User talk:Rick Block/Archive2010

MH date removal

So now the history links to those sections don't work. You didn't think you could do something that profound without a complaint did you Rick ;) hydnjo (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

History links from where, the talk page? -- Rick Block (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the article section history links that look like an underlined → . hydnjo (talk) 18:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you mean http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monty_Hall_problem&action=history ? I've never actually clicked on one of those - I always use the diffs. And, I'm sure Glkanter will complain plenty. BTW - any particular reason you haven't entered an outside view at the RFC? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Lazy? Actually, I've been less active lately and I'm finding MH talk to be somewhat overwhelming (talk since FA is 2885 kilobytes long including the current un-archived 600kb page). I'll look in and see if there's any contribution that may be useful. hydnjo (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Mediation

I did respond, hopefully in the proper way.Nijdam (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BDInDecade

Template:BDInDecade has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

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

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

Rick Bot issue

Wasn't sure if you were watching the bot's talk page, so just a heads-up: [1]. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The bot has (had) issues with renames. I believe I've implemented a fix. -- Rick Block (talk) 05:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Mediation

Hi Rick, what you mention is a common problem with mediations, on Wikipedia and (I suspect) other participation-sporadic online forums. I used to ask all participants for opening statements but that inevitably resulted in delays or difficulties in communicating due to too much enthusiastic opining followed up long pauses of activity. But thanks for notifying me that there are fairly active contributors watching, and I will ramp up accordingly. Andrevan@ 05:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a first stab at establishing a point to discuss. If you disagree that's fine, and you shouldn't take it as bias on my part. While I have been exposed to this topic in general as well as the Bayesian take, I have no strong opinion as to the correctness and prevalence of the Morgan analysis or whether it is sufficiently critical of the popular solution to be more important. Andrevan@ 06:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I was in Colorado for a few days for a conference for work. But I will be getting back to it this week. Andrevan@ 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Rick, I wish I had something to say. Technically, Glkanter's comment, while not particularly helpful, isn't against any policy. I don't think comments like that are the norm for this dispute and I don't see that sort of issue impeding progress, and anyway it's not the mediator's place to admonish unhelpful comments, especially when everyone in this dispute is pretty mild and well-behaved. I'd like to give the mediation another shot so look for that in a few days to a week. Andrevan@ 23:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Rick Bot

Hi Rick,
can I ask you to have a look at WP:Bot requests#Admin category cleanup drive please?
Thanks, Amalthea 00:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Denver

I changed the name to just Denver since the mention that is a city and county is mentioned several times in the first, second sections of the article. See: San Francisco. But, if im wrong sorry for the mix-up! LabradorLover456 (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Denver's Name

Thank you for passing on that information; sorry for the mix up! LabradorLover456 (talk) 00:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Rick Bot and Wikipedia:Featured topics promoted in 2010

I just noticed that Rick Bot is doing something weird at Wikipedia:Featured topics promoted in 2010. There are several duplicates of the same red link topic. Gary King (talk) 12:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this. The bot had a hard time with parenthesized titles. I've made a change. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, why did the bot strike through some of the featured topics? Dabomb87 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

There were two issues, corrected by this edit and this edit (and the bot would have fixed the strikethroughs the next time it runs, but they've been manually fixed). The issue with Battlecruisers of Germany was that the bot (for some reason) was fetching a stale version of WP:FT. It seems to get the current version now, but I'm not entirely convinced anything I changed is directly related to this. Please keep an eye on it and let me know if you see any more problems. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rick

I was wondering what to do if I want to edit your page at User:Rick Block/MH solution. Should I just edit it there or should I copy it somewhere else, like my user page, first? Thanks! Colincbn (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it - but if you're making major changes it would be better to copy it someplace else. -- Rick Block (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

A question about game theory

This is copied from Gill110951's talk page

In reading and participating in the MHP discussion I have learned more about probability then I ever intended, or thought possible. I must say it has been an interesting ride. I also noticed that Rick brought up Game Theory in the posts above. That reminded me that I wanted to ask someone knowledgeable about the bit under 'Variants' that says "The host is rewarded whenever the contestant incorrectly switches or incorrectly stays = Switching wins 1/2 the time at the Nash equilibrium". This seems to imply that if the producers want to make sure the contestant never gets a 2/3 chance to win the car all they have to do is give Monty a cookie if the contestant chooses wrong. Which is counter intuitive to say the least. Can you explain this in more detail? Thanks, Colincbn (talk) 12:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

@ Colincbn, that's really interesting, I hadn't noticed that one. I will have to go back to the sources to get the details exactly right, and then do the calculations to check the answer, and hope that doing all this give me a good intuition. If the rewards to the host don't match the losses to the player and vice-versa we don't have a zero-sum game. The minimax theorem is no longer true, but there is a weaker kind of equilibrium called Nash equilibrium. Non zero-sum games have counter-intuitive properties, since they are games where the contestants could actually both win more by collaborating. But since they don't know if the other will collaborate they both choose to do something else, which results in them both losing... To say it differently, if you know the other guy is a collaborative type you win more by not collaborating. But if the other guy is suspicious he will realise this...

Your remark about the cookie changes the game into a three-party game, and moreover a non zero-party game. Monty Hall wants a cookie. The producers want to hold on to the show's cadillac. The player wants to ride it home. (I'm assuming the producers have an infinite store of cookies so the value of the cookie to them is zero. I take it you want the value of a cookie to Monty Hall to equal the value of a cadillac to the producers to be equal to the value of a cadillac to the player. Now we can sit down and look up the Nash equilibrium on wikipedia and do the math).

PS for me it has been a roller coaster ride too. I have changed my mind dramatically several times, learnt a lot, had a lot of fun, hopefully made more friends than enemies... Gill110951 (talk) 08:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the conversation got sidetracked after this and I still have not been able to figure out this bit. Is this a mistake or will any reward suffice to change the probability to 1/2? Colincbn (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking whether it's the size of the reward the host receives that matters? I don't know (but I'd guess not) and, unfortunately, whoever added this didn't add a source (sigh) so I don't even know exactly what the rules are for this version. There is an "opposing interests" analysis in an appendix to the Mueser and Granberg paper cited in the article. In this version, the host is trying to keep the contestant from winning the car - and may (but doesn't have to) open a door, and may (but doesn't have to) make the offer to switch. One equilibrium for this version is the host only opens a door and makes the offer to switch if the player initially selects the car, so the player never switches and wins 1/3 of the time (the other 2/3 of the time, when the player initially picks the goat, the host simply says sorry, you've won a goat). If the host must open a door and must make the offer to switch, the average chance of winning by switching (averaged across all players) is 2/3 - so in this "reward the host for incorrect choice" variant the host must NOT be compelled to do this. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that makes perfect sense to me. I don't see why Monty getting a cookie (or any other reward) would make a difference by itself, and since that particular variant does not offer any other new rules besides the reward bit it seems that is the only thing that needs to happen in order to change the probability. But I have zero understanding of game theory so I would not want to remove that variant myself. I figure who ever put it in simply forgot to add some relevant information, unfortunately I am not qualified to figure out what it is. Regardless I feel we should either find a way to make that bit more clear or remove it until we find the answer. Colincbn (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Conditional solution in separate section

What exactly is the objection to putting the conditional, Morgan, and Bayesian stuff in a separate section and simply linking it with a text anchor from the "simple" explanation? Andrevan@ 18:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not what Martin wants. He wants the conditional and Bayesian stuff presented in a subservient fashion, i.e. he wants the article to endorse the POV (his POV) that the "simple" solutions are complete and correct. There is clearly dispute about this, so to be NPOV the article MUST NOT take a stand on this. Martin is demanding that the article take a stand - and not just any stand, but a stand in opposition to a widely held expert, "academic" POV. This would be more clear if he were to draft actual text (which he refuses to do). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW - you can tell separate section is not what he's talking about since the stuff he objects to is already in a separate section. It's not just separate he's after, but separate and subservient. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Monty Hall's Problem external reference

Rick, hi:

I wonder why you have removed my external link. This is a good and relevant demonstration that highlights often overlooked approach to solving Monty Hall's problem. There are also further links that could be of interest to the wikipedia audience. The link is certainly no less deserving than the ones you already have there. Do not you object to having Wolfram's Demostration Project linked from every possible page? Is it less spam than the link I posted?

With best wishes, Alexander Bogomolny (69.142.104.34 (talk) 15:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

The Wolfram page is not apparently selling anything and the source of the simulation is available for review, for free. Your site has ads and you're apparently trying to sell the applet. From WP:ELNO: "4. (avoid) Links mainly intended to promote a website." This clearly applies in your case. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Won't you consider both the Denostration Project and the Mathworld as the selling points for Mathematica? Just look at my site - you certainly have a misconception about it. I do not write applets for sale nor write pages to place advertisement on. I do that because I like doing it. There is certainly an expense involved in maintaining the site and the server. I do not force anybody to subscribe or buy applets. The site is absolutely free. I am trying to retrieve the maintenance expenses through ads and offering applets. Do you think I am getting rich through the site? For God's sake, is NY Times (to which you do have a link) altruistic organization? No Rick, it is simply unfair. (Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

Monty Hall problem

Rick, I have requested that the MedCom chair reassign the case or refer it to Arbitration. I apologize that I was unable to make meaningful progress. I wish you luck with the next step. Andrevan@ 18:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Bold

I see that you have unbolded my text. I disagree with your decision. The text that I highlighted is extremely important and should be easily visible to all users upon looking at the page Monty Hall Problem. Thanks! Gabithefirst (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting). Bold is not used for emphasis, so it definitely shouldn't be bold. Whether this particular phrase needs emphasis is an editorial decision. Feel free to bring this up on the article's talk page. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

simple solutions are not correct at all for these variants

Hello Rick, please consider that this is not "three prisoners" etc., but that this is the MHP. And in the MHP the simple solution (2/3 by switching) is always "correct". Just in case that additional info is revealed, the answer can become "closer", so from 2/3 to either 1/2 or to 1 (3/3), just a "closer" result. So, what the MHP is concerned, the "simple solution" can be said "not to be correct enough", never to be "not correct at all". It is just confusing and not helpful if a statement, treating quite another issue, is cited in the MHP without pointer/advice. Confusion? Please give me your view of what is helpful and what isn't. Regards, --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 18:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Rick, for your answer you gave in the article-discussion.

Your argument that the "simple solution" was "not correct at all" was incorrect and confusing. The "simple solution" (viewed from the player's knowledge) never is "not correct at all" (your words), but is always "correct". Of course, if s.o. should assume that opening of one door could be accompanied by any additional information then, at most, the answer exceptionally could become "slightly closer" by such a hint, but on a large scale never leaving the range of 2/3, so forever proving the result of the "simple solution". In order that such exceptional "closer hints" could become of any relevance however, such "closer hints" had to be visible to the guest. Otherwise this is purely an irrelevant "what-if" fiction, a reformulation of the rules for training purposes for math students only, not addressing the meaning of the vos Savant question, not addressing the MHP. Math doesn't have to "prove" anything in the MHP, a "mathematical answer" just proves that it answers the specific presuppositions of the underlying assumptions. Never more. As such "assumptions" are not implied at all in the original vos Savant question, they are quite irrelevant in the MHP, treating different variants.

You are not admitting that all "conditionals" obviously treat quite other issues, and that, remaining in the large scale of 2/3, such "what-if" fictions always prove the 2/3 answer, but that they never address the original question. This is nebulizing and confusing. You are preventing that these basics are made clear and obvious in the article. Please consider what can be helpful for the article and what isn't. Regards, --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 11:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Richard tries to cut the crap

Hi Rick, I have spent all day "doing my stuff" on the MH mediation page. In an effort to decrease my verbosity I put up some footnotes to some new mediation page contributions by me, on my own 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) 13:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard tries to pursue discussions of Truth in appropriate places

Dear Rick,

Since I'm a mathematician I am dedicated to the Truth and if I see someone screwing up elementary maths or logic on Wikipedia, I'll let them know. Of course I can't do other than give way to what normal Wikipedia procedures result in, so I don't always have to get my way. If I don't, then either I was wrong or I did a bad job at getting my point across. Both very useful learning experiences (defeats teach you much more than victories, both about yourself and about "the enemy").

Now, mathematical truth can be checked by computer programs. But we are not discussing mathematical truth here at all, when talking about the MHPP. The transition from a verbal problem sketch to a mathematization is much harder. And there almost never is a unique good translation, not if the problem is actually interesting, and that is exactly why we're all here, because MHP *is* interesting. Moreover, anyone who makes the transition should also think about what they get when they follow the reverse track. The real world meaning of the conclusions depends on the real world meaning of the assumptions.Moreover, anyone who makes the transition and gets some conclusions is well advised to spend a little thought on the question, whether they could have got the same conclusions for less assumptions. ...

On a more personal note, but trying to be constructive. Your references about how the article was before some people whose points of view you apparently don't appreciate started messing with it come across to me as part of the problem, not part of the solution. No doubt you feel the same in reverse about me, no hard feelings mate.

Now, since I'm not American I can safely disagree with you about God, but I'll take Motherhood and Apple Pie, so how about we all get friendly by agreeing on the Motherhood and Apple Pie first? I think that's what mediation is about. It's about defusing conflicts, not about escalating them.

An aside, did you know that I was co-originator of The Quantum MHP and wrote it with a bunch of guys mostly during a delightful long bar discussion about what should be The Quantum MHP?

Finally, I do strongly disagree with all the hidden assumptions implied by your (1) and (2). I think that in this mediation we are letting someone else help us come to consensus first on the problems to be resolved, and then secondly to let us happily resolve them once we have agreed on what we disagree on. You are welcome to your Opinion what are The Problems but it does come across like you're trying to dictate them to us.

I'd love to discuss what I see as the hidden assumptions inside your (1) and (2). In public, semi-private or in private as you like.

You obviously have a different approach from mine. Great, maybe our approaches are complementary! As a professional mathematician both pure and applied my professional approach is first to determine The Truth. In my restricted field, I'm supposed to be an expert on that. Next, on Wikipedia, where my professional expertise is relevant, I try to inform other editors what I think it tells us. Normally, where there is a will there is a way, and there is typically absolutely no conflict between the absolutely sound and naturally binding Policies of Wikipedia and The Truth. It's like in law, and it's like in science, we work in a multi-agent field where we need social rules which are supposed to guide us in our search for justice, scientific knowledge, etc and where the social rules are designed to avoid contradiction between manifest truth and manifest justice and the outcome of the social process. Since otherwise the outcome of the social process is not secure because it causes more problems than it delivers. However just as in Law and in Science as in all social enterprises, some people are good at using the rules of the game not to deliver the intended collectively wanted end-product but to further their own personal agendas. I am not accusing you of this, it just comes across as if that is your method, and that in the long run wouldn't actually further your personal agenda, if it was true, anyway? Get my meaning? It's a bit complex.sorry.

Yours, Richard Gill110951 (talk) 07:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Reading this message could be to your advantage

Please take a look at [[2]]

There you will find out why the answer is "2/3" or "switch", as you like, and the method is unconditional, but the assumptions are NOT what some people like to call the standard assumptions, but the result is much much better, since much more useful in practice, much more often applicable, and just as easy to argue, whether formally or informally. And if you like you can refine or complete it, if you like, by proving that 2/3 is the best answer and this is the best strategy. Hellpimp showed us the way but no-one noticed. Now the economists and game theorists know all this too and have frequently published on it so there is no problem backing it up with reliable sources. Moreover it is such a clean and different simple argument that is "out there" I think it deserves some consideration. I am not talking about pushing it onto the MHP page in order to push my POV, I am talking about something which I think is worth thinking about, if one likes to think of oneself as an authority on MHP. Gill110951 (talk) 18:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there some reason you think I don't understand this? -- Rick Block (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some reasons why I wondered if you would understand it, but mostly I wondered if you were aware of it. Now you are aware of it for sure, and if you understand it too, that's great, since then one could continue in a semi-offline discussion of another possibly reliably sourced and in my opinion definitely interesting approach to MHP in a constructive way. Which doesn't mean to say it has to go on the MHP page, obviously.

Build trust and confidence? Defuse conflicts? Have fun in a productive way on Wikipedia, both productive for wikipedia and personally? Gill110951 (talk) 08:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes we have a POV but it's not about (1) or (2)

I think it's about (1) or (2) or both/neither. Here's why:

You wrote:

I have been suggesting for some time that we have a POV issue and that we're actually arguing about

1) whether the article (as of the last FARC or even currently) is NPOV or whether it endorses the POV of the "conditionalists" (those sources who argue that the simple solutions typically presented are not quite responsive to the question).

Just for the record: Right now, I think recent versions endorse the conditionalists though the strength of the endorsement has been reduced. I think we need to go further. Gill110951 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

2) whether the structure of the article should be to focus first and foremost on presenting the simple solutions in an attempt to convince the reader that the chance of winning by switching given the standard interpretation is indeed 2/3 and not 1/2, or whether doing this creates a structural POV effectively saying these solutions are the correct and proper way to understand the problem (i.e. endorses this POV).

Just for the record: Right now, I think the structure of the article should be to focus first and foremost on *good* simple solutions (for many, many sound reasons), and in particular those simple solutions which *are* correct and proper ways to understand the problem or for instance correspond to informal versions of correct and proper ways. I believe that there is not a unique correct and proper way to understand the problem. I don't think this constitutes violation of WP by picking and choosing on a basis of a POV. I think it corresponds to good taste and balance in selecting from the wealth of material which is "out there". Thus I think one certainly *may* use The Truth to guide the collaborative and distributed selection and editing process in pursuit of and in compliance with Wikipedia aims and policies. If an editor seems to claim (or seems to report that a reliable source claims) all three of (A) and (A => B) and (not B) simultaneously, with no comment at all, one might wonder if he/she is up to his/her job. So other editors should bring this little matter of The Truth up in discussion, in good collaboration with all concerned Wikipedia editors, naturally. Wikipedia is never finished. Because time never stops still. We are following a moving target. Gill110951 (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose the both/neither alternative. There are good and proper interpretations of the MHP which the conditionalists will love. There are good and proper interpretations of the MHP which the unconditionalists will love. Both those parties also seem to miss that there are good and proper interpretations of the MHP which fall in neither category, especially those that I one could label economical or opportunist or taking a higher view: it's the point that you don't just get the choice switch/stay but also the initial choice of door in the first place. Choose it uniformly at random and you are safe, you needn't make any "unwarranted" assumptions whatever.

OK I see this through the POV of a professional pure and applied mathematician. On the one hand, biased. On the other hand, trained and competent to spot holes in arguments, to spot structural relations between apparently different results. I have made an in depth study of the reliable sources.

Hence all we have to do is to adopt an NPOV. Now indeed there exists verifiably a controversy between the fundamentalists. And of course these guys make a lot of noise and get a lot of attention. But there is actually also a sound middle of the road in which everyone gets there due and by integrating the use of basic clear logical thinking and all the Wikipedia Policies there are, one can come to a great article. But not if you first insist on the wrong question being answered in favour of one or the other fundamentalist school. We want a NPOV, right? We also want to get the article back to being a justly great article again. It got a bit unbalanced and new guys elbowed in with new ideas. And the world turned round and Morgan et al retracted, Tsirelson exhibited some beautiful mathematical short cuts, some other people finally figured out what all the economists had been thinking about all these years...

vos Savant's words are "out there". They still stimulate original thought. Taking those words as describing informally a lay person's idea of a problem which needs to be mathematized to be solved, the professional mathematical scientist will also watch out that the chosen wording doesn't lead them into a narrow blind alley when the girl who posed the question would obviously have been more than delighted if her words had been reformulated a tiny bit and thereby making obvious what is the question you really want to ask. vos Savant asks: what should you do. I say: you will of course have thought a bit ahead. You have of course already noticed that you have TWO decision moments. You're focussing on the second but actually the first is equally important, let me tell you why ... Gill110951 (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Gill - as Will has said: "When we're Wikipedia editors we are concerned with what is verifiable rather than what is true. See WP:V and WP:TRUTH." It actually goes a little further - we're concerned with the prevailing opinion (or opinions) expressed by reliable sources. We're scribes, not original thinkers. When writing articles here, we're presenting the opinions of reliable sources not our own. It's like Will's exercise of writing for the opponent. We need to determine what opinion or opinions are expressed by reliable sources, and write those.

This is simple in cases where there is universal or near universal agreement (among sources) about the truth, as is often the case in math and science - meaning what a rational person thinks of as the truth and what sources say is the truth match, so writing what you think is the truth is the same thing as writing what sources say is the truth. In cases where the truth is more slippery, like say history or philosophy or any of the arts, there is a distinct chance that what any individual person believes (no matter how "rational" that person may be) does not match the prevailing opinion of sources. In these cases we must put aside our personal opinions and write what the sources say, whether we agree or not. Deep expertise in a topic often interferes with this, which is why writing about oneself is highly discouraged (see Wikipedia:Autobiography). The point is usually expressed in terms of bias, but it is just as much an inability to distinguish what you know to be the truth from what has been published. This is equally the case in any area where you have deep personal expertise.

What all this means to the article here about the MHP is that no matter how brilliantly insightful it may be we simply cannot present an argument that is fundamentally novel. The question the article is addressing is not "what is the best approach", but "what are the approaches presented by reliable sources". It's a "meta" approach, focused on prevalence of opinion (among reliable sources). After reading the article you should be able to draw a pie chart showing the differing views (as slices) sized roughly in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint.

I'll repost this in some form on the mediation page. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed Rick, for responding in both places! I responded a bit on the mediation page where, as you will have noticed, though I tried hard to be polite, I was riled because I felt that some of your comments were specifically aimed at discrediting specific editors. You know that we had been instructed to focus on the ideas put forward, not by who put them forward. For instance you wrote there that professional mathematicians should go home! Was that addressed to me, or was it addressed to me? (No offense taken, by the way).

But we have lots of points of agreement. You know, I'm all for meta approaches. And please believe me, I am not aware that I am presenting any argument that is fundamentally novel. I admit that I have a fondness to present views which I know are less prominent. The collaborative editorial process and wikipedia policies will determine how much space they get.

BTW, a professional mathematician has skills in recognising when mathematical arguments are correct or not, whether all the stated assumptions in a mathematical chain of reasoning are actually used or not, and so on. Call this own research or not, I think that anyone writing on MHP on Wikipedia would be well advised to at least try to understand the logical relations between different approaches which are all "out there" in reliable sources. This *can* be a good guide to efficient (for the reader!) organisation of material, of avoiding unnecessary duplication, of assigning weight, and so on. I think that any wikipedia editor writing a new article on a topic dear to their heart starts by organising and prioritizing the material which they think is relevant. Systematizing the material is "own research" at a meta level, which every good editor does day by day. After all, we don't copy old encyclopaedias, do we. We are *not* merely scribes. So maybe some mathematicians are actually very well qualified to be wikipedia co-editors of at least part of the MHP story?

On the other hand you and a few others are fighting by waving wikipedia policies, and elucidating them again and again, but can't we leave that to the mediators? They are supposed to help us to come to agree on where we differ. Essays by us warring editors on wikipedia policies take a lot of space, distract from the (constructive) line set out by the mediators, and often (destructive) *appear* aimed at *persons* not content, so I don't think they belong in the mediation procedure as set out by the mediators.

Yours respectfully, Richard Gill110951 (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Noise music

Category:Noise music, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

David's question

Hi Rick, I hope all is well with you.

I saw you posted on David Tombe's user page. It seems he still thinks that the answer is 1/2 and not 2/3 though. I posted the "Bar-game MHP" sim that I ran with my sister in-law to try and give him a good way of seeing the problem clearly. I know the sim implies some things about what "the real MHP" is, but I am honestly not trying to convince him of one way of looking at it or another. I just think that the bar-sim is a fun way to show the math in a real-world setting.

I also think the fact that he read the article and still thinks the answer is 1/2 illustrates my view of why we should lead with simple explanations for non-mathematicians. But since the article is currently laid-out that way and he still missed the correct answer I don't really know if there is much more we can do. Any insights you might have would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Colincbn (talk) 02:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether he has posted anything following what I posted to his page. Given he has read the article and it starts with the simple solutions and he still thinks the answer is 1/2 illustrates what I think is the issue with the "simple" solutions - i.e. they are simply not convincing to someone who is thinking of the specific case where the player has picked door 1 and the host has opened door 3. The simple solutions are based on a completely different understanding of the problem that is essentially inaccessible to someone who is thinking of this case. As Krauss and Wang put it "Note that once formed, this assumption [that the case of interest is that the host has opened door 3 and not door 2] prevents the problem solver from gaining access to the intuitive solution illustrated in Figure 1 [basically, vos Savant's solution based on showing the result of switching for each possible location of the car]." Martin and I disagree about this, but I think the way to address this is to present a solution that actually applies to the mental model most people start with - and this is the conditional solution. It's less simple, but I suspect actually easier to understand and ultimately more convincing.

Just out of curiosity - are you (as a non-mathematician) able to answer the questions I asked him? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me give this a shot:

1) how many times would you think the car ends up behind door 1? door 2? door 3?

This should be easy: approx. 100 times each.

2) how many times (out of all 300) would you think the host opens door 2? door 3?

Well the car will be behind each door about 100 times, and out of the 100 times it is behind door 1 he will choose each potential remaining door to be shown 50% of the time. That, plus the fact that out of the 200 remaining times he will be forced to open the one remaining non-car door means... 150 times each.

3) thinking about your answers to #1 and #2, how many times is the car behind door 1 if the host opens door 2? door 3?

OK, so the contestant choose door 1, and the host opened door 2 150 times and 3 150 times. 100 of those times the car was behind door 1, 100 times it was behind door 2, and 100 times door 3.

4) thinking about your answers to #1 and #2, how many times is the car behind door 2 if the host opens door 2? door 3?

If the host opens door 2 the car is behind it 0 times. If the car is behind door 1 100 times and when he opens a particular door out of the remaining two it is behind that door 0 times, then when he opens door 3 the car is behind door 2 200 times.

5) thinking about your answers to #3 and #4, what is the probability of winning by switching if the host opens door 3?

200 out of 300, so 2/3. (But I knew that last bit already thanks to WP.)

So is my handling of this correct? I have to admit it took me awhile to get my brain around the specifics of this situation, but I'm pretty confident about my answers (I hope I'm not wrong). Colincbn (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Colin - Your answer to #3 doesn't answer the question. The car is behind door 1 100 times altogether (out of all 300 shows). Question #3 is asking how many times the car is behind door 1 considering only those shows where the host has opened door 2 (and then considering only those shows where the host has opened door 3). Taking "host opens door 2" first (which your answer to #2 says happens 150 times), how many times is the car behind door 1 out of these 150 times (the ones where the host opens door 2)? Similarly, question #4 is asking about how many times the car is behind door 2 in the same situations. I think revising these will lead you to a different answer for #5. This might be easier in a fill-in the blanks form:

                      100    +    100    +    100  = 300
                                   /\                   
                      /-----------/  \----------\                  
                      |                         |                      
                      |                         |        
        host opens: door 2                    door 3          
                      |                         |   
                      V                         V

            ___ + ___ + ___ = 150       ___ + ___ + ___ = 150

I've filled in your answers for #1 and #2. The blanks are the numbers for how many times the car is behind door 1, door 2, and door 3 in each of the two possible scenarios (host opens door 2 or host opens door 3). The total for each door (for each of the two cases) should clearly be 100 for each door. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! I misunderstood the question... Ok let me give it another shot:

3) thinking about your answers to #1 and #2, how many times is the car behind door 1 if the host opens door 2? door 3?

OK, so the contestant choose door 1, and the host opened door 2 150 times and 3 150 times. 100 of those times the car was behind door 1, so 50 times each when the host opens either door 2 or 3.

4) thinking about your answers to #1 and #2, how many times is the car behind door 2 if the host opens door 2? door 3?

If the host opens door 2 the car is behind it 0 times. If the car is behind door 1 50 times and when he opens a particular door out of the remaining two it is behind that door 0 times, then when he opens door 3 the car is behind door 2 100 times.

5) thinking about your answers to #3 and #4, what is the probability of winning by switching if the host opens door 3?

100 out of 150, so 2/3.

                      100    +    100    +    100  = 300
                                   /\                   
                      /-----------/  \----------\                  
                      |                         |                      
                      |                         |        
        host opens: door 2                    door 3          
                      |                         |   
                      V                         V

            50 + 0 + 100 = 150       50 + 100 + 0 = 150

Am I getting warmer at least? Colincbn (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly correct - assuming the host has no preference between door 2 and door 3 in the case the car is behind door 1. Congratulations! This is the "conditional" solution. Notice how 100/150 is ACTUALLY DIFFERENT from 200/300. They both reduce to 2/3, but the 100/150 answer is the one that applies after you've picked door 1 and the host has opened door 3 when you're left standing in front of 2 closed doors and one open door. You don't have to resort to backing up to the point before the host has opened a door - you can get to the 2/3 answer directly. Expressing the numbers as probabilities you start with

                   1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1

which splits into two equations based on whether you see the host open door 2 or door 3:

          1/6 + 0 + 1/3 = 1/2          or       1/6 + 1/3 + 0 = 1/2

The 1/2 that is the sum is the chance that you're in each of these cases (this means there's a 50/50 chance you see the host open either door). The 1/6 is what happens to your original 1/3 chance in each of these cases (it's split evenly between them). The 0's and 1/3's are where the original 1/3 chance of door 2 and door 3 go. These are all "total probabilities". To convert the door 2 or door 3 case to conditional probabilities, you scale everything up so the sum is 1 (i.e. multiply by 2). The familiar looking result (in the door 3 case) is 1/3 + 2/3 + 0 = 1. This equation (with a 0 for the door 3 probability) is the one that really causes all the trouble. You don't get there this way:

         1) 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1
         2) 1/3 + (1/3 + 1/3) = 1       because ?? we know what the host does cannot affect door 1's chances
         3) 1/3 + (2/3 + 0) = 1         because we know the probability of door 3 is 0

because step 2 in this sequence is not based on any law of probability. Rather it's based on the assumption that the conditional probability of door 1 hiding the car (which is one of the things you're trying to figure out!) remains 1/3. Solutions based on this reasoning end up with the right answer, but they're terribly confused. Instead, you pretty much have to get there this way:

        1) 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = 1
        2) 1/6 + 1/3 + 0 = 1/2         these are the total probabilities assuming the host has opened door 3
        3) 1/3 + 2/3 + 0 = 1           converting line 2 to conditional probabilities

Line 3 ends up with the same values, but using reasons that are actually correct. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard's comments on the above

This is an interesting discussion. It gives a good answer to a good question. Note that both of your ways of thinking are frequentist, you are thinking of many repetitions. [Fine by me, but not everyone thinks probability this way]. Note that you are assuming that when the quizmaster has a choice he goes roughly equally often either way. Fine by me to assume this, but if you are going to do so, please put it up from explicitly. Personally I don't see how you can justify this assumption, given the usual starting point. But it doesn't matter since it is completely unnecessary assumption. Even if the quizmaster always opens door 2, or always opens door 3, it is still clever to switch, as you'll easily find out by doing the arithmetic in both of the two extreme scenarios I've just mentioned. Gill110951 (talk) 14:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard - yes, I understand this. The point of expressing the problem in frequentist terms is that I think most people find it easier to think in concrete terms. Asking someone "what is the probability of <such and such>" is a much more abstract concept that asking "out of 1000 times you do this, how many times would you expect <such and such> to happen"? It is (obviously) the same question, but for conditional probabilities I think it leads to a much easier understanding. Asking "what is P(A|B)" leads to blank stares. Asking "out of 1000 times something happens, considering only those times B happens how many times does A happen" is a question nearly anyone can understand. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And even subjectivist probabilities may be thought of in these terms. The repetitions are "in the mind", "over all possible worlds". You bet at odds 2:1 because you imagine that 2 out of 3 times it's going to happen. Gill110951 (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I come to the notion that the question whether or not an answer to a question is complete or not, depends on the way the question is understood. Here we saw an incomplete answer since it was based on making an unjustified extra assumption. It is not difficult to make the answer complete, in its own terms, and basicly by its own methods. On the other hand there definitely are ways one can make a "short/unconditionalist" answer complete. For instance, for a rational subjectivist the door numbers are irrelevant. The only relevant information is the fact that you picked a door which had probability 1/3 to hide the car, the quizmaster with certainty opened a door revealing a goat, the conditional probability your first door still hides the car is therefore still 1/3, therefore the other door hides the car with probability 2/3. Since the door-numbers are irrelevant, they are independent of their roles in the story. Therefore the probability remains 2/3 conditional on the identity of the doors in question. But note, it is not a frequentist probability, it is a subjectivist probability. It describes rational betting odds in just one repetition. Gill110951 (talk) 14:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What you're saying is a rational subjectivist must treat the doors as indistinguishable. This seems to me to be an unjustified assumption. -- Rick Block (talk)

No I'm not saying a rational subjectivist must treat the doors as indistinguishable. I'm saying that when the rational subjectivist imagines himself on the game show for the very first time, his prior beliefs about the quizmaster's possible bias in hiding and opening doors is symmetric in the door numbers. Thus all his rational subjective probability ingredients are invariant under renumbering of the doors. Hence the door numbers are irrelevant, hence they may be ignored. This is not the same as saying the doors are indistinguishable. They can be distinguished by the quiz-master, clearly. And the player also knows which door he chose first, which door the quizmaster opened, which third door remains closed. So he too can distinguish between the doors. Gill110951 (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "symmetric" a consequence of the doors being indistinguishable (other than their roles)? But enough pointless arguing. Did you ever read the draft of the solution section I posted here (in the "show/hide" section)? Do you have any comments about this proposal? The idea is to present the three basic types of solutions, i.e. fully unconditional, conditioned on the player initially selecting door 1, and fully conditional, without editorially expressing a preference for any one over another. This is perhaps overstepping the bounds of what is appropriate to discuss outside of the mediation talk page (see Will's comments, here) but I'm really tired of arguing in the abstract. Ultimately this comes down to what words do we want in the article. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic! (I refer to your exchange with Martin, to which you refer). To answer your question: "symmetric" would be a consequence of "indistinguishable", but I do not claim the doors are indistinguishable. You can have "symmetry" without "indistinguishability".

The discussion was definitely not pointless. I am not interested at this moment in what words we want in the article. That will be determined by wikipedia policies and by some kind of concensus and by the mediation procedure. I am just interested in understanding the way different people think. I want to learn from this. I am interested in the MHP, much more than the article on MHP in wikipedia. Gill110951 (talk) 16:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Re symmetry: exactly. What I'm saying is your rational subjectivist is not directly assuming symmetry but arriving there by virtue of assuming no difference between the doors other than their roles in the problem statement - i.e. treating the doors as if they are indistinguishable. Symmetry follows.

Our interests here appear to be fundamentally different, although perhaps complementary rather than opposed. At this point, I frankly couldn't care less about Martin's or Glkanter's or Gerhard's or even your understanding of the problem. We've gone down that route and it's a rat hole that I truly don't want to spend any more time in. Suffice it to say I'm resigned to agreeing that we may disagree. On the other hand there is only one article and as long as we fundamentally disagree about what it says there's a conflict. I don't think we need to share a common understanding of the problem to agree about what the article says, particularly given Wikipedia's policies about NPOV and verifiability. I think we have all professed we'll be happy if the article follows these policies. So the question I'm most interested in is how we accomplish that. All these side arguments about the Truth seem only to prolong the conflict. BTW - if you're truly not very interested in what the article says why are you a party to the mediation? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:26, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have fundamentally different interests since we both want a good Wikipedia article on MHP and that means an article which is both good to read and an aid to everyone's understanding as well as being absolutely in tune with Wikipedia policies. That is quite a task. I am interested in understanding everyone's understanding, since that can give clues to defusing the conflict, and because it adds to my own understanding. It is especially interesting to figure out why some persons are so dogmatic in their opinions. What is that they don't see? What is it that they see that I don't see? What hidden assumptions are they making? Am I making hidden assumptions?? You and I can certainly agree to differ, just as the sources do, as to what ought to be considered "THE MHP" and what therefore is The Proper Solution to it. I know I have to catch up on a lot of the work which consists of painstakingly checking and documenting the sources, firstly for myself, secondly for the article.

I don't think consideration of The Truth a side argument, since in this situation where only very simple math and simple logic is concerned, The Truth can be a useful meta-principle or aid to the scribe in giving a coherent overview of such an enormous field. Understanding The Truth is a useful aid to comprehending the sources. I certainly *am* interested in what the article says since it is so often consulted by people with whom I professionally discuss MHP - students, lawyers, science journalists, professional colleagues. I want it to be a valuable and unbiased resource to newcomers coming to MHP. So I have a professional responsibility to be involved with the article and hence also with the mediation. I realise that I am just one of many collaborative editors and that my professional position with regard to MHP can be as much a hindrance as a help. I certainly don't want my "authority" to play any role at all in winning support for my opinions, though I hope it might be a reason to give them my arguments for those opinions some attention. Finally, I have learn so so much about MHP from these discussions! Gill110951 (talk) 09:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Glkanter's Response

Rick Block, your favored method of supporting the 2/3 - 1/3 solution (shown above) involves enumerating what happens in "X" plays of the game, is consistent with the big, bold banner that used to be at the top of the MHP talk page:

Please note: The conclusions of this article have been confirmed by experiment

There is no need to argue the factual accuracy of the conclusions in this article. The fact that switching improves your probability of winning is mathematically sound and has been confirmed numerous times by experiment.

If you find the article's arguments unconvincing, then please feel free to use the space below to discuss improvements.

Getting back to your solution above, and many times previously, you have explained that most readers will be more comfortable with such an explanation, as opposed to the various simple solutions. David Tombe, for one, has disagreed with that idea recently. It's not really a statement of fact, anyways. I certainly don't think it's proven.

But then, at the conclusion (and throughout the narrative), you claim: "Line 3 ends up with the same values, but using reasons that are actually correct. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)"

So, now you're saying your method is not just easier to grasp, but the others are not 'actually correct'. Which is a conclusion that does not follow from your personal preference of solutions. You're saying there is only one 'correct' way to solve the problem. Your preferred way. Glkanter (talk) 11:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not what I'm saying but I really don't care to discuss this with you outside of the mediation page. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot

I have a bit of an odd question. I'm looking to create a bot for a Wikia wiki and while I can find plenty of information about what goes into writing a script, I don't understand how they run. I certainly don't mean to bother you, but do you have to run your bot's scripts manually? Do they run from your own computer? How do you make sure it's on at the right time of day? Sorry if my questions don't make any sense. I appreciate your time. Thanks. --31stCenturyMatt (talk) 22:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Bots run from your own PC. I have a Mac and schedule it to wake up before my bot runs. The bot runs as a cron job - Mac OS is BSD Unix underneath, so the bot is basically written as a shell script. I assume there are folks who run bots from Windows machines, but I really don't have a clue how they do this on a scheduled basis. If this is what you're trying to do you might ask at Wikipedia talk:Creating a bot. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --31stCenturyMatt (talk) 23:27, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

GT log

The bot is already doing Wikipedia:Featured topics promoted in 2010 from pages like Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/September 2010. I was wondering if it could also be setup to run Wikipedia:Good topics promoted in 2010 from Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Good log/September 2010. Nergaal (talk) 05:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Nergaal (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

At this point the bot is only doing featured content (articles, lists, topics - I've been working on pictures for a while). It wouldn't be too difficult to have it start maintaining a yearly promotion list (e.g. Wikipedia:Good topics promoted in 2010), but I'm not sure what the point would be. These yearly lists are mostly used as input to the lists like Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured topic nominations. Would a yearly list be helpful for any other reason? -- Rick Block (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Two reasons: there are quite a few GTs that get promoted automatically to FT once they pass the featured % requirement (without a nomination) so having a list with when was originally promoted to GT would alleviate that. Secondly, I find this sort of log more useful for searching than the tedious log kept at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log. Since the GT log is only 120 long, it should be easy to maintain, and would be quite analogous to the FT one. Nergaal (talk) 21:04, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

About the former, if you look at the hidden text in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured topic nominations you will find 9 current FTs that have been promoted initially as GTs. Nergaal (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Right. The whole deal with featured/good topics has been a little difficult to cope with in the bot. Frankly, I'm still not sure WP:WBFTN is at all meaningful (or even necessarily correct). If you want to pursue this, how about seeing what the folks at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics have to say. I notice you've started some related threads there (that nobody else has commented on so far). I'll watch that page for a while and if there's an obvious consensus we can talk about exactly what the bot should be doing. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In terms of nominations it is correct as far as I saw (other than current GTs that are former FTs but not FFTs). Nergaal (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments on your proposed MHP text

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/A proposed solution section. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Prob(A and B) versus Prob(A given B)

Rick, are you sure that you want those formulas on the mediation page like you wrote them? The probability of A and B usually means the probability that A and B occur together. The probability of A given B usually means the probability of A given that B has occurred. And we have the conventional definition

Prob(A given B) = Prob(A and B) / Prob (B)

In MHP we distinguish Prob( switching gives car) and Prob( switching gives car given initial choice of player and door opened by host). We can even write, by the law of total probability,

Prob( switching gives car ) = sum over all six possible specific pairs of door chosen, door opened

Prob( switching gives car given specific initial choice of player and specific door opened by host)

times Prob(specific initial choice of player and specific door opened by host))

Gill110951 (talk) 13:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I meant the conditional probability - however you want to describe that in English. I believe Glopk prefers "and" (meaning, in English, "and it is also observed that") reserving "∩" to unambiguously mean joint probability. "Given" is fine with me. I think the point is that English is not very precise. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Ordinary English could be ambiguous. In this context ambiguity is dangerous. P(A|B) is always read "probability of A given B" or even "conditional probabilty of A given B". P(A∩B) is read "probability of A and B" when we think of A and B as events or propositions, rather than as sets. As well as "given" you could say "when" or even "under the condition". Intersection and union refers to sets, but here we need the language of logic: and, or. Gill110951 (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Redirects in FL promotion archives

Rick Bot autoupdates redirects in the FA/FL promotion archives. That makes sense when an article is moved/renamed, but what about when articles are merged? The question relates to this edit. I think these lists are just used by you to generate WBFAN, so how are these counted should three merged FLs be counted as one current FL, three former FLs, one current and two former, or something else? (ALoan doesn't seem to be credited at all for these articles on WBFAN). Gimmetoo (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

There's currently separate code for articles and lists (merging this is something on my todo list that's never seemed too important to get to). For lists in the by-year lists, if the list is not featured and not former (which is a sort of error case) the bot checks if the list is now a redirect and if so does the auto-update. The current effect should be to credit the nominators of the merged lists according to the current status of the merged list (sort of as if they were co-noms of the merged list). I think this is how it is currently working (see ALoan's entry in WP:WBFLN).

For the bot to do something different with merges vs. renames in WBFLN, there would have to be something in the redirect letting the bot know the difference - perhaps using one of the redirect templates, like {{R from merge}}. Assuming merges were distinguishable, then we could talk about how the bot should handle them in the WBFLN list. I think GimmeBot will auto-update redirects as well, so if we want certain redirects not to be updated we probably need to coordinate with user:Gimmetrow.

I think the current behavior is at least defensible. You could change the entry in the by-year list to display the original name but link to the new name using a piped link. If you do this I'm not exactly sure how it would end up in WBFLN, but this might be a reasonable approach. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess I was looking at WBFAN rather than WBFLN. It looks like you count the three merged featured pages as three (current) featured pages, even though the three pages are currently the same link. Seems OK. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

MHP

Apologies. I don't kno how I missed your other messages. I'll look in on the page and see what I can do.   Will Beback  talk  00:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I will be back (pun noted). It is probably time to caucus with the group to see where the mediation is at and where folks want to go with it. Sunray (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Your attention is requested

Hi Rick,

SandyGeorgia has asked me to alert you that your input is requested here. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 14:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

List of FAs

Hi, Rick. I tried to fix this list, but as you can see, SandyGeorgia says that the bot will not recognize this change. She says that the old "montly logs" have to be corrected. Can you do it? The three FAs that are missing are: Her Majesty's Theatre, Thespis and W. S. Gilbert. In each case, I was one of the two most active editors who helped in the expansion of the article and in bringing it through peer reviews, GA and FA. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to fix the logs. Please let me know if I did it correctly. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Starting points

Rick, I'm trying to find out on which points editors do agree. Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Monty Hall problem/Starting points. Nijdam (talk) 14:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC)