User talk:Geometry guy/Archive 30

No editor is Moses

Yama, Dharmapala, the Lord of Death.

Excellent. I hope you don't mind my gentle copyedit - feel free to rv of course. Coincidentally it's along the lines of something I was thinking about myself: basically that there are people who seem to know instinctively how to conduct themselves in a given situation, and others who don't. Inevitably rulesets are developed to enable those who don't to conduct themselves like those who do, but because such conduct is enforced from without rather than coming from within they end up following the letter of the ruleset and missing the spirit. Adherence to the rules becomes more important than adherence to the philosophy that pre-dated them, and the rules—which become ever more prescriptive to account for all situations—are then applied to those who never had a need for them in the first place. Thus does friction arise... EyeSerene^talk 18:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you approve, and appreciate the copyedit. This is a quite subtle matter, and your comment here articulates the issue much more clearly than it was in my own mind: I began the Hosea section partly to be self-critical, but what you have explained is why such different approaches are necessary – as well as the reasons they can lead to friction. The essay is only in my user space to let it mature: I encourage others to improve it. If it proves to be consonant and helpful, I would be happy to move it into project space. If it doesn't, I will probably delete it. You may also have better ideas for the title of the essay and the development of the main concept: I like the shortcut and the basic idea of the essay, but my knowledge of the prophets is rather limited, as is my supply of good jokes :) Geometry guy 23:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

• You need a corollary: "No editor is Angry Jesus". I have thought a lot, lot, lot about my time on Wikipedia. I have had many opportunities to put space between myself and my past edits. And I have come to one central conclusion. I dunno where or when I lost my way, but I do know how – I stopped seeing myself as an editor, and began seeing myself as a gatekeeper and guardian of the Wiki... If Angry Jesus is too sacrilegious, try Cerberus or Byalah or Komainu or Shishi or Dtuwamaum or Yama, Dharmapala Ling.Nut3 (talk) 02:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

  Hi Ling - always good to see you here. You are unduly critical about your own past contributions, but I understand the issue you are raising about the "gatekeeper/guardian of the Wiki" mentality. I've been accused of that once myself! One essay cannot solve every problem, and, in my view, this goes beyond the Moses issue that the essay raises. But if others see a nice way to incorporate it, then give it a shot! Geometry guy 03:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A gift for you

A basket of nuts for you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You've been making so many thoughtful posts everywhere lately that I wanted to give you a small token of my appreciation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

To share with the nuts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps you'd prefer to make mincemeat to go with your nuts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that: it motivates me to go out and find such nutritious food! I was just replying when you added the mincemeat: it looks delicious.

I certainly try to think (and read) before I post: it is a habit I strongly recommend to all editors. Most of all, I am glad when my comments are read and appreciated. Wikipedia faces many challenges, and editors need to work together to deal with them.

Thanks in turn, SandyG, for all that you do Geometry guy 01:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Geometry guy,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 19:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Jonathan. Thanks for stopping by, but I regret that I must decline your invitation. In any case, I am a somewhat atypical admin, in that I hardly ever use the admin tools, and what little administration I do is mostly technical. I wish you success with your project. Geometry guy 13:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

hey

I'll drop by here tomorrow and chat a bit. I saw your reply, and I'm not ignoring anything .. just have some real life stuff to deal with tonight. all my best .. — Ched :  ?  22:37, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries - I couldn't imagine you deliberately ignoring something. (Alas, I frequently ignore things through carelessness or lack of time, but welcome being pinged when I do.) I look forward to chatting with you whenever you would like to do so, on this topic or any other. Geometry guy 22:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey .. first, I know you have a lot more pull around this site than I do, and I admire all the great stuff you do. Pretty much a lot of things I was going to say were posted by Risker below. The thing that jumped out at me was the idea that BarkingMoon was not a new user. From everything I've seen or been told either on or off wiki makes me think that he actually was a new editor. Now, did Rlevse/Pumpkinsky have some influence on him .. I'd say that's pretty obvious that he did. My thought is that if someone encouraged a friend/fellow student/co-worker/friend of the family to edit Wikipedia ... cool .. glad to have more people here. I think the way the project treats new users is disgraceful. But, I think that the individual people here are good people. I'm not really familiar with either JV or Hersfold, so I can't really comment on that. I know that by nature everyone wants to know what the hell is going on here. I'm also painfully aware that there's a very fine line between "transparency" and "privacy". I'm not really sure what more I can say here. I have no problem with trying to respond to any questions you or anyone else might have - but I think almost anything and everything has been pretty much covered at this point. It's obvious that there's no consensus to just ban and shun PS/R ... so at this point, I'd say it's pretty much up to him. If he decides he wants to edit here .. then I will most certainly encourage him to do so. I look at the content he added, and it was damn good stuff. Perfect? nope, all our articles can be improved. Anyway .. I admire your work here, and feel free to ping me anytime. cheers. — Ched :  ?  17:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your general concerns about new users. It is problem, although I don't know how extensive/systemic it is: we do tend to hear only about the cases where new users have been treated badly. I certainly wasn't, but that was 5 years ago.

Concerning BarkingMoon, you don't have to take my word for it that he was not a typical new user: read Hersfold's and Steven Zhang's comments at the SPI, or check the earliest edits on the account for yourself: less than 3 hours after creating the account, he is commenting at ANI on a case of prior interest to RLevse.

Of course, that doesn't disprove your theory, and there is some evidence for it: BarkingMoon's second edit refers to "cajoling by my friend" to create an account, and Kiril's comments on the SPI are suggestive. It is a theory I've considered, find plausible, and would not dismiss. But there are caveats: if this was a new user (rather than an experienced user faking it) then there is some atypical editing. RLevse, frustrated about not being able to edit, may have cajoled a friend into creating an account, but the evidence suggests he did more than just mentor: either he had access to the account or had his friend make some edits on his behalf. Geometry guy 19:25, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I remain interested in your view and/or response, Ched. Geometry guy 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm at a loss

Really, I am. What exactly do you want over at WT:AC? Everyone is thrashing over and over again with the same information; there's nothing else there than what is there. I can usually understand you very well, so it has to be me completely missing what you're driving at.

On the other hand, this situation has tied up literally thousands of hours of volunteer time: is it worth many more? Risker (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I sympathise with your frustration. There are other editors (e.g., Hersfold and John Vandenberg) who should be commenting on this, but it has apparently been left to you. I'm glad you think you usually understand me well, but if you do, you will know that my prime interest is in Improving the Encyclopedia, and supporting a climate in which that can happen. In particular, I am as interested as you in moving on from this, and avoiding "thrashing again and over again with the same information". I have no control over other editors doing so, but have been trying to form their concerns into a coherent whole, so that some mutual understanding can be reached.

If it is worth a little more of your time to deal with this issue, I am willing to commit some of mine. If so, lets discuss it. Geometry guy 23:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm just concerned that you (or anyone else) thinks either of them have any more information than I do, because they don't. I'm going to be focusing this evening on completing the proposed decision for a case that a different (but overlapping!) group of editors feel should have been Arbcom's priority over the last week or two; however, I might be able to pop back in tomorrow, or sneak a peek later tonight. Risker (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Your concern was an example of an issue that needed to be addressed, and you have addressed it. It also suggests to me a way of dealing with the issue in general. Geometry guy 00:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC) PS. Good luck with the PD work: that's a tough case!

Request and "sandbox" by ASCIIn2Bme and further comments

Invitation declined by Risker [1]

If I may barge in here: I think more clue from CheckUsers in the future would not be bad. I have a geek friend on another continent with 15 computers in his basement. Asking him to set up a private proxy for me is a triviality. It would make me appear using a residential line on a different continent. I can arrange for demo if you want, but only on the condition that the resulting checkuser data and proxy tests are made public for everyone to see how that does (or doesn't) work. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:38, 15 February 2012

Thanks to Will getting the ball rolling, there is now growing evidence that Rlevse may have been using IP addresses outside of his own town at FACR [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. It's possible he may just have been traveling though. Besides harping on Will's motives, one of the IPs uses familiar [7] [8] edit summaries. And so does [9] (ps for extending comment, except in all caps this time. I covered this one in my main AN evidence.) "thanks for proving" [10] The 216 IPs geolocate to California. The 206 one is in Florida. Both sets use extremely similar edit summaries, address the same "content" concern, and use the appellation "Mr. Beback": [11] [12]. Another 206 IP editing in the same article, with the same charges against Will. More edit summary matches: [13] [14] So, this is someone who can beam back and forth from Florida to California back to Florida within a day. Some days later, edits from Virginia [15] [16]! The 206 and 207 IPs appear to be web hosting sites. Another post was made from a coloc in Pennsylvania [17] [18]. Others, like this 174 [19] [20] was blocked as open proxy. I suspect he thought that using his PumpkinSky account on scouting articles would have made it too obvious who it belonged to. As it's now typical in this Rlevse affair, we're not hearing the whole truth. Again. It's clear that Rlevse was far better at changing his IP than his writing style. (Apologies to Geometry guy for using his talk page as a sandbox, but I think he was sleeping while I did it.) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 11:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ASCII asked me to look at this because I'm a (former) FA delegate (ASCII, I have resigned). " ... there is now growing evidence that Rlevse may have been using IP addresses outside of his own town at FAC [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. " Those are not at FAC; they are at FAR (I see the arbs in the civility case refer to FAC as Featured article reviews-- I wish they'd get the terminology correct, as those are two different places). At any rate, if an IP posted at FAC, I waited for futher feedback or some indication of the legitimacy of the comments, and at FAR, those edits made no difference to the outcome. So, the IP didn't affect process-- whether it's more Rlevse socking is another issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This is becoming ridiculous. How much of this has been hushed up by his enablers? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty, few folks have paid attention to FAR lately. It's been in decline for several years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the FAC/FAR confusion. Fixed now. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 14:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been a little bit disappointed by a shortfall in care/carefulness on your behalf recently, ASCIIn2Bme. You seem to be in a bit of a rush for some reason, whereas when discussing serious conduct issues, striving for accuracy is important. I noticed it at the Civility PD talk page as well as in your actions here (which led to the above reprimand from Risker on her talk page). I don't want to overstate this, as I try to be a fairly relaxed and tolerant guy, especially with regard to my userspace. However, you should not presume another editor is asleep and/or that it is therefore okay to use their talk page as a sandbox. As it happens, I wasn't logged in while you were posting, but I might have been.

Anyway, enough said and apologies accepted: I will now look at the substance of the new concerns/allegations you and Will have raised. Geometry guy 20:56, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks putting up with me. I realize I need to present the above better. The reason for my prolonged impromptu was that when I first posted here about that issue, I was expecting that the little evidence mentioned on PumpkinSky's talk page [26] was nothing more than an editor logged out. But then it seemed to morph into a real can of worms. I don't know how stable IP geolocation data is over time. Given the IPs edits are all from last summer, it's perhaps still relevant enough. I got it from [27] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Did this ever amount to anything?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

PumpkinSky withdrew his unblock request, so it makes no sense to take this to AN now. I stopped working on it when I saw that. If there's a compelling reason to still pursue this, I can finish it (mostly tedious table formatting) an put it in sandbox or SPI, although I don't know what practical purpose it would serve at this point. As far as I can tell, the Rlevse-type IP edits were confined to the article and FAR page of one article that Rlevse had promoted to FA before his "vanishing". ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides, I ran out of popcorn by just reading WT:AC/N today... ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Besides, Arbitrators have now ruled that only functionaries are allowed to bring to light such evidence [28]. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't read too much into a comment made by a single arbitrator in relation to a different matter, if I were you. However, I would advise you to ensure that you present findings like these in a scrupulously factual manner (by which statement, I imply no criticism of previous action, merely encouragement of best practice in any future investigation). Geometry guy 23:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkat retiring

Thanks for the comments folks. Time to move on. Geometry guy 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

My read of the situation is that Mongo, Toa, and AQFK jumping on Mkat caused other editors nursing old grudges against Mkat to seize the moment. Essentially, editors who already had issues with Mkat saw in this situation an opportunity to settle a score. That aside, I think it is better if you avoid engaging MONGO further on this issue. He is having the most trouble letting this go and that has been leading him to make some rather irresponsible comments (see the RFAR talk page). If people stop bringing the issue up it may allow him to cool down so he doesn't get himself boomeranged.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Why shouldn't he find himself boomeranged? If anyone deserves it surely he does. Malleus Fatuorum 06:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Aw hell. Mal, please stay out of this. Your tense relationship with MONGO, to put it mildly, is only going to escalate the situation.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Do not presume to offer advice to me. Malleus Fatuorum 07:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Or me: since I didn't engage MONGO on this issue, how can I avoid engaging him further? Thanks for sharing your analysis of the situation, however. I can respond that I had no plans to comment more than I did on this regrettable development. Geometry guy 13:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Malleus...that doesn't make sense...Tom Harrison was crucified by three admins that overlooked his extensive contributions history, yet you expect everyone else to allow you to get a free ride? You're here now still insulting me and assuming I deserve some sanction for questioning the poor judgement of three admins yet you have been questioning all admins for anytime they try to sanction you for some of your egregious behavior. Be it known now that there is a reason I didn't show up at that arbcom case involving you...I made a promise to someone I wouldn't, and I wasn't solicited to avoid the case but made the promise to do so on my own....even though I had listed off wiki over a hundred instances not only demonstrating your silly poor choice of words, but definitive evidence of bigotry, the kind of which would have ended your contributions here for a long time and it's all there in your edits, not some made up stuff. There is much more of a problem with your contributions than the "C" word and it has brought many a chuckle from me to see so many wikilawyering about how that word and similar isn't a "bad" word in some regions, or to see so many argue about how others are also insulting...but they aren't on trial there, you are, yet you've offered nothing but promises to continue to act as you have. I also kept 5 other editors from coming there to ask for an end to your editing...all of them administrators in good standing, but I asked them to also avoid the case, which they did. I know you have no idea of the forces that were aligned against you, so I can't say here that you are ungrateful, but now that you know, should you survive what the arbcom committee might do anyway, I would hope that you might realize that as I mentioned before, if I had wanted to seek retribution and be petty as you have repeatedly and erroneously stated, I could have filed an arbitration case with your name flashing on top of it anytime I wanted. My evidence was also clear as to the actions of administrator John...and it is likely what I had would have led to a desysopping...the part about him unblocking you was just a small fragment of the case against him...and even though he has come after me in every Rfc and at every noticeboard he could, and the temptation to finally get "revenge" was oh so strong, I didn't do so...even though it was a golden opportunity. As far as the admin who resigned...well, if there was no mistake on their part, then why resign? As you, Malleus might put it...we can't have administrators going around sanctioning people just to feel mighty...on this issue surely we should be in agreement.--MONGO 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Not to put too fine a point on it, you're full of shit MONGO. Malleus Fatuorum 17:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Well, that is precisely what I expected to read from you. That is truly sad...good luck.--MONGO 17:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to respond to you but I can't

You raised the level of discourse so high, it's scraping the ceiling, and I can't raise it.

In some seriousness, Pesky made an interesting observation, and i hope they tweak the wording.

Otherwise, we'll have the unintended consequence that we should start conversation in the gutter, so we have a little room for improvement. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be an easy fix. I hope my contribution brought a few smiles, as bit of light-heartedness which should not be taken at anyone's expense. Writing clear resolutions is not easy, and you may (or more likely may not!) be interested to know that in mathematics, the concept of "improving the level of discourse" would often be interpreted to mean "maintaining or improving the level of discourse". So if Arbitrators wanted even mathematicians to give up and quit the project, they would have to say "strictly improving the level of discourse" to rule out the defence that "zero improvement" is still improvement. Geometry guy 23:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

PS. But wouldn't it be a cool way to close an argument, to out-polite your adversary, so that they are unable to reply? :)

It's a technique I've tried on occasion :) Mathematics is a weird discipline; where else would it be considered satisfactory to end an investigation by establishing nothing more than that a solution exists? EyeSerene^talk 10:05, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Your closing point reminds me of what became an inside joke at a conference last week, where we were prioritizing improvements to a system, and in response to a query about a potentially neglected area, the project leader said there would be some percentage improvement in that area. Another participant mentioned a Simpsons episode, where a manufacturer claimed a product contained some percentage of recyclables. When Lisa learned it contained no recyclables, the manufacturer retorted, "zero per cent IS a percentage." We've been using every opportunity since to promise some percentage improvement in results.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:42, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, but you might have taken a different view on what "improving the level of discourse" should mean. Surely "improvement" should be linked to improving the encyclopedia, not merely civility? I made another post to the thread, taking such a view. I may have further comments on this, which I believe could be illuminating in multiple ways. Geometry guy 23:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Geometry guy,

Do you agree the reasoning on the RfA--talk-page ban proposal is weak?

Perhaps others have counted the votes, and decided not to worry about the decision.... (I had wished that some of the ArbCommers would have reconsidered, and realized that they were making a mistake, with at least the argument.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there are several weaknesses in the argument, but Arbcom is an elected body, not a logical machine. I don't find their conclusion here so unreasonable that I want to invest time arguing against it. You are welcome to press your case, but if you are unhappy with the result, vote for change in the next Arbcom elections. Geometry guy 00:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm butting in (I get everywhere, like an SBD, sorry ....) I, too, found a lot of weakness in the argument there, but I decided that if Malleus wasn't, himself, too fussed by it, then it probably wasn't worth getting into a bunfight over, which would probably have used up a lot of hours and energy (once everyone's time and energy was counted in) to little or no good effect. It's not often I look at a principle-based thing like that and say to myself "Not worth chasing", but that one, I did. If Malleus had felt it was grossly unfair, or had been upset by it, I would have viewed it differently. But if he himself didn't think it was worth peanuts squabbling over, then things are different. Presumably he can appeal at some point, if he wants to, to be allowed "back in" there. Pesky (talk) 07:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

A super battle droid? Well, in whatever capacity, Pesky, you are very much welcome here, so feel free to comment on any thread that catches your interest, or start a new one if you would like to discuss something else. Geometry guy 23:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I cant think of any reason why I'd want to be allowed back in there Pesky, so I certainly won't ever be appealing. And you're right, just wasn't anything worth squabbling over. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

What do we do when there is no consensus to unblock a controversial block?

Newyorkbrad has asked this a few times, but discussions I have read remind me of the treatment of the "Irish potato famine" in 1066 and All That, a humorous 1930s take on (English/British) history and the way it was taught: in this parody, the Tories "doggedly maintained" that the Irish people had the choice to "eat the potatoes" or "not to", whereas the Liberals attempted to supply bread.

When a block is contested, a debate "to endorse the block" or "not to" is likely to be polarizing. I have attempted to propose an environment in which contested blocks might be handled (and hence used!) more wisely. Geometry guy 00:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I should add that while I would like to draw attention to the idea, I don't want to push it. I offer it in the spirit of GFDL: read freely, reuse, modify, and distribute. If some version of it becomes useful in the future, that would be a great outcome. Geometry guy 01:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

re ..

this post, and its relevance. I dropped by to mention it myself, and ask for some input - I shouldn't have underestimated you. :) ... then again - I'm finding it more and more difficult to overestimate you each day. By the way .. a wiki-friend put some time into C/2011 W3 (Lovejoy) which I really enjoy(ed) reading. Not sure it's up your preferred reading venues, but thought it may be. cheers. — Ched :  ?  00:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for both comments. I like astronomy articles (they are at the nice borderline between my professional expertise and leisure interests), so I will take a look. Geometry guy 01:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

PS. NYB may be tempted to watch and see what happens: there are already signs of editors simply restating their contrary positions on the conundrum. To some extent that is reasonable, as it is reasonable for NYB and others to observe, but I also hope NYB and other similar editors see scope for engagement, as I do believe there is potential for compromise between the two positions along the lines I have suggested. Geometry guy 01:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I can even understand (often) the why some folks hold the views that they do. But like you, I'd rather find some compromise that all parties may find an acceptable way forward. — Ched :  ?  01:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I took your name in vain

Here. You may wish to correct any misrepresentation of your position as I understood it, or perhaps misunderstood it. Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I really need a diff or two to respond, but I will try to respond there. Geometry guy 23:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I read through the discussion, and if I can add something helpful I will. If I understand correctly, you are referring to the idea (which I have raised) that although 99.99% of Wikipedia articles are crap, 90% are so banal/autogenerated/trivial/parochial/uninteresting that we can focus on fixing the remaining 10%, of which only 99.9% are crap (figures are not exact). Was that the gist of it? Geometry guy 00:20, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It was, yes. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah okay, that doesn't misrepresent me so much then: it was an issue I had not fully appreciated before clicking on "Random article" many times and noting the results. However, these articles mostly drop below the radar entirely, which is why I can be confident that although (using the above figures) 99.99% of Wikipedia articles are crap, a much larger proportion of the 90% batpu articles are crap, so that 99.9% is a good estimate for the remaining 10%. You, me, Sandy, GAN, FAC, scarcely ever touch the 90% batpu morass, so the main point I was making is that there are, effectively, only c. 400,000 articles to improve, not 4 million. Whether that is pertinent information depends on the issue. Sandy did not take it to be pertinent in her response: not only does most of our work concern the remaining 10%, but she is interested in an even more specific subset. Geometry guy 00:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Her focus is on medical articles, as I'm sure you know, where misinformation may be dangerous. But in a minor video game article who gives a flying wotsit (I obviously need to be careful here)? I think she's one of Wikipedia's heros, and I'd hate to see her go. I want to see her back in the trenches, and her enjoyment returning. For too long she's been doing her duty. Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Sandy is a Superheroine among Wikipedians, and I hope she will enjoy opportunity in her new freedom to make a difference to parts of Wikipedia that really matter to her and very many readers. Geometry guy 01:12, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You two missed the memo: I ride a broomstick to work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You may do that, but around here (i.e. in real life) instead of using that w word that rides a broomstick, they replace the w with a b. At least according to my teenagers - who .... are going to seed a pasture today! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked my comments in the above discussion to make the acronym more memorable :) Geometry guy 22:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

You usually serve as my "safety valve" so ...

Talk:Josce de Dinan/GA1 ... am I wrong to feel like this is just insane? The editor hasn't edited since September 2010, and picks GAN to return to? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I've served as a safety valve in the past, as I don't recall doing so (although it is always nice to hear from you)! That aside, the review is somewhat unusual, so I will take a closer look. Geometry guy 22:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't really get much further without access to source material: my advice would be to renominate at GAN: community GAR cannot help much in cases like this. I'd be willing to review a renomination if you have no better offers, but I would be likely to pester you a lot for source quotations during the review. Geometry guy 00:10, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I"m curious if there really is a need for tons and tons of background or whatever it was that the reviewer was asking for. I've nominated a LOT of articles that are a lot more sparse on biographical details, and never really had issues with the reviews. (The review for Feologild was the only other GAN I've had that left me boggled...). Tough reviews don't bug me (although there isn't really anything else to turn up about Josce, so he's unlikely to go to FAC... ). Do you think the review was just a one-off oddity or is there something to it, I guess is what I'm asking. Or, could be that I'm wondering if my own handle on what makes a GA is so wildly off. I kinda pride myself on having a good idea of what a GA is compared to what a FA is... and usually consider that I can keep the two separate... (I do tend to review articles I know are going to FAC a bit tougher at the GAN status, but I've never failed anything if the nominator told me to back off from something more suited to FA than GA either..) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

GA is not a cake-walk, even if it is far less demanding than FA. I've experienced similar issues with math articles. The bottom line is that tons and tons of background is not required, but this is still an encyclopedia with a diversity of interested readers, so you need to provide enough of a "way in" to the article for those not familiar with historical context. For example, despite being familiar with some linguistic culture and history, I got stuck on the term "Breton extraction": what does that mean? Geometry guy 00:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not implying I don't expect to have things questioned - but one reason why I go through GA (even for most of my eventual FAs) .. is that it gives me a good "outside" set of eyes. That way, I can get those sorts of things that I just "know" pointed out to me. Usually, that means folks ask those questions - not just leave a bald review. By the way, Breton extraction means either he or his family was from Brittany. The sources aren't quite clear if he himself was born in Brittany or if his family just originated there. So ... basically, it's not an automatic quick fail in your mind? I'm fine with a rigourous review pointing out all my prose flaws as well as all the places I used jargon ... just felt that the review was perhaps a bit out of the normal standards. But I've been known to fly off the handle wrongly before - and you've been kind enough to call me on it when I needed it, so figured I'd check in with you. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The review was not a "quick fail", and would be invalid as such, in my opinion. However, it is perfectly acceptable at GA to fail a nomination without putting it on hold, as long as a review is provided suggesting specific improvements. This was a poor example of such a review, so you should not feel in the wrong to be irritated about it. The reviewer seems to be relatively inexperienced, given the note, after criterion 6 that "This review welcomes a second opinion". Geometry guy 00:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll put it back up tomorrow. Going to take the evening lazy-like. And no need to feel like you must jump on the review either ... I'm sure someone will pick it up sooner or later. I'm certainly in no hurry. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I've renom'd - after incorporating some very helpful comments from Carcharoth. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I followed it. Carcharoth has an impressive way to respond to issues he finds on his watchlist: it seems to me that he thinks first about improving the encyclopedia, then makes a contribution towards that, which often indirectly resolves points of disagreement or concern. I've seen it many times now. Geometry guy 00:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. And with the input not just from Carcharoth but others such as Nev1 a good example of what GAN has become. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

9/11 article

Would you mind commenting here?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:MOSES

Thank you for bringing this excellent essay to my attention. --John (talk) 21:08, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It is still fairly hot off the press (written in the last month). I hope a touch of light-heartedness is therapeutic at a stressful time. Geometry guy 21:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

It manages to be profound at the same time as being light-hearted. It's a very difficult trick to pull off. Well done. --John (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, thanks for the compliment, and thanks also to EyeSerene for encouragement and helping me to understand the meaning (profound or otherwise!) that I was reaching for in earlier drafts. Geometry guy 22:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I read it too; excellent! Pesky (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Legolas

According to his talk page, he had a large number of GAs: I wanted to make you aware of this investigation into falsification of sources, where per Laser's look at his two Featured articles, also extends to failed verification and close paraphrasing. There are tons of GAs, so thought you'd want a heads up so you can think about how to handle them. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear. Having encountered Legolas a few times at GAR, I am not entirely surprised that sourcing/paraphrasing issues have been found. There are c. 90-100 GAs listed on his user page, but some may have had substantial contributions from other editors. Thanks for the heads-up, but it is up to GA, not me, how to handle it. I will have to look much more closely before giving my advice. Geometry guy 23:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Precious

	treatment of editors as human beings
	Thank you for voicing the right of every editor to be treated as a human being, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I framed your words on my user page. - Now that we took a step to clarify the alleged PumpkinSky copyright violation I would like to tackle the (more difficult) alleged identity of BarkingMoon and Rlevse. I personally believe that BarkingMoon is a different human being, who was hurt a lot. I wouldn't go as far as saying everybody else has to believe that as well, but it would be an improvement if everybody used a language that takes the possibility into account and doesn't deny it to start with. Last Sunday we sang a Mass by Leopold Mozart. It has number K. 115 in his son's catalogue, because for a long time it was attributed to Wolfgang. Now our conductor says that many works we take as Wolfgang's because he wrote them down were created with daddy in his back, making suggestions here and there. We will never know what exactly grew in which mind. I see similarities, Rlevse instructing BarkingMoon. - BarkingMoon left us nice articles, did the project thank him? Their themes (mostly women and birds) don't overlap much with those of PumpkinSky. I can't tell about Rlevse, because the history is not visible, or is it? I would be curious to read some of his articles now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. I am also inclined to believe that BarkingMoon was (some of the time at least!) a separate individual, and certainly agree that we should try to avoid making implicit assumptions either way. Unfortunately, I don't yet see how this provides a better reflection on RLevse's conduct, which has essentially amounted to the avoidance of scrutiny (withdrawing at least twice rather than addressing awkward questions); human failings are natural and should be understandable, but a clean start means starting clean, and here, mutual understanding with the community seems to me to be essential. Geometry guy 00:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

PS. The contributions of RLevse are still visible, but you have to know the "vanished" user id: Special:Contributions/Vanished_6551232.

Thank you! I started calling sections Human rights before, your wording fitted perfectly! The community: who is that? When PumpkinSky's return request was moved to AN, saying "The request should get the widest possible community attention", I placed a note on WT:DYK. I was accused of canvassing. It left me with the feeling, that my understanding of "widest possible community attention" was different, and that "community" perhaps means a circle of selected wanted ones, no?

ps I knew where to find the contributions. But it is not like the clean list of articles BarkingMoon kept. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the answers to your questions are straightforward, and in some sense obvious too, but worth stating in some detail: I'm not convinced they are fully appreciated/understood, perhaps because of some basic features of human nature, My apologies in advance if stating the "obvious" comes across as annoying in any way, to you, or anyone else interested enough to read all this!

The community consists of all Wikipedia editors who support (and thus contribute towards) Wikipedia's goal of producing a free encyclopedia. This is a community because there is a shared common interest: improving the encyclopedia. That much seems simple enough, but there are many caveats. First, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we assume good faith that other editors are interested in improving (and not damaging/harming) the encyclopedia (they might not be!). Secondly, this does not imply that editors in the community agree on what amounts to improving the encyclopedia, how to achieve or support this goal, or even how it should be defined. Thirdly, it does not imply that this is the only interest/goal that editors contributing to Wikipedia have: most editors have other reasons for contributing and interests which are not shared throughout the community. For example, there are subject-specific elements (fixing positive or negative bias in BLPs, representing or not overrepresenting minority views, making physics articles more understandable,...), social elements (communicating with interesting people) and success/feedback elements (recognition for valued contributions) which matter to editors in different ways and to different degrees.

This diversity should be obvious enough, but makes it all the more surprising that we don't always process it very well, or appreciate its consequences. I think this may be because it is hard-wired into our brains to have a completely different model for ourselves than the model we have for others. This different view-of-self is one of the reasons astrologists, palm-readers, mediums etc. can sometimes be so convincing: they tell us fundamental things that we believe are unique to ourselves because we don't model them in others (e.g., "you want to be liked and are able to adapt to different social environments, but not at the expense of being yourself or compromising your principles"). This becomes particularly stark on the internet, as we don't have any instinctive interpersonal cues, so we tend to model other editors according to whether they agree with us or not. We can of course refine this by issue and extent, but even if we do that, "to what extent does editor X agree with me on the PS/RLevse issue" is still a 1-dimensional subjective analysis, and a gross oversimplification of the views of other editors.

Here are a couple of "obvious" consequences.

• Criticism by one or two editors (or even a few) does not imply criticism by the community, even if no one objects to the criticism; unawareness or indifference are more likely contributing factors than agreement! On the subject of canvassing, for example, there are as many views as editors: if so accused, I would both defend my integrity and good intentions, and also ask where else I might post to satisfy the concerns of the accusers.
• If two editors disagree with you on an issue, it does not mean they agree with each other! They might have completely incompatible viewpoints, or might disagree with you for different reasons and be indifferent to the view of the other.

I would define politics as the process of dealing with more than two incompatible views. Politics has a bad name, but it is important, because this situation is commonplace. Unfortunately, perhaps because of our inability to handle more than two views, democracies themselves often try to simplify politics into just two opposing views and issues become polarized (e.g., abortion). This natural misconception sometimes results in amusement, as it did for Montanabw on your talk page immediately after my post. That's all part of the fun of being human, as long as we realise that human interaction is more complicated than that (and only choke harmlessly on our coffee). Geometry guy 00:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for many dimensions and aspects. - Back to simple basics: I posted to WT:DYK and received the label canvassing. My understanding of "widest possible community attention" is obviously different. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

From whom did you receive the label: the "community", or an editor or two? Now read again... :) Geometry guy 00:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, it was well after midnight when I read, and I will read more carefully again. - Yes, I received the label only by one editor, but with consequences drawn. I think it's not the right term, because I only tried to follow up on the call "widest possible community attention" as I understood/understand community, pointing out that a discussion was going on, no more. I did defend myself and two others in that discussion, but don't think it was noticed. Learning, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

As I remarked above, editors vary a lot in their interpretation of notifications as "canvassing" and whether they think it is a problem. Ideally, notifications should never be a problem, as Wikipedia is not a democracy, and consensus is not determined by a vote-count. In practice, however, Wikipedia falls short of such an ideal, as it takes considerable nerve to give low weight to a large number of views. Consequently, there are two issues about notifications that might raise comment: non-neutral wording issues and selection bias issues.

It is easy enough to avoid first issue (just say something like "there is a discussion taking place at X that may be of interest to editors watching this page"), but not so easy to handle the second, as different editors have different perceptions. It may seem to you that editors watchlisting DYK form a pretty diverse community, but others would consider that such a community is not representative in their views about RLevse.

It isn't pleasant to have one's good faith questioned by even one editor, so here are a few suggestions for avoiding such criticism.

• Make several notifications so that most potentially interested subcommunities are notified; this is really difficult to do, and I don't see why any one editor should be expected to do this.
• Advise editors who might object to the notification you want to make, and agree on some appropriate notifications. That can also be difficult if there has been a communications breakdown.
• Provide notifications about your notifications, i.e., prominently inform the notified thread about the notification made, and your belief that the notified editors would be interested in the discussion, and that you would happily notify, or support notification of other groups who might be interested in the discussion.

Even if you do this, there is still a chance that some editor will criticise you, but that is not the same thing as community criticism; you even have an opportunity to turn the tables and discuss with the critical editor the true meaning of improving the encyclopedia (in detail: long threads like this silence dissent!). Geometry guy 22:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for carefully explaining. I don't think I felt anything like "community criticism". I read the line about "widest possible community attention" as an invitation to get that attention, everyone please get it where he will be heard, so I at DYK. I think I worded neutrally where a discussion happened, and once more when it was moved. The reaction told me (but I may be wrong) that community attention in the broad sense as I understand it - unrestricted, open for everybody - was not really wanted? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No, on the contrary, relevant and neutral notifications should be welcomed, but they are not the same as notifying everyone, hence care is needed. In some cases Wikipedia uses a watchlist notice, but most of the time, we only notify those likely to be interested, and we try to notify all who might be interested. The difficultly in doing this lies behind the problems and concerns that are hard to resolve here. Per the above thread, I would recommend notifications about notifications. Geometry guy 23:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Next time, thank you, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. Someone should write an essay on notifications: it could end up being a more useful guideline than WP:CANVASS (or perhaps improve the latter). As an example of an issue not covered by WP:CANVASS: just because an editor might be interested in an issue does not mean they should be interested... Geometry guy 00:44, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Feel notified that I linked to these thoughts as recommended reading :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

One more notification: the PumpkinSky article Great Dismal Swamp maroons received attention of the community of readers, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

and is now, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, both for stopping by, and for the information. Geometry guy 23:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to miss a notification of a notification of a notification, "Attitude" :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Passion: He was despised --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Easter! Thanks for your supporting thoughts, I am sure they helped to clarify. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

email

I sent you one. No rush though. — Ched :  ?  16:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Replied. I hope that clarifies... Geometry guy 23:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No beef

I have no beef with you...we tend to disagree more than we agree, but I respect your opinions nevertheless. I supported your Rfa long ago and don't regret doing so. Best.--MONGO 02:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Likewise. Honest disagreement is an important part of contributing, as is agreeing to disagree. I already noticed that we have been in substantial agreement on several occasions, and being able to agree, despite having disagreements, is one of the foundations of a good working relationship - the opposite of bearing grudges. Thanks for reminder of my 2007 RfA (fond memories of the early days) - I do indeed recall your contributions to the discussion, and am glad that you do not regret your support. All the best, Geometry guy 23:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Come and join in

... with the talk on WT:CIV. I've ported across bits from Ched's sandbox page, and we have some good souls over there being highly intelligent. You'd fit in well! Pesky (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

@ symbol

Honestly, I don't particularly like it either. My preference is to respond to the comment by putting my response directly under it, but some people get annoyed when you do that at AE and I don't like responding off AE unless it does not directly address the dispute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Geometry guy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 22:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you have some time for a peer review of π?

Hi. I found your name in the Peer Review volunteer list. I'm planning on nominating π for Feature Article status soon, and I've initiated a Peer Review, to catch any issues before going to FAC. Do you have time to do a PR? The peer review is here. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! --Noleander (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

9/11 AE case

Maybe you can give me some insight. I have tried to get the admins involved to explain what specifically about my behavior they found to be worthy of a topic ban, but they have insisted the AE case offers all the explanation I need. Do you have any comments about my behavior that you think might be the basis of their decision?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

GAN at ENB

Mentioned you, Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

GAR Archives

I am not sure whats going on there, but the old GARs are not archiving properly. If you could have a look at it that would be great. If you let me know how to fix it I will keep an eye on it in the future. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 00:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

For clarification Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 53 links to a bot page and that has most of the archive transcluded properly, except for the most recent ones (see the templates at the bottom). I left a note with User talk:CBM, but have a recollection of you fixing something similar in the past. AIRcorn (talk) 00:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I have tried to update it. Created User:VeblenBot/C/GAR/54 and Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Archive 54 and updated the number at Template:GARarchive. Will see if that works. AIRcorn (talk) 06:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you get a chance can you detail the steps necessary for the GAR archive. It is still not working properly. Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Structuration/1, did not go to any archive and I think it is something to do with Template:CF/GAR/53. Do I need to create a new one? Is there a simpler way to do it than creating all these templates? AIRcorn (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In fact I created a draft of such information some time ago, at Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_reassessment/Maintenance, which is linked from WT:GAR in a similar way to the peer review maintenance at WT:PR. You need to get approval from User:CBM to edit the category list: I will vouch for you. Geometry guy 21:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think I have got the archives sorted. Unfortunately the Category:GAR got renamed recently and is preventing the bot from transcluding the current community re-assessments at the WP:GAR page. User:CBM suggested that you need to update dome categories to get the bot to recognise the new one here. If you get time to check it out that would be great. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 13:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Good Article Talk Question

I have seen you have created template GATable, can you answer this question please: Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Help_please.21_URL_in_Template:GATable? --Tito Dutta ^Message 17:24, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I hope you sorted this out. I have tried to clarify the documentation. Geometry guy 21:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Automation question

Hi, Geometry guy; not sure if you're still active as I see you haven't been editing for a while. I have a question that I hope you (or perhaps a talk page stalker) can help with. The Education Program is looking to measure the quality of the articles the students create. They've created an article quality page, which we're going to be working with, but I was asked if there would be any way to automate this page creation -- I think it was done entirely manually. The list of links to specific historical revisions of articles would have to be supplied by the creator, but the rest of the page seems fairly boiler-plate. Can you see a way to simplify this process? Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked in detail, but you could treat it as any other WikiProject, and get User:WP 1.0 bot to track article quality for you. Geometry guy 21:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the original question is no longer an issue, but just FYI the bot approach for quality wouldn't work -- we're specifically looking for the delta in article quality between two revisions, in order to measure what effect the students' involvement had on the article. If we look at the current version we'll also be evaluating edits subsequent to the students' involvement. If you're at all curious, you might like to do a review or two -- they're quick to do and I've found them pleasant work because I see the positive impact of the course work. It's rather enjoyable to run the ruler over something and find out it's doing well. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like something the FA Team would once have relished... In that spirit, I hope the activity will remain both enjoyable and productive for all. Geometry guy 01:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User rights. Thank you. Max Viwe | Viwe The Max 09:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Today

I hope you like today's good story (hidden message: "open mind"), awesome Wikipedian of 21 April 2009 and 29 February 2012 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)