when answering the K&W natural language problem statement there is a stage where you have to decide how to state the problem in mathematical terms. Please tell me, what are the rules by which you do this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The K&W formulation ends with: After Monty Hall opens a door with a goat, he will ask you to decide whether you want to stay with your first choice or to switch to the last remaining door. Imagine that you chose Door 1 and the host opens Door 3, which has a goat. He then asks you "Do you want to switch to Door Number 2? Is it to your advantage to change your choice? Isn't this clear enough? The decision will be made after the player picked door 1 and the host opened door 3. Natural language.Nijdam (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Door numbers are not important
By this I mean that, at the start of the game all the door numbers could be swapped round and this would make no difference to the probability of interest. The problem is symmetrical with respect to door number, meaning that changing the door numbers, or any other means of identifying the doors, will not affect the probability that the player will win by switching. Note that this is not the case if the host has a known door choice policy. For example if the host always preferred to open door 2 when legal, the problem would have a different answer if the player had initially chosen door 3 and the host had opened door 1.
You again speak of "the probability of interest", whereas I made it clear that either there is only one probability of interest, and hence it cannot depend on the door numbers, or there are several probabilities of interest, all with the same value, and hence independent of the numbers of the doors. Don't you understand this? Nijdam (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I am sorry but I do not. Imagine the K&W statement followed by the words 'What is the probability that the player wins by switching'. That is what I mean by 'the probability of interest'. I mean that natural language statement. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then the probability of interest can only be the conditional probability that the car is behind door 2, given door 1 chosen and door 3 opened, What else could it be? But explain to me what you mean by independent of the door numbers.Nijdam (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no obligation to use all the information given in the problem statement. We have to make a judgment as to whether any particular piece of information is important. We agree that we do not need to use the information given in the words used by the host because they contain no relevant information. Similarly, there is no relevant information given in the door numbers, thus, although they are clearly given in the natural language K&W problem statement, we do not need to use them in our solution. Thus the probability of interest is the probability that the car is behind the remaining door, given an originally chosen door and a different, goat-hiding door which has been opened. In other words the unconditional formulation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point you are making is that the unconditional formulation is equivalent to the full problem in the case of symmetry. And indeed that's the case. And what you do is arguing why this is the case. And that's just my intent: we have to argue (show) that the full problem is equivalent to the simple formulation. Without the arguments it is logically flawed. Either we show the equivalence of the problems and use the simple solution to the full problem, or we use the symmetry argument to simply derive the conditional solution. It's either way. We cannot do without reasoning. Nijdam (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is not my point. You do not seem to realise that you, and everyone else, has to use some form of reasoning at the start of the problem in order to turn a natural language question into a well-defined mathematical problem. Before this stage the problem is neither conditional nor unconditional because it is not yet properly defined.
As part of this process you dismiss the words that the host says as unimportant but you insist on treating the door number opened by the host as being significant. The reverse could in reality be true. You have never yet explained to me why you make this decision. Perhaps you do not even realise that you are doing so, but you are. Please explain to me the basis on which you do this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Must we use door numbers in our formalisation
You ask why they are given. The actual reason, we know, is that vos Savant added them to to Whitaker's question to try to make it clearer. She now agrees that this was a great mistake. K&W kept the door numbers in their formulation but that still does not compel us to use them. Whether we to use them depends on our understanding of what the questioner really wants to know. I doubt that Whitaker was interested in door numbers.
Well, to most people the problem becomes tricky, when they actually see an open door with a goat and two still closed doors, between which they have to decide. I really do not see any charm in the unconditional formulation. Nijdam (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you see any charm in it does not matter. The fact is that many people get the answer wrong. ther is no way to tell whether they have in mind the conditional or the unconditional formulation. Probably they do not distinguish between the two cases. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We are also told that the host says the word 'pick' but you choose (quite reasonably) to not make use of that event (although is some circumstances it could be highly significant). We have to use our own judgment in formalising the problem.
No, based on a plain language statement, you formulate it as a conditional problem and I formulate it as an unconditional problem.
Okay, but be aware they are different problems, and your concept is not the K&W version. Nijdam (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the K&W statement can be made into an unconditional problem. Martin Hogbin (talk)
What is "made into"? Nijdam (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mathematically formalised as. Although the K&W natural language statement practically invites us to treat the problem as one where the doors chosen by the player and host are taken as conditions of the problem and this would, no doubt, be the way you might expect a student to formalise the problem, it is possible to conclude right at the start that the door numbers are not important and that the problem can be formalised as an unconditional one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot consider the full MHP to be the problem of interest and then use my sample space to describe it
If by 'the full MHP' you mean the conditional probability problem using your sample space then no, of course not. If you mean a perfectly valid interpretation of either Whitaker's question or the K&W formulation then my sample space is fine. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As above, the K&W formulation is a conditional problem. Accept it. Nijdam (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing by decree. You have yet to tell me why this must be so. Martin Hogbin (talk)
An alternative sample space
Nijdam, please tell me why I cannot use this reasoning and sample space to solve the K&W problem statement.
There are three objects of interest one car and two goats, let us call them A and B.
My sample space consists of the following elements, X is the object originally chosen by the player and H is the object revealed by the host. The doors are of no interest. The only possible outcomes (up to the point that the player decides whether to switch) are:
(X=C,H=A),(X=C,H=B),(X=A,H=B),(X=B,H=A)
This sample space allows us to include the possibility that the host may have a preference for one or other of the goats. In what way is it not satisfactory? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Convention in probability questions
Nijdam, there are many conventions and understandings in probability questions but these vary according to the context. To give a simple example, there is a convention in general statistical discussions that a ball drawn from an urn is deemed to be selected uniformly at random from all the balls within the urn. In reality, this might not be the case; the picker might be lazy and prefer balls at the top of those within the urn, for example. This convention is used to enable people to communicate without giving a lot of unnecessary detail. Let me now give three contexts where the conventions used might vary:
A undergraduate statistics examination
Here I suggest that when information, such as door numbers, is given there is a strong expectation that this information will be relevant to the problem. Certainly, the student would be wise to formulate their approach to the problem on the basis that all information given in the question might be important.
A simple probability puzzle
In these there is generally a stronger set of conventions. Selections with no obvious bias are generally taken to be made uniformly at random. In general, the convention is to make the puzzle as simple as possible. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The real world
Here conventions and 'everybody knows' understandings can be misleading and dangerous. If a statistician were approached by a client who asked the Whitaker question they would be obliged to ask more questions to find out, as Seymann put it, the intent of the questioner. To try to answer without finding out exactly what the client wanted to know would be a failure of their professional duty. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even when the door numbers were not mentioned in the problem statement, you had to use them. It is not mentioning of the door numbers, but the moment the player is offered to switch that makes the problem conditional. And about the K&W version: the player is only then offered to switch, after the host has opened a door. You may try to proof the equivalence with the unconditional formulation, it's pkay, but then you have to show the proof (reasoning). This all has been said before. Nijdam (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem may be conditional, as are all problems in Bayesian probability, the question is, 'What is the condition?'. Is the condition that the host has revealed a goat? Is it that the host has revealed Billy the goat (as opposed to Annie)? Is it that the host has said the work 'pick'? Please explain what the condition is and why. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There we go again. Every event that has occurred is a condition. At the stage when the player is offered to switch, the events "initial choice of door 1' and "host opens door 3" has happened. Nijdam (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no requirement, Whitaker didn't ask, and vos Savant says she didn't mean to imply, that it must be "initial choice of door 1' and "host opens door 3". It could equally, or more likely be, "initial choice of a door" and "host opens another door". That recognizes the event that occurred. Your continued exclusive claim to The Truth is, and has been BS. Glkanter (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nijdam, you quite rightly say, 'Every event that has occurred is a condition'. But many events have occurred, a door has been opened, a goat has been revealed, the host has spoken several words, how do you decide which of these events to condition on? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you do understand that the notion "event" has a specific meaning in probability theory. So, if you took all the 'events', you mentioned, as events in your sample space, than, yes, you have to condition on them all. Your choice. Nijdam (talk) 23:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so we are back to my original question, 'How do you decide on which events to include in your sample space?'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You tell me what is needed to describe the problem. Then I tell you which events you need. Nijdam (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly the point that I am making (and Gerhard too I believe) it is up the the person who is answering the question to decide which events are important and which events are not. This has to be done right at the start based on your understanding of the context, any relevant conventions, and what the questioner actually wants to know. Maybe the door number opened by the host is important, maybe not, maybe the words said by the host are important, maybe not, the point you juts do not seem to get is that when you set up your sample space you have to make some judgments as to what events to include, what events not include and why. There is no mathematical formula or algorithm that tells you how to do this, so perhaps you could tell me how you decide what events to include. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem description tells you what is relevant. Whether a specific aspect is important, and I guess you mean with important, makes a difference for the solution, only appears after the analysis. If you want to decide that some aspect is unimportant beforehand, you have to argue, So, either you introduce the position of the car, the choice of the player and the door opened by the host as relevant aspects, or you reason that for instance by symmetry you may reduce your sample space. But then you cannot do without this reasoning. And this reasoning is about the conditional probabilities being all the same and equal to the unconditional. But, as you notice, also then it is about the conditional probability. And the simple solution just does not give the needed arguments, is actually not set up for this reasoning.Nijdam (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say, 'If you want to decide that some aspect is unimportant beforehand, you have to argue', so what is your argument for not including each word spoken by the host in your sample space? The words are clearly given in the problem statement. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I rather liked you stay serious, and do not digress to such pointless questions. Anyway, the words do not form aspects of the problem, as nothing depends on it, and nowhere in the problem formulation is said that the host may vary his words. Nijdam (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And nowhere in the problem formulation is said that the host could/would / can/will present a log-list showing records of hitherto results of game shows that never did happen. I doubt that you watched all of them? This "one hypothetical game show" we are talking about did never happen. Repeat: Just one "hypothetical" game show. Please show me your log-list. As I repeatedly said before: In 100 million games you never can be sure to "know" that your "detected host's bias" is real, and so your "closer" result will be just for the birds. Counterproductive. Worse than "just for the birds." Please apprehend that "conditional probability assumptions" belong to the field of probability calculus. Without impact on the very "one hypothetical game-show" called Monty Hall paradox. Still squirming? Gerhardvalentin (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which events go in the sample set
I am being serious.
Please tell me how you distinguish between these events, based on Whitaker's question:
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?
The host opens door 3
This is stated to occur in the problem statement.
It is not stated that the host could open door 2, but we could assume that he might.
It happens after the player's initial choice and before his final choice.
It could be a relevant fact if (contrary to TV game show rules) the host gives additional information to the player by his choice.
The host says the word 'pick'
This is stated to occur in the problem statement.
It is not stated that the host could say a different word, but we could assume that he might.
It happens after the player's initial choice and before his final choice.
It could be a relevant fact if (contrary to TV game show rules) the host gives additional information to the player by his choice.
Please tell me why the first event should be incorporated into your sample set and the second not. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem states: ...and the host, who knows what's behind the doors, opens another door,..., and then continues: say No. 3, which has a goat. It is quite clear, and (almost) anyone interprets so, that the host does not in every game opens door 3. Nothing, on the other hand, indicates that the host sometimes does not say pick, in order to influence the game. On the other hand, if you like, take thee host saying pick as part of your probability space, please go ahead, it does not change a bit.
But let us stick to the point of interest, i.e. why you do not want to take the picked door etc. as events. Nijdam (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point of interest to me is the means by which you select events for your sample space. You say, 'if you like, take thee host saying pick as part of your probability space...it does not change a bit'. How do you know that it will not change the outcome?
My answer to you question will be exactly the same as yours to mine, 'if you like, take the host opening the specific door 3 (as opposed to 'the host opens any legal door to reveal a goat') as part of your probability space...it does not change a bit'. How do I know it will not change the result a bit? The obvious symmetry with respect to door number tells me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, as I explained above, that nowhere in the problem formulation is spoken of the host saying anything different. There are however three different doors. So you may freely add "pick" to your events, but you cannot leave the door numbers out. Well, having said this again, I have the idea you do not want to understand it. Nijdam (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does it mention that the host might open door 2, this is an assumption on your part, a very reasonable one I admit, but still an assumption.
The point that I am trying to lead you to is that in turning any natural language statement into a well-defined mathematical problem you need to apply some logic to determine what events are important. Your argument is essentially this, 'We are given door numbers in the problem statement, this must be for the reason that we are expected to use them in solving the problem'. This is good logic for an exam question but in other circumstances it may not be so good. It may be that some information available to us is irrelevant, and indeed in this case that turns out to be true; the door numbers are completely inconsequential, the value of the probability of winning by switching would be exactly the same had the player initially chosen door 2 and the host opened door 1. Maybe a little thought before formulating the problem in mathematical terms would reveal that fact and save you the trouble of performing and unnecessary complicated calculation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you're aiming at, but your way of applying does not make sense. In the first place is in the problem statement spoken of the host opening another door. As we do not know which one we add the possibility for each door, Secondly: as you say, it turns out that the door numbers are not relevant. You also could give the answer: switching is better, without any further explanation, because you gave it a little thought before. You see, we do not give the answer, we try to explain. That's why we describe our thoughts. It is not up to us to decide what arguments may be left out, because, in our opinion, anyone will know. And I asked you not to come up every time with your alleged complicate calculation. I explained it is not about the WAY the calculation are done, but about WHAT is to be calculated. Nijdam (talk) 22:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say, 'It is not up to us to decide what arguments may be left out', but we must do that or the problem becomes impossibly complicated. You have decided to leave out that the host says the word 'pick' but you still cannot give a clear reason for this. The only reason is that you think it is not relevant.
Perhaps you could answer my question below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another question
Let me ask you this. Assuming we take it that the player might have chosen any door to start with and the host may have opened any unchosen goat-hiding door, why do you not insist that the starting sample space must include all the possible door combinations? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand your question. I DO insist that all the combinations are in the sample space. You have seen them in the past. What is your point?Nijdam (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You support the solutions given in the article which show only the case where the player initially picks door 1. These solutions are incomplete. Martin Hogbin (talk)
What's the connection with our discussion about the appropriate sample space???? Nijdam (talk) 23:14, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the solutions in the article should show the whole sample space? This is then conditioned using the initial player and host door choices. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but your opening sentence sounds like: the car definitely has to be filled with distress. What on earth do you mean? A sample space is a reflection of the problem, reducing it to the necessary mathematics. The needed sample space, do you remember, consists of the 27 combinations of car location, player's choice and opened door. Some of these outcomes have probability zero, and may be left out, but this is unimportant. Tell me what you want to say. Nijdam (talk) 23:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What I am asking is why, in the decision tree in the article and the diagram immediately below it which you support, do we only show the results of the player initially choosing door 1? These diagrams should show the results if the player initially chooses any door. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was up to me the diagram only showed the player choosing door 1 and the host opening door 3. But in general you're right, either my choice, i.e. conditioned, or showing the total of possibilities. Nijdam (talk) 15:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well we agree then. So the difference between the simple solution given in the article and the one you have supported is fairly minor, neither shows the full sample space.
By the way, I cannot understand why you have been treated so harshly by arbcom, I have tried to say that but it seems very hard to get through to them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by Gerhard
Please pardon for intruding – I just feel this comment really amusing for the audience, but boring soon. You really don't know what is needed to describe the paradox? Well, that's a fine how d'ye do. I tell you what: You need a contestant. A contestant who just has selected one of those three doors. And you need a host. A host, who cannot change the location of the car anymore. A host that is totally unable to influence the "overall Pws" in any way, but who exactly knows where the car actually is. And: his action of showing a goat is needed. And his voice in offering to switch is needed. Yes, his voice. Does he say those words with a laughter and quite aloud, or with a moderate voice in an insinuating mode? That makes a great difference, you know. Because you are free to assume that, in most cases if he has got two goats to show, then he will make his offer to switch in a rather seducing tone, yes, with a really seductive voice. Might be in about exactly 73 % of those cases, you are free to assume. And, if the door in the middle should actually hide the car, we all are free to assume that he will almost never use the word "pick" then, but some quite other wording, like "wouldn't you opt for" or "select", but almost never will use the word "pick", in that case. And everyone else also is free to make similar presuppositions, and all of those specific assumptions enable you, and me, and anyone else, to exactly calculate a much "better" result for the actually given situation, than only the average probability to win by switching of just 2/3. A quite better result, that obviously will be of great advantage for an exact "probability". Although we do not know whether our beliefs will ever correspond to reality. But that does not matter anyway, because that game has indeed and in fact never been played, anyway. Not one single time in exactly that "MHP-way". Never. Not one single time. But you can assume whatever you want. Whatever you like. And you even can assume that you knew what you don't know but what you would like to "need to know" in order to "know better". Repeat: Whatever you like. Yes, maths and "q" can be a quite enjoyable illusion, indeed. So imho you better should stick to reliable sources, that never use such very absurd nonsense for "solving" and for getting better and "much closer results". And imho you should also show conditional probability, easy to understand in odds form, by using the clear functions of the doors, as there were no "door numbers" written on them. For that show that never was reality. There were no "door numbers", just three doors. No, they never had numbers, in this only one single game we're talking about, that never was for real. And those two still closed doors never were transparent at all, not even at exactly 19 %. You understand? You can formulate anything you assume to be of any importance. You can assume it in an exact manner. And you may suppose that your assumptions to be of eminent importance. But you never proved that this illusion helps in any way to find a better decision than always to switch. Once more: You really should show conditional probability in odds form, and even show "q", but you should admit that all of this is just an illusion, and just a way to help to understand what the lemma is about. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
A fine game.[reply]
Of course you are right Gerhard, what seems obvious to you is somehow being missed by Nijdam. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is just your interpretation, nowhere does it say that the host may open door 2. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting silly, but okay. The player is given the choice of three doors. So we have to account for these possibilities. The host then opens another door. We have to account for these possibilities too. See? Nijdam (talk) 09:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not doubt the reasonableness of what you say but you must understand that you are interpreting the original statement, which does not actually say that the host could open door 2. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with reasonableness. I'm not interpreting, but modeling. And indeed, it is not said that the host may open door 2, but neither is said he cannot open it. That why we have to account for this door. Nijdam (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is it said that the host might not have said 'choose' instead of 'pick'. There is nothing in the problem statement that tells us that the words spoken by the host are less important than the number of the door that he opens. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No big deal; if you want, do add the host saying "pick" to the sample space. This comes down to extend any outcome with the host saying "pick". It doesn't change any relevant issue. But, be my guest. And to end all further discussion of this sort, extend any outcome with all other non-relevant info. The sample space you will end with, is equivalent to mine. Nijdam (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The flawed full solution vs. any correct solution
You are through, Martin, with the so called "conditional frequentists", getting better knowledge by telling door 2 apart from door 3 and distinguishing carefully for students of cond.prob.? Yes, he's here again, our and everyone's good old friend, and everyone calls him the "Ol' Catch 22". If he accompanied us to the casino, we were sure to win. No one doubts? If s.o. assumes to have "additional frequentist's information", or even that "he could have any", regarding that one special game the contestant is in, and the famous question is about, and he "assumes his assumption to be right", and even given he "assumes to know his assumption to be right" regarding that one special game, then – with or without using maths – then he for sure "could" give a much closer answer indeed for this very game, than just only the honest:
Pws is within the range of "at least 1/2" (but never less) to "1", and on average it is 2/3, and that's all we know and will ever know.
Yes, then – without any question – this frequentist "could" assign a much closer value to Pws indeed, for this one special game the contestant is in. More than that, he could assign "really a correct one". But that will just be based on the famous flawed assumption that "if he knew" what he doesn't know indeed, and never will know, "then he could and would know much better, indeed".
Because all of those flawed assumption never can nor will be "given to be right" regarding that one special game the contestant actually is in, and it just remains the "Ol' Catch 22":
"He could know much better if he just knew better, or vice versa "if he just knew better, then he could know better".
So all of that reported "correctness" offered by those frequentist's conditional probability solutions proves to be just a
flawed "if you knew better, then you could know better" -joke, indeed. Yes, and: If the doors were assumed to be made of glass, then the contestant could know a much closer probability to win by switching, than she actually knows.
That's why serious reliable sources emphasize that, although mathematically absolutely correct, it's useless to mention this
only correct but absurd "Ol' Catch 22 – The cat bites her tail circle". Because it's just suitable to train students of probability theory, only.
Though mathematically absolutely correct, but of no avail whatsoever for the decision to be made. Because the "range of Pws" (it never can be of disadvantage to switch) is sufficiently known in advance, anyway. Just by the humble acceptance "what if he always uses ..." and "what if he never uses ..." The only "advantage" of conditional probability is that it can show this insight in a very clear manner. But not more. Because that's all of its marginal utility for the MHP.
Other formalists with narrow prospect firmly believe in that "if you just knew, then you really could know much better" circle and they are quite happy with it. Amusement for the audience, but boring soon. Just suitable for students to train stubborn conditional probability calculus methods, with no need to question the underlying "never-to-be-given" -basics.
Though mathematically absolutely correct, its only merit is that it can show the exact range of Probability to win by switching of "at least 1/2, but never less" to "1". Repeat: That is all of its marginal utility for the MHP.
Though mathematically absolutely correct, it's no "solution", it's just only very well suited for practicing a method of probability calculus for students. And, written in odds-form, it can help to understand the MHP. But it is no "solution". And so for good reasons this is not perpetually repeated in most reliable sources. And yes, for a very good reason. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The first thing I noticed about all the "simple is flawed" arguments from editors, and the "here's where the simple solutions can fail" sources is that they immediately start with different premises to the problem. Well, that approach does nothing to demonstrate any flaws in any problem statement that does not include these new or changed premises.
(2) It's a lot of hot air receiving way too much attention in the Wikipedia article (UNDUE WEIGHT).
The argument I just presented (1) is not OR, or my opinion, it is a logic/philosophy fact. That the ownership editors will not acknowledge this is the NPOV violation. And the emphasis on this fallacy/canard is what ruins the article so early. Glkanter (talk) 11:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this has been discussed before by various editors, but can anybody give me a reason why the problem is normally formulated in terms of the door numbers (1,2,3) and not the objects behind the doors (the car, goat 1, and goat 2). Is this just because the door are given numbers in the problem statement but the goats are not given names? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can answer that. It's because the premise of your question is invalid.
It's because the goats are of no interest. Selvin had car keys & 2 empty boxes. You gonna name them 'emptiness 1' and 'emptiness 2'? Go for it!
Countless sources give car/goat solutions. It's only the Wikipedia MHP editors who don't acknowledge their existence. We call these 'simple' on these pages, unfortunately. Nijdam ignores them because he knows they are 'wrong', and therefor not reliable. See how that works?
Glkanter has tried, with no success whatsoever, to rename these as 'simple conditional', as distinct from the simple, unconditional tables of outcomes from Selvin & vos Savant
Richard has insisted on telling me that my terminology differs from all the other editors, and refuses to acknowledge that there are 3 solutions put forth by the reliable sources. He posted 'The Truth' as Evidence on the arbitration page, completely ignoring the solution you are now asking about. I am trying to discuss this on Richards talk page, with little success.
Glkanter has turned those solutions into a conditional decision tree. You have found problems with it, something about the 100% condition being of no value, I think. Richard's only criticism was that the column headings should not have door #s. Still, he does not acknowledge these solution in his 'The Truth' section in his evidence.
The editors who dominate the article are aided and abetted by this imprecise terminology, and it's corresponding confusion/dismissal, so have no interest in bettering it.
Nijdam's point about [paraphrasing] 'the contestant must be faced with exactly two doors' is satisfied by these solutions (the 100% condition is the host opens another door revealing a goat). The Combining Doors solution does, too. Now, on Richard's talk page, Nijdam has *actually engaged me* on this very topic! ps whatever happened to "1/3 <> 1/3"? Oh, right, that decision tree proved that wrong, too.
Glkanter is about to be blocked from his own arbitration for making this very point, both in his evidence and on the talk pages. The sources overwhelmingly provide this solution, and the article's POV is contrary to this. That is, the article's POV is based on OR, not the sources. But I can't get anybody to pay attention to this simple fact.
Can you point to the examples of spamming, because I don't see them. SilkTork *YES! 13:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for contacting me. For a start, pretty well all of the section 'Chronology of notable practitioners' seems to be a series of advertisements for non-notable small businesses. We do not find this in articles on other subjects. An IP thought it looked like spam and I agree. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The section you mention contains sourced information about people who developed Tree shaping. When reliable sources write about something then that something becomes notable according to our guidelines, which includes small businesses. Apart from that section, what other reason do you have to feel there is spam in the article? SilkTork *YES! 18:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need some outside opinion on this. To me and to at least one other it looks like blatant commercialism. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:30, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point to the blatant commercialism and explain it? At the moment you are asserting your opinion without giving me much evidence. I've looked at the section, and I see information culled from various books and journals on the people who are most notable in the field of tree shaping. I do not see direct links to commercial sites, and while the language is not top class, and does fly close to promotional in nature in places, I do not see it as obvious advertising. It has to be borne in mind that primary sources are allowed, and information about practitioners and artists, such as the works they have done, books they have written, etc, is part of what we deliver. If you have specific concerns about any of the links or any of the wording, this is a good opportunity for you to point to it, and discuss it. If you are unable to do that, then it may be that you have got the impression that the material was promotional when it wasn't. These things happen. SilkTork *YES! 02:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, if you cannot see what is plainly there in front of you there is no point in my trying to convince you of anything. Have a look at the articles on topiary and bonsai for example, we do not see a small business advertisement there. As I said, we need to get outside opinion on this. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Other people have looked - you are aware that the article is under the scrutiny of various people who do look into such matters - you have yourself commented on this thread on the COI noticeboard where people have said that they don't see a problem in the article, rather, just a problem with the ongoing dispute between the two main contributors. I'm going to remove anything from that section that is near to the line, and then remove the tag. If you feel that there is any promotional material left, then please either directly remove it yourself, or let me know what the material is. Putting the tag back would be unhelpful and somewhat provocative, as you are unable to indicate any specific problems. See WP:Tagging. SilkTork *YES! 12:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I will have a go at making the section more encyclopedic and less promotional. No doubt ther will be some resistance from at least one editor with a commercial interest. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Archiving your talkpage
It's up to you - there's no specific guideline or rule. Your talkpage is quite large which makes it difficult for others to navigate and use your talkpage, so it would be helpful to archive it. Information is given in: Help:Archiving a talk page. SilkTork *YES! 18:56, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The simple conditional decision tree based on Monty Halls's and Carlton's, and Morgan's F5 (and countless others') simple solutions show that the 1/3 likelihood that the contestant selects the car is *still* 1/3 after a door has been opened revealing a goat. Because that condition is 100%, and a number multiplied by 1 doesn't change. That the 2/3 *did* change from 1/3 + 1/3 to 2/3 + 0 is of no importance. Because of the law of total probability.
Nijdam uses that 1/3 <> 1/3 argument (without any sources) to say that all simple solutions are wrong.
Morgan clearly shows that 1/3 * 1 = 1/3:
"Solution F5. The probability that a player is shown a goat is 1. So conditioning on this event cannot change the probability of 1/3 that door 1 is a winner before a goat is shown; that is, the probability of winning by not switching is 1/3, and by switching is 2/3."
Nijdam (without any sources) argues that all simple solutions are unconditional, and don't address the 'deciding between 2 doors' nature of the problem. The same simple conditional decision tree demonstrates clearly that the contestant is choosing between exactly two doors.
Morgan clearly states it's a conditional solution:
"Solution F5. The probability that a player is shown a goat is 1. So conditioning on this event cannot change the probability of 1/3 that door 1 is a winner before a goat is shown; that is, the probability of winning by not switching is 1/3, and by switching is 2/3."
Nijdam's only remaining argument is that the problem must be solved specifically for door 3 being opened. Well, that's not derived from the sources or any science. He doesn't have a leg to stand on. Glkanter (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation
Martin, I'm asking you to agree to mediation. I give some more details on Tree shaping talk page. Blackashhave a chat 05:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to participate in any dispute resolution process. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:00, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin going by your comment on ANI noticeboard you seem unsure. I'm ready to list. Are you still willing to go ahead with formal meditation. Blackashhave a chat 12:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed Topic Ban for Blackash and Slowart on Tree shaping related articles
It looks like there is a consensus for a ban. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It would be appropriate for an uninvolved admin to close the discussion. The discussion has, unfortunately, somewhat wandered so the consensus is not clear, and there is a fair bit of reading to be done. When discussions get complicated, it takes longer for them to be closed. SilkTork *YES! 07:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be a friend of his. He has been blocked for his behaviour in the past few days, not because of the evidence presented by anyone at the Arbcom case. Can you persuade him that edits like this aren't helping his case. Three admins have already reviewed his unblock request on the grounds that his behaviour was sufficient to warrant the block, and far from making any attempt to address it, he is denying that he has done anything wrong, and saying that he'd do it all again. Arbcom hasn't yet decided that banning him is an appropriate step, but the more he carries on like this, the likelier it becomes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I should first point out that my comment on the ban was not prompted by friendship but by a sense of fair play. The ban does seem disproportionate to the offence. However, I will do what I can to help the situation. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Formal mediation has been requested
Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Arborsculpture 3 has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request for mediation rejected
The request for mediation concerning Arborsculpture 3, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
"Guy, perhaps you could explain to me on your (or my) talk page what you think is going on and how it conforms to WP policy. I really do not understand it."
Glad to do what I can. DISCLAIMER: I am by no means an expert on Wikipedia policies, but I have read a lot of them and wached as they are applied.
Thanks, it is good of you to discuss this with me.
"The indefinite ban in Glkanter was made not by Arbcom but by a single admin."
Nope. Blocks are not bans. Bans are not blocks. WP:BLOCKBANDIFF explains the difference.
Fine but from the point of view of the person blocked a block is worse, they are physically prevented from editing WP. I see no point in making this distinction
BTW, I am guessing that you might think "indefinite" means "permanent." It does not. In this case, the indefinite block (blocks are not bans) will almost certainly be lifted when the arbcom makes its final decision.
I though that may be the case but it is still very unpleasant for the receiver. Indefinite prison sentences are genralyy considered bad, by much of society and the prisoners themselves.
"My understanding is that admins are not police or arbitrators but people carrying out administrative work on behalf of the WP community."
Nope. Not only is it true that admins are police, but it is also true that all editors are police. Many police powers (revert) are given to everybody including IP editors who are here for the first time. Other police powers (rollback) are given to editors who have shown some trustworthiness (I have rollback privileges). Other police powers are given only to admins, others only to the arbcon, and a few (deleting the main page, deleting everything and shutting down Wikipedia permanently) are only given to Jimbo Wales.
"They have the right, indeed the duty, to ban people as a result of a community consensus, but in the case of Glkanter there was no such consensus, there was not even a discussion."
Nope. There are things that are basically police actions (you or me reverting edits, any admin applying a block) that require no prior consensus. The reason they require no prior consensus is because they can be undone with a single mouse click by another editor or another administrator. In such cases you are free to seek consensus after the fact that the action was wrong and should be undone, but no prior consensus is required.
I guess a prisoner can be freed with only a key click. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It is my belief that Elen acted completely beyond her powers and contrary to the spirit and policies of Wikipedia."
I, the 14 admins on the arbcon. and 3 uninvolved admins all disagree. Do you have any specific quotes from specific policies that you believe were violated? If so, I will be glad to examine each one and give my opinion.
"Glkanter's comments were relatively mild and made in his own user space about a WP editor who had brought the Arbcom action against him."
I, the 14 admins on the arbcon. and 3 uninvolved admins all disagree. I strongly disagree. Such behavior is totally unacceptable by any Wikipedia editor. He cannot plead ignorance; he was blocked twice before. I personally told him that he should be on his best behavior during arbcom. There is a pattern here. The 1000 word limit does not apply to him. The rules about not editing another user's evidence section do not apply to him. The warnings attached to his two earlier blocks (see his talk page) do not apply to him. And now the rules about civility and personal attacks do not apply to him.
"and made in his own user space"
Irrelevant. Show me a policy that says personal attacks are allowed on user pages.
"about a WP editor who had brought the Arbcom action against him."
Irrelevant. Show me a policy that says personal attacks are allowed in retaliation for bringing a dispute to arbcon.
Seriously. The above is not just empty words used for emotional impact. You are the one claiming that certain things are allowed and certain others are not allowed. The burden is on you to supply specific quotes from policy documents supporting your claims.
"It may well be that, had the matter been pursued through the proper channels, Glkanter would have ended up with a ban (although I doubt an indefinite one from the whole of WP) but this is no excuse for not following the proper procedure."
Proper procedures were followed. Name one that wasn't.
(In response to "the block imposed on Glkanter is not a ban") "Sorry that I got the terminology wrong but the fact is that he cannot edit due to the action of an admin."
If you had bothered to read WP:BAN you would have read this:
"Banning should not be confused with blocking, which is a technical mechanism used to prevent an account or IP address from editing Wikipedia. While blocks are one mechanism used to enforce bans, they are most often used to deal with vandalism and violations of the three-revert rule. A ban does not, in itself, disable an editor's ability to edit any page. However, editors who violate a ban may have their account access blocked entirely, as a way of enforcing the ban."
May I gently suggest that you read the policies before accusing people of violating them? Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, excuse me for butting in, but both you and Gill need to reconsider your "allegiance" to Glkanter. You probably see Glkanter as "on your side", but from my brief interaction with him just before he was blocked, he was not acting like someone who is here to collaborate, and even assuming that was temporary lapse in his judgment, Glkanter has some wp:competence issue with respect to MHP. What happened to Glkanter is absolutely not unusual to what happens to any editor behaving like him in an article subject to WP:Discretionary sanctions. Check out WP:AE... Tijfo098 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tijfo098, perhaps you should assume good faith on the part of myself and Gill. I have not questioned Glkanter's block because he is 'on my side' as you put it, I have questioned it because it is, in my opinion wrong, and I believe that Gill takes the same view. In his professional life he has acted in court cases where much more serious injustices have taken place and has a strong interest in miscarriages of justice in general. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am just disappointed that, after specifically asking for my input, Martin ignored it except for making the one comment above. Guy Macon (talk) 21:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, I do not understand. In what sense have I ignored your input? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the rules of Wikipedia are unjust, then direct your arrows against these rules, and try to get them changed. If you feel that in this case the rules were wrongly applied, then explain which rule was applied wrongly how. If you can't do that, then do not blame the people who enforce the rules while exculpating someone who consistently refuses to pay attention to them. --Lambiam 23:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lambiam, you may recall that you left the MHP article in disgust because of the iron grip over the page by a small group of editors. It is only because of the persistence of Glkanter that you and others are now free to improve the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can only interpret this reaction by assuming you think the block was punitive and meant to be long-lasting. I don't see how or why you would think it is punitive, and Glkanter could have had it lifted in an instant by promising to stop his ranting (which he did all over Wikipedia) and become a good editor. Instead he just went on and on even after having been blocked. --Lambiam 18:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, rest assured, I do assume good faith on behalf of both of you and Gill. But there is such thing as cognitive dissonance, and after several admins (some of them arbitrators) failed to reach a compromise with Glkanter on his manner of communicating, and you don't see that as a problem, what else can I say; WP:NOTLAW and WP:GIANTDICK. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you all read WP:BLOCK differently from me. This is what I see:
...blocking is a serious matter, and administrators should avoid imposing blocks that are unlikely to be preventative in the reviewable circumstances.
Blocks should not be punitive
Blocks should not be used:
1. in retaliation against users;
3. as punishment against users,
Blocks should be preventative
Blocks intended solely to "cool down" an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.
Those are the bits which tell you not to block him. Under which part of the policy was Glkanter blocked? Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They prevented him from annoying (almost) everyone any further—wikijargon for that is WP:CIVIL and WP:DE. Isn't that obvious? Tijfo098 (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The quoted reason for his block was text on his talk page. From what I know of it it was a relatively polite criticism of Rick but unfortunately we cannot see what he wrote now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He was warned by a couple of Arbs to stop that several times, e.g. (and the next diff from Glk is another giant rant about Rick). Since you like legalisms so much, do yo expect to spit a judge in the face in the courtroom and walk out? Or a more appropriate one: spit your boss in the face and not be fired? Tijfo098 (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "I guess a prisoner can be freed with only a key click", such melodramatic language is not helpful. The correct analogy isn't someone being put in prison, but rather someone being denied admittance to a privately-owned business because of repeated disruptive behavior. We don't own Wikipedia and we are here as guests of the owners. Anyone can start an online encyclopedia, and Wikipedia will even give you the software needed to run it for free. Many have tried to start alternative encyclopedias with different sets of rules, including at least one that was based upon giving disruptive editors like Glkanter free reign. All have failed. Please consider that perhap the nasty old rules are not as bad as you think they are.
Re: "Under which part of the policy was Glkanter blocked?", WP:BLOCK says "A user may be blocked when his or her conduct severely disrupts the project; that is, when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." If this longstanding pattern of disruptive behavior doesn't qualify, I don't know what does. Obviously you disagree, but just as obviously a bunch of people who don't know each other are telling you that you are wrong. There are few things more disruptive than personal attack on arbitrators during an arbcom.
Re: "Blocks should be preventative" and "Blocks intended solely to 'cool down' an angry user should not be used, as they often have the opposite effect. However, an angry user who is also being disruptive can be blocked to prevent further disruption.", nobody even hinted that Glkanter needed to cool down. Quite the contrary, actually; many have noted that warnings and blocks have no apparent effect on his behavior.
Re: "Blocks should not be punitive", "Blocks should not be used in retaliation against users" and "Blocks should not be used as punishment against users", Nobody but you seems to think they are in this case. I have been monitoring arbcon cases (without commenting) for a long time, and it is my observation that arbitrators are hypersensitive to any hint of such behavior by other arbitrators, and do not hesitate to say so.
Re: "The quoted reason for his block was text on his talk page. From what I know of it it was a relatively polite criticism of Rick but unfortunately we cannot see what he wrote now", not even close. The quoted reason for his block is still there, and was an attack on an arbitrator after repeated warnings not to attack anyone. The following (from the diff Tijfo098 posted above) couldn't have been more clear:
"If you have something to say about him or anything else to say to the arbitrators, present it calmly and neutrally, otherwise your talk page access will be removed so that arbitrators don't need to keep reading your posts here. If that happens, you will still be able to communicate with the arbitration committee via email, however you will be put on moderation and rants will be rejected."
So, in summary, you have failed to show a single policy that was not followed. Guy Macon (talk) 04:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for coming to my talk page to explain things to me I understand very well now. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A brief comment on the MHP arbitration
Hello Martin,
as you know, I was not involved in the process at all, other than being named in arbitration and being at the receiving end of a somewhat unkind and (IMHO) undeserved comment from you. Lack of time and (mostly) of interest. Now that it is coming to an end, and with a fairly predictable conclusion, I just want to point you to a short WP essay: I hope that reflecting upon it may be useful to you as a WP editor and to the project as a whole. It's Wikipedia:Randy's enablers. Cheers glopk (talk) 03:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Glopk, you have made some unkind remarks about me in the past. Let us call that quits.
I read your essay. I guess the main reason that I have supported Glkanter is justice. This is a very fragile concept that is easily eroded by convenience. Those enforcing rules need to maintain higher standards than those breaking them. 'He had it coming' and similar arguments must not be accepted.
Today's heros were yesterday's troublemakers. There is agreement amongst the arbitrators that there was a degree of page ownership and tendentious editing by some editors. As I have pointed out to Lambiam above, it is thanks to the action of Glkanter the many editors who were driven away from the page by those factors can now return and edit the page.
Finally let me make clear that I do not agree with the way that Glkanter has dealt with this arbitration and I have told him so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re "I would also point out that it is often because of people like Glkanter that things get done" my rebuttal consist of the following arguments:
Wikipedia, which does not tolerate such behavior, is a huge success. Every online encyclopedia - in fact just about every online forum of any kind - that does tolerate such behavior has been a resounding failure.
You are in a very small minority that believes that people like Glkanter get things done. Many people from highly experienced administrators to totally uninvolved editors have told you that his behavior hurts Wikipedia.
Re "it is thanks to the action of Glkanter the many editors who were driven away from the page by those factors can now return and edit the page". highly debatable, almost certainly not true, and even if it were true, two wrongs don't make a right. Justice means that everybody has to play by the same rules. Even Jimbo Wales must follow the rules. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Wales#Controversy There is no exception for someone who does what you describe, and what you describe is not a credible claim.
Re: "I guess the main reason that I have supported Glkanter is justice", I take great offense to the implication that I am not supporting the consensus view of Glkanter's behavior because of justice. Give me a real example of someone being treated unfairly and I will be the first to defend that person. This is clearly not such a case.
In summary, your assertion that Glkanter has been treated unfairly and your assertion that Glkanter has been a force for good are, in the opinion of pretty much everybody who has examines them, totally without merit. Glkanter has been treated fairly and within the rules. This is a fact, and you are simply wrong if you think otherwise. If you think the rules are unfair, try to change them. Go ahead and introduce a proposal to the effect that "getting things done" excuses an editor from the rules concerning civility and personal attacks. But until the rules are changed to accommodate you, live by the current rules and admit that you have no case when you claim that the rules were not followed. Guy Macon (talk) 11:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin fighting Arbcom and the people who regularly go there is much akin to pissing in the wind, you may good and valid reasons that are perrfectly valid and make sense and they the wind will only blow them back in your face. It's a pointless debate that only ends in frustration. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, but in this case the reasons are neither good nor valid. Guy Macon (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are plenty of very good and valid reasons. You have to carefully observe the whole history and you have to have some understanding of the content, before you are able to make a good judgement on this, I think. Appearances can be deceptive. You can't judge behaviour without any sensitivity to the content. Richard Gill (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One Arbcom member (John Vandenberg) did "carefully observe the whole history" and commented: "I have had the joy of reading all the archives; I tried to poke out my eyes afterwards." Some others of us have had the joy opportunity to observe the history in realtime and have no quarrel with the apparent outcome. hydnjo (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I, on the other hand, have been careful not to read the MHP page, the MHP talk page, or any sections of user pages covering MHP content. That is because I categorically reject the assertion that "You can't judge behaviour without any sensitivity to the content." Bad behavior is bad behavior, and no possible content (or bad behavior by others) can turn bad behavior into good behavior. I have avoided MHP content because of a simple principle: either evidence of bad behavior is presented in the diffs or it isn't. If it isn't, no sanctions are allowed and anyone who tried to impose sanctions without someone posting diffs showing bad behavior would have a dispute with me and we would be going through the dispute resolution process. On the other hand, if the diffs do show misbehavior, ignoring that misbehavior based upon content is not allowed
It seems clear that some here are setting themselves up so they can conclude that the arbitration committee - every one of them - is wrong, that I am wrong, that Hydnjo is wrong, etc. I am going to predict that despite claiming that we are all wrong, there will be no attempt to go through the various steps of dispute resolution, because that would require evidence rather than assertions. Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Some here'. That is not a personal attack I trust. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Guy, but John learned Tsirelson's theorem, and you haven't! ;-) Tijfo098 (talk) 00:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying everybody was wrong, nor am I saying that anybody in particular was wrong. I'm saying that something fishy has happened. I'm not surprised and I'm not complaining. I'm analyzing and commenting.
A wikipedia admin gets a minor penalty for ownership issues. A newcomer editor who strongly fought those ownership issues, because he was confronted by them on his very first day on wikipedia, gets a very heavy sanction. Whereas it seems that his most serious crime was to carefully document said ownership issues on his talk page. OK, so everyone superficially can see that he is breaking wikipedia rules that you mustn't say things about other editors, which can be interpreted as personal. But if you objectively document behaviour of another editor and say that it comes across to you as unfair, ownership, and so on .. I don't think that that is a personal attack.
Please also remember that it was said admin who requested the arbitration because in his opinion said newby editor was the cause that mediation was failing.
Please also recall that said newby who got this heavy punishment said ugly things about yours truly, and yours truly reciprocated in the same spirit, without either of us reporting the other to the authorities. Please also recall that said newby complained about other editors' OR and other editors' lack of respect for Verifiability, and these findings were confirmed by the arbitration. Richard Gill (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I know I'll regret this - and make no promises to continue this conversation, but this is really too much. Richard, I do think you too should read Wikipedia:Randy's enablers and meditate upon it. Let's take it point by point:
A wikipedia admin gets a minor penalty for ownership issues -- Could it be because the documented issues were found to be minor? And occurring in the course of a neverending effort to reach consensus by offering practical solutions in the form of actual and proposed edits, rather than rants and venting and personal attacks?
A newcomer editor who strongly fought [...] gets a very heavy sanction -- Under what definition of "newcomer" would Glkanter fall? Have you any idea of the size of his own diffs? It's large. Did he not participate in this MHP debate for near two years? He did. Did he not go through rounds if RfC, mediation and - finally - arbitration? Ditto. Is it a fair expectation that after all that he should have learned the rules of the WP house and, if he had a case, prevailed? It is. But not only he did not learn the rules, he actually managed to follow nearly to the letter points 1,3,4,6,7,8,10 and 11 of the BGD template, with a predictable result.
OK everyone superficially can see that he is breaking wikipedia rules [...] But if you objectively document behaviour of another editor [...] I don't think that that is a personal attack -- That is an interesting notion of justice. Let's see how it may apply in real life: if I publish nasty and entirely unfounded smears about you, and you sue me for libel in the Crown's Courts to protect your reputation, and all the available objective evidence indicates that you would indeed prevail, do you think that your barrister would advise you that, by all means, you jolly ought to go every day to Court and rant and personally attack me, the jury, the clerks, and the judge?
Remember that it was said admin who requested the arbitration because in his opinion said newby editor was the cause that mediation was failing -- Entirely irrelevant to the conclusion - please re-read carefully Guy's comments above: arbitration and mediation cover separate problem areas. In fact, it was Glkanter inability or unwillingness to understand this fact that caused the first scuffle between him and the arb clerks. Glkanter was named in arb by Rick because of his behavior, not his opinions regarding the MHP article.
Recall that [Glkanter] said ugly things about yours truly, and yours truly reciprocated in the same spirit, without either of us reporting the other to the authorities -- That was between you and him. Does it imply that everybody else should put up with such behavior?
Other editors' lack of respect for Verifiability [...] confirmed by the arbitration -- And how does that excuse Glkanter's own behavior?
An arbitration case regarding Monty Hall problem has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following is a summary of the sanctions that were enacted:
SilkTork, as you will see, Blackash continues to exert a strong opinion on the talk page on issues with a strong commercial and personal COI. I think it is essential for Blackash to be banned from the Tree shaping talk page so that editors with no commercial interest or personal involvement can discuss the issues of article name and current practitioners without continual interference.
This argument has gone on for years now. Several editors who came long ago in response to an RfC in this subject have been unable to make any progress because of continual interference from COI editors. Slowart obviously also has a COI but at least seems willing to withdraw from certain discussions if Blackash does the same. Something needs to be done. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did consider suggesting that the topic ban should include discussion of the topic anywhere on or linked to Wikipedia as I felt that the matter would not die simply with a ban on directly editing the article. I'll take a look. SilkTork *YES! 10:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[comment deleted; issue was resolved] Guy Macon (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck out my original intro and replaced it with a more appropriate one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copying signatures
Hi Martin, I don't want to come across as being overly picky, but I really do not approve of copying my signature into a reply post as you did at Talk: Mail (armour). This can make it look like I signed something I did not write. Would you mind amending your post please? SpinningSpark 09:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I will attend to the matter. I sometimes copy sigs as an easy way of referring to or addressing an editor but I also object when this causes confusion as to who said what. I will be more careful about copying sigs in the future. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:41, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have no problem with linking to my page but an exact copy of my signature does cause confusion - especially to me. I have now withdrawn the RfC, it does seem pointless if Samurai is going to work on the article. SpinningSpark 10:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Tree shaping and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
I happened to find a paper yesterday which briefly mentions Edwards' transformations.
Malykin, G. B. (2009). Classical optical experiments and special relativity: A review. Optics & Spectroscopy, 107(4), 592-608.
I'm not posting this to the "one-way" talk page because I'm not suggesting it be included. It does contradict the wiki article, but I strongly suspect Malykin is incorrect in his conclusion. I thought you might be interested.
It's a three-sentence subsection within a section titled incorrect para-Lorentz transformations. Malykin lists quite a few of these, followed by a section with "correct" para-Lorentz transformations, of which he lists just two: Tangherlini and Sjödin transformations. Below is the section.
Edwards Transformations
In 1963, W. F. Edwards proposed the following transformations:
It follows from these that
It is clear that these transformations cannot explain the results of the Kennedy–Thorndike experiments.
<end of article section>
It seems likely from the quote cited to Edwards in the "one-way" article and from other discussions of Zhang elsewhere, that Malykin's analysis didn't properly take into account that these transformations are anisotropic for the outbound and return legs.
Also, to answer your query from ten months ago, Tom's contact information can be found from the FNAL Phone Book (a web search will find it). He mentions that at the top of the "experimental basis of SR" faq. You may or may not want to contact him at this point, but in case you do for any reason that ought to work. Tim Shuba (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you. I would certainly prefer Zhang's, and even Tom's, analysis over Malykin's. Thanks for the contact info. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's it bully users
Undo what you did on 2011 wimbeldon for the following reasons. You have not followed a single MOS guidline, didn't discuss with the user and then locked it for the anon so that you can do your own thing. An encyclopedia must be fullfilling and state everything. Your edit is so wrong undo it now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rageing Bull (talk • contribs) 20:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is no place in WP for advertising. It is an encyclopedia not a billboard. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an answer that's a POV. Plus you removed the reference which was being used else where. Well done for fine work of incompetence— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.179.68 (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitration case regarding Tree shaping has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
User:Blackash is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
User:Sydney Bluegum is topic banned from the subject of tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre widely construed for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace.
User:Slowart is topic banned from all discussion on the correct name for the tree shaping/arborsculpture/pooktre topic for one year. The topic ban includes talk pages, wikipedia space and userspace, but only covers discussion of what name should be given to the practice, and what title should be used for any articles on the subject.
The community is urged to open up a discussion, by way of request for comment, on the article currently located at Tree shaping to determine the consensus name and scope for the subject matter, whether it should stand alone or whether it is best upmerged to a parent article. To gain a broad consensus, naming and scope proposals should be adequately laid out and outside comments invited to gain a community-based consensus. This should be resolved within two months of the closing of this case. Parties that are otherwise topic banned are allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion, and to answer specific queries addressed to them or their proposals. This concession is made due to their experience and familiarity with the area.
Within seven days of the conclusion of this case, all parties must either delete evidence sub-pages in their user space or request deletion of them using the {{db-author}} or {{db-self}} template.
For the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Two envelopes problem
hi mate, from previous discussions I recall you might be of more of a philosophical than mathematical bent. If you're interested I would like to play the two envelopes problem with you, to illustrate the fallacy in the switching argument.... If you're not interested, no worries. To kick it off, there is $1 in one envelope and $2 in another. You are holding an envelope. Now - what is A? Dilaudid (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I get the impression that you are going to tell me something I already know. Have you seen the new section that I added called, 'Introduction to resolutions of the paradox'? In that, I point out that for a finite distribution step 6 fails. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:19, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well apologies for patronising your math skills. But what I'm trying to point out is that for any proper distribution, step 6 fails. There is nothing in the switching argument that distinguishes between a finite or infinite distribution. Therefore if it is not valid for one, it is not a valid argument for either. This is what happens when one defines A sloppily. Dilaudid (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let me start with where I think we agree:
For a finite distribution, step 6 always fails.
A distribution such as 'chance that the smaller of the two envelopes contains an amount between 2n and 2n + 1 is p(n), where n is any whole number' is improper and this leads to a non-sequitur regarding step 6.
However, if you look at the second variant, you will see that, 'examples can still easily be found of proper probability distributions, such that the expected value of the amount in the second envelope given that in the first does exceed the amount in the first, whatever it might be'. Here, step 6 holds good, but the expectation is infinite for both envelopes. This essentially invalidates step 8. I do not see anything about a sloppy definition of A. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can I suggest moving this conversation to the talk page, where others can join in. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sloppy definition of A that I was worried about is whether it's a random variable (and we are frequentists) or it's a positive real number (and we are bayesians). It's clear we are talking about a Bayesian approach, which means that the probabilies of being the greater or lesser are functions of , and a prior distribution. While you are correct that you can have a proper prior with infinite expectation, you cannot have a proper prior where the probabilities are 1⁄2 for all , so either step 6 fails or the prior is improper. And it is true if you allow an improper prior the infinite expectation means that step 8 fails (although I hadn't realised that until you explained it) this means irrespective of the prior we choose, the argument is fallacious. Let's take this back to the main talk page when we are in agreement, if that's ok with you. Dilaudid (talk) 10:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify - I think the quote you have there is from Chalmers paper. I was interested and confused by that point for a little while after I read his paper, you just explained its resolution rather well (infinite expectations mean that it *doesn't matter*). This isn't relevant to what we are interested in, which is the precise flaw in the switching argument (which is using an infinite uniform prior, an improper prior). It's more relevant to the St Petersberg Paradox. I think we need to be careful not to start mixing our paradoxes, that leads to madness. Dilaudid (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dilaudid, I seem to be having a related conversation on the 'arguments' page. Let us continue there. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The best ref, IMO is Horticultural Reviews, Volume 35 [10] Horticultural Reviews, Volume 35 Edited by Jules Janick Copyright & 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Page 442. section 4. Creation of Unusual Growth Forms. In the ornamental nursery trade, it is a common practice to graft a scion from dwarf or weeping cultivar onto a tall straight stem of a compatible understock to mimic an arborescent growth habit. Tree roses can be formed by double working
using a shrubby garden rose scion, a Multuflora de la Grifferaie
interstock, to form a straight trunk, and ‘Dr. Huey’ rootstock. Grafting
to create unusual growth forms in a practice called arborsculpture
involves intertwining and grafting together the stems of two or more
plants in order to create domes, chairs, ladders, and other fanciful
sculptures (Fig. 9.2)" Thanks for asking. Slowart (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Martin Slowart is Richard Reames Arborsculpture him self.?oygul (talk) 01:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, why are you telling me this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From an observer at the north pole of the earth looking straight up, all the stars appear to be orbiting and affected by a fictitious centripetal (not centrifugal) force. Why is this type of fictitious force not included in the wiki articles about the various types of fictitious forces? Rcgldr (talk) 17:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is! In the rotating reference frame of the Earth, the stars are subject to a (outwards) centrifugal force and a greater (inwards) Coriolis force. The net result is the required centripetal force that holds them in orbit. But why are you asking me? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I later realized the apparent coriolis force has double the magnitude and opposite direction of the apparent centrifugal force giving the appearance of an apparent fictitious centripetal force, but one that is covered by the existing coriolis and centrifugal forces. I asked you about this since you posted on the dicussion page for centrifugal force. Rcgldr (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read what you wrote on the MHP talk page about levels of the problem. Maybe you yourself do believe such levels exist. Rather then just mentioning them it would give more insight to formulate what you mean. Just mention what the problem should be on the different levels. Nijdam (talk) 17:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet checks
Hiya, when you file a checkuser request on an account, please consider notifying the related users about the request, thanks. --Elonka 00:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI instructions state that there is no requirement to notify suspected sockpuppets of a pending investigation. This is in contrast to most other WP processes (ANI, Arbitration, etc) where notification of involved persons is required. I suppose that SPI notification may seem like the polite thing to do, and in some cases it may be desirable, but there are situations where it may increase drama and should be avoided. --Noleander (talk) 01:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True, notification is optional according to SPI instructions. But in this situation, related to Tree shaping, I am asking Martin Hogbin to make the notifications. Since they are on public pages anyway, I do not see any compelling reason why they should be kept quiet, and filing the requests without informing other parties is tending to just add confusion to an already confusing situation. --Elonka 02:11, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have never used SPI before and, after reading that notification was not a requirement, I actually forgot to notify those involved. I am happy to do so if yo wish, if I can work out how to do it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do comment here on your point 1 - 6. Concerning point 2. it is not necessary to assume the contestant chooses uniformly. Concerning the symmetry with respect to the door numbers: this means that for every combination of door numbers the decision will be the same, based on the different conditional probabilities, having the same value for every combination. Nijdam (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nijdam, it might be best to continue these discussions by email, or are you allowed to discuss the subject in user space? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm only banned from pages typically about the MHP itself. Nijdam (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Let me start with the term 'conditional'. I do not find this term particularly helpful but, nevertheless, let use the convention that events which occur with certainty in our scenario (those required by the game rules) are not considered conditions.
One immediate problem we encounter is that the game rules are not very well described in the Whitaker/vos Savant statement. In fact we have to make many of them up. Iet us make the normal assumptions, that the host always offers the swap, for example, even though the question only tells us that in this particular instance the host offers the swap we choose to assume that the host always offers the swap. You might note at this stage that the same applies to the words spoken by the host. We take it that the host is required to say exactly the same words each time he offers the swap. If we do not make this decision we should consider every word that the host uses to be a condition of the problem. Alternatively we could make the assumption that the words spoken are of no significance or, more specifically, that the position of the car after the host has spoken is independent of the words he says. Do you agree so far? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the term conditional. what do you mean by "not finding it helpful"? If it is just the word, you know, as Rick end I have often said, it is easy to avoid the word, and use some understandable terminology. But in this discussion it is easier to use this word, as we know exactly what it means. And in this discussion we cannot avoid it, because is crucial in the solution.
Do not try to confuse the discussion again with words said by the host, audience coughing, wind blowing etc. No source ever takes such thing into account. Neither do I. No one, except you, does. Any source, even the less reliable, describe the MHP in terms of the door with the car, the chosen door and the door opened by the host. So, just start from there. Nijdam (talk) 21:48, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not confusing the discussion, I am clarifying it. before we can answer the question at all we need to decide exactly what it means. This means deciding on the game rules and on what aspects of the question are significant. We have to make a decision that the words spoken by the host are not important. The question itself does not tell us that. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May be it clarifies thing for you. Nowhere in the problem statement it says that the way things go, depends on something else than the aspects I mentioned. Nijdam (talk) 22:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite right, but then the problem statement does not tell us anything at all about the way that things go. We have to decide for ourselves what events are significant before we can address the problem.
It is quite possible in a game show that the host would try to give clues as to what action the player should take by means of the language that he used. If we consider that this might be a possibility we must take it as a condition of our problem. In fact, this scenario seems more likely than that of a host having a bizarre and inexplicable preference for one door over another. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this discussion I'm not interested in all kind of diversities. What do you think the average reader will (have to) understand as the MHP? Nijdam (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To answer you question first, the average reader clearly understands the MHP as a problem where door numbers have no significance. In view of the fact that vos Savant added the door numbers to the problem it also seems clear that this was how Whitaker intended the problem to be understood. Of the thousands of letters from readers that vos Savant received there is no evidence that even one of them considered the door numbers, and more specifically the number of the door opened by the host, to be relevant. They may not all have used this language to describe their intuitive understanding but the average reader clearly understands the probability that the car is behind the originally chosen door to be independent of the door numbers in general and specifically of the door number opened by the host. It was some months before anyone (Morgan et al) proposed this dependence.
Regarding your interest, if you are going to arbitrarily ignore information in the problem statement then you cannot regard yourself as tackling the problem properly. The statement clearly tells us that the host says the word 'pick' before the player makes the decision on whether to swap or not. The statement does not tell us that the host always says this word so we must consider that case that the host might use another word or at least we must give a rationale for not doing so.
If course, I am being a little perverse, but so were Morgan et al. As a simple puzzle we regard the probability that the car is behind the originally chosen door to be independent of the door numbers and the specific door opened by the host, the words spoken by the host, and many other things. This is a perfectly reasonable and intuitive interpretation of the problem and it is the one that Whitaker intended and vos Savant responded to.
If you want to use this problem as a test for your students that is fine but it is unfair to expect them all to make the same decisions that you do. Most important is to make clear the decisions that have been made. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to know the average reader well. And even then, what do you mean by: "have no significance"? It will be easily understood by the average reader that (with quite natural assumptions) that any aspect of the solution will be invariant under permutation of the door numbers. So what? Where does this lead us?
The probability distribution of the position of the car is NOT independent of the door opened by the host. And hence it is not obvious that the probability for the chosen door to hide the car has initially the same value as after the host opened the goat door. Notice that I'm very careful in formulating this. That's where the simple solution fails as a solution to the full MHP, as you have admitted yourself.
So again: please formulate the version of the MHP as you think the average reader will understand it. And add if you also think this is the MHP as you understand it. Nijdam (talk) 15:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the standard version of the problem the host chooses a goat-hiding door uniformly at random. The host's choice of door is therefore independent of the position of the car. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean to say that, if one introduces random variables for the position of the car and the door the host opens, these two variables are statistically independent? Nijdam (talk) 21:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean that which of the goat-hiding doors the host opens is independent of the position of the car. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What then do you mean by "independent"?Nijdam (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Any chance on an answer? Nijdam (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Unconditional' solution
Nijdam, to make discussion easier, perhaps you could show me how you would do the calculation for the case where the player decides his strategy before the host opens a door. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does the contestant have a strategy? And even then, the contestant argues that in the case she picks door No. x and the host opens door No. h, she has to calculate the conditional probability, or alternatively the odds, to base her decision on. Nijdam (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The player's strategy is to always swap. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does she base this strategy on?Nijdam (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea but she comes to the show with the intention to swap. What is your solution to this problem? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another contestant has the strategy to stick to her first choice. Also a solution? Nijdam (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This does not seem a very constructive approach, don't you think? Nijdam (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand, all I am asking is for you to show me the way that you would do the calculation for what is commonly called the 'unconditional' case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what I write above? If the "unconditional case" is to be the situation in which the audience has on forehand to decide what the contestant's decision has to be, the I gave you my calculations. But again: the audience argues that in the case the contestant chooses door x and the host opens door h, the conditional probability on the car behind the remaining door, given x and h will be (under the usual assumptions) 2/3, for all values of x and h. Hence she better switches. Understood? Nijdam (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was asking for how you do this calculation. What sample space would you start with for the unconditional case? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "unconditional" case. as you call it, may need a more extensive way of solving, but further it needs the same sample space as any other form of the MHP. And you know what that is. Nijdam (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not call it the 'unconditional' case, that is what others call it. You seem to have changed your mind on how to solve it. Your opinion was, in common with all the sources on the subject, that the simple solutions were perfectly correct for the unconditional case and that a sample space consisting of only two elements (G and C) was all that is required to solve it. What is your reason for this change. ? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did indeed change my opinion. The simple solution, the one that says: The chance you first hit the car is 1/3, hence when switching you get it with chance 2/3, is only an answer to the question: what is the probability the average player who always switches will get the car? Even for this case the sample space should be rich enough to describe all that may happen. The only thing is, that for the calculation of the answer (in the symmetric situation, of course) we may use an equivalent simpler sample space, as you suggest. Nijdam (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what sample space do you consider necessary for the question, 'what is the probability the average player who always switches will get the car?'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To describe the problem we need the well known sample space with 18 elements. The average player who always switches may have chosen door 1, door 2 or door 3 and then switches to the remaining door. The position of the car is also important, and the independence of choice and car position. We may reason that hitting initially a goat, gets the car after switching, so we may leave the host out and look at a sample space of 9 elements: {(c,x)|c,x=1,2,3}, etc. Nijdam (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do we need to start with a sample space of 18 elements? Why not more, to include every possibility, such as the host's choice of words? Why not fewer, because we can work out, as you say above, that some elements are not required. Why not the sample space G1,G2,C? The doors and door numbers are irrelevant, all that matters is what is behind the door. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have been here before. You may "complicate" the outcomes, for instance by adding some words the host says, like the outcome: the car is behind door 2,contestant chooses door 1, the host opens door 3, the host says "hello", and it is raining, You then have to add also the combinations with the host not saying "hello", and with not raining. It enlarges the sample space, but does not change the analysis. To describe the event that the car is behind door 2, you have to combine all the outcomes where the car is behind door 1, so with the host not saying "hello" and with the host saying "hello" etc. If you want to describe the situation in which the host says "hello", you have to condition on this event. And guess what, as nothing depends on this "hello", the conditional probabilities have the same values as the original probabilities. The same holds for the host not saying "hello", so why bother. The point is that nowhere in the problem statement it says that anything depends on the host saying "hello", A smaller sample space however with less elements is not capable of describing the essential events that may happen. You say: the door numbers are not relevant, but not relevant to what? Presumably you mean, not relevant in the sense that for every combination of door numbers the desired conditional probabilities have the same value? Nijdam (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You say, 'nowhere in the problem statement it says that anything depends on the host saying "hello"', actually I would prefer to say 'pick' because we are told in the question that the host says 'pick'.
Nowhere in the question does it say that anything depends on the door number opened by the host. It is exactly the same. We are told that the host says 'pick' and that the host opens door 3. We know the host could have used a different word and could have opened a different door.
Why then must we include the door opened by the host in our sample space but not the words said by the host? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is also a matter of common understanding of language. But, anyway, the best is you show me the sample space you have in mind, with an essential role for the host saying "pick". Nijdam (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom Request for clarification
I understand the Arbcom ban on certain users to apply to this discussion and any comments from banned editors will be immediately removed from my user space
Do you have time to make a Request for Clarification about the sanctions against Blackash, Slowart, and SydneyBluegum today? I would do it myself but I am crazy busy and should not even be writing this. I will second the request if you make it. Colincbn (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to do that. I cannot believe that Arcom wanted what has happened. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
from Arbcom has put a tag on the page for closing admins. I think this is the best we will get. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is not good enough for me. ArbCom made a ruling in plain English that is not being upheld. Either they need to reword it or stop the violations. I will make the request when I get the time. Colincbn (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think would be a better wording? --Elonka 01:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the current wording makes their intention fairly clear. Arbcom were considering a complete ban on Blackash and Slowart but decided that, because of their expertise in the subject, they should be allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion (my bold). This seems fairly clear to me. In order to facilitate this process, I asked for contributions from both banned expert editors at the start of the discussion but got no response. What they have done, initiated by Blackash, is to try to game the system by using their 'one free hit' not to outlay proposals but to have the maximum impact on the closing admin. John Brandenburg's notice may go some way to reducing this impact but I agree with Colin that it does not really go far enough.
It is quite clear from Blackash's latest comments on the talk page that her only objective is to prevent the name 'arborsculpture' from being used. This reaction is not based on any WP policy but on her own commercial and personal rivalry with Slowart. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to file a Request for Clarification, that is your choice. --Elonka 23:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overreacting
I doubt some silly image of Mr. Breivik is going to result in more people dying. Breivik or no Breivik, image or no image, sicko's excist and commit their atrocities regardless. The article should be properly illustrated, and images of Breivik are available. So we shall use them untill a better image is found, licensed and uploaded. Maybe we should also consider protecting the page. Polozooza (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are no expert. Have you seen the video? That is the word by an expert on these things.Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As it just so happens, I am an expert. I am not going to base my entire opinion on a single video, and neither should you. Polozooza (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you trying to kid? Experts do not write "sicko's excist", or "I doubt some silly image of Mr. Breivik is going to result in more people dying". Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not every "expert" is speaks English as a native language, brother. :) Polozooza (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a sense of humour but if you want to make joke, please do it with something less serious. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the admins to intervene. This is far more serious that a simple edit war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are one. You have a duty to intervene and prevent WP form becoming possible promoter of mass murder. These people do this kind of thing because they want fame and glory, we must not give it to them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
consistency of argument?
Why don't you oppose the inclusion of the image at Jared Lee Loughner, for which an equal consideration would seem to apply as to Breivik's? That is the problem I have with such an argument, if its to be made it should be made at a systemic level, not picking and choosing were it applies - unlike other editorial considerations which indeed should be case-by-case. --Cerejota (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One major difference is that Loughner's image is a standard mugshot not a staged self-promotion photo. I am not against having an image of Breivik but not one that shows him how he sees himself, as some kind of hero. This represents an extreme minority POV and could pose a significant danger of promoting copycats.
In my opinion even the image of Loughner is not ideal as there is a degree of glamour attached by some to a criminal mugshot. Just a picture to show what he looks like would be better.
I agree that these things should generally be considered at a systematic level just as is the case with BLPs but in this case we do not appear to have a system to cover it. No system can cover every possibility and just occasionally a little common sense is required. When the dust has settled on this case I am going to suggest that we work on some sort of policy, probably as an extension to the BLP policy. I agree vehemently that WP should not be censored so the policy needs to distinguish cases like this from people who want to censor for personal, or POV reasons. It is a complex subject that needs to be discussed carefully, but not while ther might be a significant risk of promoting mass killings. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is quite wrong to have the self promoting image anywhere in the article. I see no reason for a compromise, why not just use another picture? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Editing comment
Martin Hogbin, I have slightly edited your comment at Talk:Tree shaping (removed bolding, and made it its own section),[11] since it might have confused other editors into thinking that the RM was closed, when it was not. Please let an uninvolved administrator handle the close and the determination of consensus, thanks. --Elonka 06:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine with me, thanks for clarifying. I did not mean to create the impression that the RfM was closed but I see no reason why I should not try to clarify and summarise the facts. Any non-banned editor who disputes my summary is, of course, welcome to comment as well. We are coming to the end of a very long dispute involving an Arbcom decision and to end it on a snap decision by a passing admin, as nearly happened, would not be right.
I am concerned that a passing admin may not have the time to study the history properly and might make a quick decision based on what, at first sight, might seem to me a lack of consensus. This is why I suggested that you would be better to close this RfM. You have not stated any opinion on the naming dispute but have remained only to help maintain good order on the page. In my view that makes you uninvolved but informed. Alternatively, might we ask a member of Arbcom, who will also be familiar with the history of the dispute, to either close the case personally or to propose someone who they know will give the matter the attention which it deserves. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concerns. However, there are extremely qualified administrators who patrol WP:RM, and given the nature of the move discussion at Talk:Tree shaping, since it's clear that it's part of an ArbCom case, I am pretty confident that no one is going to come in and make a snap judgment. In fact, I think that anyone who doesn't have the time to really read and digest the discussion, is going to steer well clear of the article! The close is probably going to be left to someone who has experience with closing "one of the tough ones". Of course, if the close is way off-base, there will be ways to challenge it (as we did with SilkTork). My own general read of the discussion is that it could close one of two ways: The article is either moved, or the RM is closed as "no consensus". But instead of playing "what if" at this point, I recommend patience for at least another week, and then we'll see what happens. Sound good? --Elonka 15:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am baffled as to how anyone could say there is no consensus. What do you understand by a consensus? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Patience... --Elonka 23:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep comments at Talk:Tree shaping focused on the topic, and not on other editors. If you would like to refute a statement about the subject, that's fine. But attacking the motivations of another editor is not. --Elonka 00:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which bit are you referring to and which editor am I attacking? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request
Is this [12] the link you were looking for from AFDhero ?Slowart (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was interested to see what diff Afd hero would give me. The whole thing seems quite mysterious to me. AFD hero says '...move arborsculpture to a neutral name like Tree Shaping (as MgM suggests)' but I can find no suggestion from MgM. Can you shed any light on this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, is this discussion related to the naming issue, or something else? If the naming issue, we may be running afoul of ArbCom restrictions, since Slowart is banned from discussing it in userspace, as well as on article talkpages. Martin, could you please clarify? Is Slowart responding to a query you asked somewhere? --Elonka 16:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was in response to a question that I asked in replying to a post by AFD hero. Although I did not ask the question specifically of Slowart I would have thought that just providing an asked-for diff was pretty much what Arbcom had in mind when they allowed the banned editors to respond. If you are now interpreting things more strictly that is fine with me.
You might like to look at the link yourself and see if you can work out exactly who suggested 'Tree shaping' and on what basis. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It gets even weirder. This comment:
*CommentTree shaping (especially bonsai) and Tree trimming should be looked into as alternative less secret topics. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
was made the day before AFD hero made his comment above but it shows 'Tree shaping' as wikilinked, and the article mas moved at: 05:15, 10 January 2009. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was probably a red link at the time, like "Tree trimming"? Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, AFD hero has confirmed this. It is still rather a cryptic comment though and it represents the entirety of the discussion concerning the move to 'tree shaping' . I remain completely baffled as to why some editors support this random and unsuitable title. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Original Barnstar
Martin,
I enjoyed reading your comments on the discussion page to the Wiki article on reactive centrifugal force. In my view you are completely correct. This is a bogus concept and should not be given legitimacy like this. But it is a difficult subject as you can see from the discussion that I started on physicsforums.com at http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=523212AMSask (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!
Yes, it is a complicated subject, made more complicated by people who do not understand it. The problem is that historically the term 'centrifugal force' has been used with a variety of meanings, including the reactive force mentioned in the article. The reasons for this were originally that the subject was not fully understood, although by the 18th century I think mathematicians and physicists had a good grip of the subject. There is also no 'correct' meaning of the term. I has been made up by humans and it is up to us to decide what we want it to mean.
The problem has also been complicated by teaching of the subject. In the early 20th century some teachers, especially at in engineering subjects, considered that the concept of a rotating reference frame and was too hard for their students but still wanted an easy explanation for why., for example, turbine blades burst and they therefore put forward a, rather vague, concept of centrifugal force. Since the focus was on the engineering, the rigour of the physics was not considered that important. What then seems to have happened, in my opinion, is that some people were embarrassed by the fact they they were essentially wrong in their description of CF and invented, or maybe dragged up from the past, the correct but pointless definition of CF as the reaction to the centripetal force.
Later thinking on teaching the subject was that, at an elementary level, it is best to use Newton's laws in inertial frames only and therefore not to mention centrifugal force at all. The force is later introduced properly as the inertial force required in a rotating frame. I think there is general agreement that this approach causes the least confusion.
The problem is that there are still a few sources giving the reactive description of CF and some editors seem to think that we should therefore give this description equal exposure to the inertial force description. On the other hand there are many sources which support the idea of not mentioning CF at all in inertial frames and very few or none which say this is a good idea. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make it more complicated that it is. I'm pretty sure I understand it completely, and I'm not asking that reactive centrifugal force be given equal weight with the fictitious force. But it's an actual and distinct different concept of centrifugal force, and should not be ignored. It is not incorrect, and though deprecated, not totally gone even from twenty-first-century literature. I don't understand the desire to pretend it doesn't exist. Dicklyon (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you Dick. I welcome the opportunity to discus this subject in a civil and logical manner.
I do not want to say that the term RCF does not exist, as you say, there are undoubtedly some modern books that use the term. On the other hand its usage is deprecated, which is something we should take note of in writing our own encyclopedia. I therefore think we should move RCF into a section at the end of the article called 'Alternative and historical meanings' or the like. Let us first talk about sources:
Sources
I think you must agree that the considerable majority of modern sources use CF for the inertial force only (I prefer this term as I do not like to call something responsible for hurricanes 'fictitious').
More important though is what sources say about the two usages. I do not have any sources to hand (although I am sure I could find some if required) but there certainly are sources that strongly advise against the use of the term CF to mean anything other than ICF. On the other hand I do not believe that there are any sources at all which state that RCF is a better way to use the term.
As the main purpose of WP is to convey information to our readers, I think we should take the advice of sources dealing with the way this subject is taught.
Physics
As you know, if we want to do Newtonian physics in a rotating frame in exactly the same way as we do in an inertial frame, we need to invent a number of forces that have never previously existed. As these forces simply do not exist in an inertial frame it is very convenient to give them special and unique names. 'Centrifugal force' nicely describes one such force, which always acts away from the center of rotation.
As you also know, Newton's third law tells us that every force has an equal and opposite reaction force. So for example: the bullet on a gun exerts a reaction on the gasses to the force the expanding gasses exert on the bullet; the floor exerts an upward reaction force to the downward force that your shoes exert on the floor; and an accelerating mass exerts an equal and opposite reaction force on the object that is providing the accelerating force. This is standard Newtonian physics and although we could give each instance of a reaction force a special name, there is no advantage in doing so, in fact it would make the subject very cumbersome.
To give the RCF, which is just an instance of my last example, a special name suggests that this force has a special significance or that it is somehow different from other reaction forces but, as you know, this is not the case. Also, as has been pointed out, in the Newtonian case of two mutually orbiting bodes the reaction to the centripetal force exerted by one body on another (the RCF) is, in fact centripetally directed; very confusing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Athletics
I'm beginning to feel vaguely uneasy about this discussion. Specifically with your last reply. There's a difference between being conservative about what can go into the article and bare-faced lying to readers. Noym (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What lie are you referring to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"[N]obody apart from those involved in the tests, does know. Quite rightly, the results of a persons medical tests were not made public. This means that we cannot answer the question of what physical condition Caster might or might not have."
Um... what?
For one thing, Semenya's condition is openly named and discussed in a fairly large number of refereed scientific publications, in journals including Int J Sport Comm, Int J Sport Physiol Perform, J Genet Couns, or J Med Ethics. These journals are not exactly exotic; they are among the leading publications in their respective fields. Every life science department on the planet subscribes to these journals. Everybody with a browser and a credit card can order reprints of these articles.
Semenya's condition is also named and discussed in refereed humanities journals, for example the Duke journal of Lesbian and Gay studies and the Wellington journal of World Affairs. It is discussed in articles in law journals, for example Zaccone 2010 in the Brooklyn Law Review, Larson 2011 in the Pace International Law Review, and Adair 2011 in the Sports Lawyers Journal. There is a book by now, Krijnen et al. 2010, and there are at least two review articles, Tucker 2010 in the Int J Sport Physiol and Perf, and Martinez-Patino 2010 in the J Human Sport Exerc.
For another thing, there is the 2010 International Conference on Sexual Differentiation Disorders, which was convened by the IAAF specifically to discuss the Semenya disaster and the lessons to be learned from it. Of course this was not an open junket you could have simply walked in to, but they did solicit input from every endocrinology group in the known universe with a working knowledge of English and a listed phone number. The proceedings of this thing are not exactly secret either.
For a third thing, even if we didn't have the actual publications we'd still know what Semenya has simply from official statements by the IAAF. One the one hand the IAAF has confirmed the veracity of the leak in two separate interviews - perhaps not verbosely enough to pass BLP, but still. One the other hand the Berlin statement didn't leave a lot of questions unanswered anyway. We all know what specific tests they did in what specific order; it's spelled out pretty explicitly in the IAAF's official regulations. We all know that the fact the matter was not settled either after the imaging or after the karyotyping can mean only one thing.
I'm not going to edit the article. I respect BLP, even though I don't understand why leading geneticists writing in leading peer-reviewed genetics journals are somehow not reliable sources. I can live with the fact that BLP can occasionally cause articles to be inaccurate; I accept that BLP is more important than the absolute, perfect accuracy of any one single article. I do, however, find it disconcerting that we should lie. If you are uncomfortable with answering the question truthfully you could have simply not answered at all. It would have cost you nothing.
I am no expert in the subject but this is all news to me and has not been presented by anyone editing the Semenya article before. Is any of that information accessible online or can you post the relevant excerpts here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can post excerpts. The full text of most of the scientific papers is behind their respective publisher's paywalls. You'd need to either buy these papers or get someone in a research hospital or in a bio department to download them for you. Some of the legal stuff and the humanities essays are on the open web. You realize, of course, that if I post detailed citations here then people with agendas could try to use them to get the medical specifics into the article, right? Noym (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, are you saying that there are publications in which Caster Semenya is clearly stated to have a specific medical condition? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There are publications that specifically state which kind of gonads Caster Semenya has. There are publications that specifically name the reason she would look the way she looks in spite of having these gonads, the inability of a certain nuclear receptor protein to bind and retain a certain steroid hormone. There are many publications that do not directly identify the type of gonads or the pathenogenesis but that do use either the MeSH or the IDC-10 name for the class of conditions. Noym (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There would seem to be a serious breach of medical ethics involved somewhere. Surely it is not usual for patients to be named in scientific papers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The IAAF felt free to disclose the diagnosis because of the waivers that Semenya had signed. Scientists generally feel free to discuss things that are general public knowledge anyway. Looking at the timeline, first the IAAF trumpets the exam results in their Berlin statement, then all kinds of activists and humanities people use the diagnosis in all kinds of essays and proclamations, the we have the leak, then the IAAF confirms the leak, then finally the scientific papers begin to appear. I don't think that, say, Dr Martinez-Patino of the University of Vigo in Pontevedra committed an egregious violation of anything when he began writing his review article two years after Berlin. Noym (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your informative response, you seem to know a lot about this. My comments were based only on the sources quoted by others here. I completely agree that WP should not misinform but it should, on the other hand, respect individual privacy.
I am no expert on medical papers but is still seems wrong to me that someone should publish a medical review paper in which living individuals are named, even if it was a case that 'everybody knows'.
You say 'The IAAF felt free to disclose the diagnosis'. Where did they do this and is it possible to see what they published online? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
?oygul's contributions
These diffs represent the sum total of ?oygul's contributions to WP apart from subjects directly related to the arguments concerning Tree shaping.
I award this Barnstar to Martin Hogbin for highlighting and taking a stand against premature and selective archiving of discussions despite having no strong view on the actual material in question. Shakehandsman (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Request from Sydney Bluegum
Martin I feel your summary on the tree shaping change of name move was unnecessary. You have constantly misconscrewed the truth regarding myself. Your comments are perpetuating the untruths that were expoused by Ellen of the Roads when she did a terrible job of handling the Arbcom case and made up evidence against me eg made up the story where I supposedly stated that certain editors cut down trees with chainsaws. My whole comment was taken out of context, twisted and used against me.I believe none of the Editors read the evidence given or this would have been noticed and acted upon. You can jump up and down all you like and spruck on about whatever but stop spreading untruths.You have waged a campaign against any new editors that come to the tree shaping page that dont agree with your point of view eg Sockpuppet allegations against myself and oygul. There is absolutly NO evidence that we are linked. I do not know who this person is. It seems we live in the same city or area. 3 million people live my area. Helloannyong had feelings that we were linked but no real evidence. Also stop acting like an Administrator. Woo be the day that you made the grade,It will be a sad day for Wiki. Perhaps you could spend time outing the sockpuppets that you know. Ohh sorry they support your point of view.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. If nothing is done, I will. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Martin Hogbin, you are skating the edge of restrictions yourself, because you keep bringing up the same issues.[17] This has already gone through multiple checkuser requests and an ArbCom clarification request. It is understood that you do not agree with the decision, but please, let it go. It is not appropriate to be starting sections with headers such as, "My worst fears have been realised,"[18] or to call naming discussions, "absurd".[19] In the future, please keep your comments on the talkpage civil, conservative, and focused strictly on the article content. If you have new concerns about an editor, you are welcome to bring them to my talkpage, but the decision on the older issues (who can participate, how they can participate) has been made. It is final, so please stop bringing it up. --Elonka 05:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for policing the situation, but what is needed is investigation of the issues—one of Wikipedia's most prolonged COI cases. Do you have any suggestions for dealing with that? Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Put it on AE, which is the appropriate venue for this. Seriously. Its not "if nothing is done" - its where you go to get it taken care of. When you see a vandal, you report the vandal on AIV, you don't post on an admin's talk page and say "here is a vandal", do you? I don't understand why you aren't doing this, you are choosing a highly ineffective approach and placing the procedure provided as a last ditch resource instead of using it as it is intended. Can you explain why you're doing it this way? I'm deeply puzzled. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Elonka. You are right that I should not have commented on the actions of other editors on the talk page. If any new issues arise I will bring them up in the appropriate venue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, thanks! --Elonka 05:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stop harassing me
Martin, I'm not a "near SPA" your diff doesn't show all my edits on different articles unrelated to tree shaping unless you are saying articles like FP-45 Liberator are related? Ever since I went near pleaching you have continually called my editing, and who I am into question. It appears to me that you are trying to bully me away from tree shaping. I have looked at your contributions on other articles and it appears this is your style. You seem to make only token edits to the main article, you like getting into arguments and pushing your POV. I believe you need to stop focusing on other editors' behavior and start focusing on content. The way you edit, you are a disruptive editor. ?oygul (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Martin Hogbin. You have new messages at Noleander's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
NPOV noticeboard - speed of light
There is a section here[[20]] you may be interested in. 이방인 얼라이언스 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
^ Cheigh, H. S., Park, K. Y., and Lee, C. Y. (1994). Biochemical,
microbiological, and nutritional aspects of kimchi (Korean fermented vegetable products). Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 34(2). 175 – 203.
^ Koo, O. K., Jeong, D. W., Lee, J. M., Kim, M. J., Lee, J. H., Chang, H. C., Kim, J. H., and Lee, H. J. (2005). Cloning and characterization of the bifunctional alcohol/acetaldehyde dehydrogenase gene (adhE) in Leuconostoc mesenteroides isolated from kimchi. Biotechnology Letters, 27(7), 505-510.
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Global warming, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Doctor Who. 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. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. magnius (talk) 14:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
