User talk:JocK

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, JocK, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Bachrach44 00:12, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Bridge hand articles

Can you flesh these out just a little bit more. If you put in a sentence or two saying that the articel is about bridge and what the implications of each is it would be very helpful. —WAvegetarian•(talk) 19:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Contract bridge

Hi. You might be interested in participating in new Wikipedia:WikiProject Contract bridge. Regards, Duja 10:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I must say dislike your creation of small glossary-type bridge articles. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Contract_bridge. Duja 10:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Well, despite our occasional disagreement, I think you deserve this. Keep up on good work... and try to read WP:MoS a little bit more ;-). Duja 14:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! :) JocK 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Fantoni.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Fantoni.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

Jock, you're undoubtedly the most prolific contributor at WP:WPCB. However, I must ask you to try to provide some more references and external links to the articles you create: per Wikipedia:Citing sources, the articles should provide references to books, web pages and other reliable 3rd-party sources. Since you certainly use the books and other web pages while creating the articles, please add those references. While it's relatively easy to fix spelling, formatting etc. post factum, adding sources latter, after the article is written, is fairly difficult. For that reaseon, please try to add references and external links while editing. See Wikipedia:Footnotes for technicalities. Regards, Duja 09:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Will do! JocK 19:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 31 July 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Computer bridge, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

An excellent article! I enjoyed reading it. It's on the DYK section of the Main Page now. Thanks for the contribution --Samir धर्म 00:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) JocK 18:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Backgammon opening theory

An excellent addition — thanks! I've made a few changes, mostly switching from "best" to "preferred", as I think it's a bit more appropriate with regard to WP:NPOV.

Is e.g. "6-5" for dice and "1/7 7/12" the commonly accepted notation these days? I've always seen it written a variety of ways, and I used "2, 1" and "1–7, 7–12" in my recent edits to Backgammon only because it appeared to be the most prevalent of several styles used in the article. If "6-5" and "1/7 7/12" are the established notation, I'd be glad to go through and change the article to match. —ptk✰fgs 15:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! On the notation: slashes to indicate moves and doubledigit notation for dice throws are more common. (See e.g. http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+759). I opted for 3-2 rather than 32 to indicate the dice roll as I thought that would be clearer for the occasional reader. I also deviated from the standard when writing 1/7 7/12. The more common notation is 1/12. But also here I thought the average reader might benefit from making the double move explicit. But perhaps wiser to stick to what seems the standard notation in backgammon literature. JocK 16:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I'm going to put up an {{inuse}} and change the notation. —ptk✰fgs 16:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this might be helpful. Feel free to add/modify! JocK 17:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You might want to check out the manual of style regarding the use of second person pronouns — the tone of an article tends to be more encyclopedic if things are described using the third person. —ptk✰fgs 22:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right. Have updated (mostly by using 'player' and 'opponent' rather than 'you' and 'your opponent'). JocK 00:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 7 August 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Backgammon opening theory, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Nice article. Enjoyed reading it. Would be great if you could add a bit more on the neural networks in the article as it made a fabulous tagline. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 08:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks (again ;-). I am actually thinking of writing an article dedicated to computer backgammon. Cheers -JocK 18:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Board and table games

You may be interested in joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Board and table games. —ptk✰fgs 06:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess

You might like to join us at Physics/wip where a total re-write of the main Physics page is in progess. At present we're discussing the lead paragraphs for the new version, and how Physics should be defined. I've posted here because you are on the Physics Project participant list. --MichaelMaggs 08:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Herbert Green

Can you expand on the page as well as put Mr. Green in the appropriate categories? I have no idea, based on what you have written, what to with him as far as categories are concerned! Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.135.11.17 (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

Have a look at Herbert Green. I have added categories, and slightly expanded the stub. I see that it is proposed for merging with Herbert S. Green. Will refrain from further expansions till after the merge. Cheers, JocK 20:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I Angelbo award you this Barnstar for your board and table-top game related contributions
I Angelbo award you this Barnstar for your board and table-top game related contributions

Here is something for you, for all your contributions to game related articles on wikipeida. Regards -Angelbo 01:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Haven't been very active lately. Hope to change that soon. JocK 12:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Mathematics of Poker

Hello. I put a Template:Prod tag on The Mathematics of Poker, proposing it be deleted. It is not clear from the article what makes that book special enough to be included in Wikipedia. Please remove the tag and comment on the talk page if you disagree. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added to the article a few words relating to the notability of the book. However, it might be too early to assess whether this book is really notable (depends on whether the ideas can be taken further and be applied to real-life poker games). I don't hold a strong view on this, and don't mind if the article gets deleted. (PS Perhaps better to continue this discussion here. JocK 13:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Fricke

Thanks, that is a much better reference.--Isotope23 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Subtract a square

Thanks for making this article, it's really great. LukeSurl t c 12:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, you're quick... I am still in the process of initialising the article! JocK 13:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics CotW

Hey JocK, I am writing you to let you know that the Mathematics Collaboration of the week(soon to "of the month") is getting an overhaul of sorts and I would encourage you to participate in whatever way you can, i.e. nominate an article, contribute to an article, or sign up to be part of the project. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks--Cronholm144 22:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pulp Fiction revert

Hi; i know what you added to the "Trivia" section was factual, but i reverted it because it tends to encourage people to continually add trivia, which eventually turns the article back into mush. If you'd like, you can contribute as to how the article could be improved, but at the moment the article requires references and not trivia, unfortunately. If you can help, i'd be greatly appreciative. Thanks for the understanding ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 19:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] math notation style

Hello. Some of you edits prompt this comment. Notice this difference:

N(n,k)=N(n,n-k)
N(n, k) = N(n, n − k)

In the second case, the variables (but not the digit 1 and not the punctuation) are italicized, some space preceeds and follows "=" and "+" and follows the commas, and the minus sign is longer than a little hyphen. This has all become fairly conventional in non-TeX mathematical notation on Wikipedia because it matches TeX style and is easy to read. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (mathematics). Michael Hardy 23:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

... oh: also notice that one can write 1 ≤ k ≤ n, so there's no need to write

1 <= k <= n.

Michael Hardy 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! JocK 16:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Duplicate Image:McNuggets numbers - graphical representation.jpg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:McNuggets numbers - graphical representation.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:McNuggets numbers - graphical representation.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:McNuggets numbers - graphical representation.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 14:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lots of good work

You have done lots of good editing on bridge articles in the last few days, thanks. If you could depersonalise your attitude, I would find it easier to cooperate with you. Abtract 17:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. A similar statement holds from my side: I appreciate you being active here, and most of your edits - certainly all the linguistic/style edits - constitute clear improvements. However, how much more would we achieve together if you would be just less dogmatic! I simply can't imagine why any editor would consciously decide in favour of suboptimal content simply out of fear for trading into OR-teritory. Let's keep in mind that the intention of the no-OR is to avoid bogus articles, not to stall progress. If we can improve upon the existing literature we should not shy away. Just imagine what meagre OEoB would have resulted, would its editors have sticked to a dogmatic approach similar to yours. I am actually convinced that by sticking our neck out, over time we could achieve encyclopedic bridge content on WP that is broader, goes more deep, and is more actual than the OEoB. But how can we ever achieve that if we don't allow ourselves to improve upon its content (I am not just referring to this Norman four notrump thing, but in particular to the suit combination stuff). Anyway, don't think we can convince each other. Cheers, JocK 18:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
OK but there are two different points here, attitude and dogmatic approach. I agree that, on the latter, I have a bit of a thing about OR but only IMHO totally in line with policy. I have just re-read the OR page and remain convinced that the 'norman ace' must remain at 1 and I cannot see what possible justification you have for disagreeing ... the fact that it is inconsistent (but surely easily understood by any reader) with the control count method is no justification, we have one citation that makes it quite clear and, until another citation comes along, then we must stick to it, that is the wp way. As to the suit combination articles again it is so clear to me that they were way into OR territory that once again I simply cannot understand why you disagree - the figures had been obtained by an editor applying a computer programme designed by an individual and published only on his personal website (very clearly an interpretation by an editor of a primary source unpublished by a reputable source), a clear violation of OR. As to the point about attitude, well let's just call it quits if you will (no doubt we both think the other was out of order and we may well both be right) - I am willing to say sorry and kiss and make up. Abtract 18:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
OK, let me first state that the Norman 4NT normalisation thing in itself is rather insignificant to me (it's a small article on a non-mainstream subject), but it does exemplify the issue that I have dubbed "no-OR fundamentalism". (Have you read Jimbo's interview in which he states the intention of the no-OR policy?) The issue of the Norman 4NT normalisation is that of a re-wording (obviously, changing the normalisation does not change anything content-wise: the Norman-asking bid and responses would work the same regardless the precise normalisation) for sake of clarity and to avoids confusion with the reader. and creates consistency within WP as well as with the outside world (including other articles in the OEoB). It just beats me how this ever can be perceived to be in violation with OR or quotation standards (rember: I proposed to include a footnote stating that we purposely deviate from the normalisation used in the Norman 4NT article in the OEoB). Anyway, we got ourselves into a gridlock on this thing, as I said: not a big issue in itself. The poit is, however, that inevitably we will have more of these 'issues' in the future...
On the suit combination issue: much more important in my opinion. All the figures I planned to publish could easily be checked by a skilled person (just back-of-the-envelope work). The figures I planned to quote are published in the form of a widely accepted computer programme. A computer program created by a skilled mathematician, the results of which have been published in various reputable journals, and a program which has been used to update errors in the OEoB. May I also remind you that your rigid no-OR point-of-view at that time didn't meet much support from other editors. Surely you must have noticed that around that time the Wikiproject on bridge dwindled into inactivity. Certainly I have not done much on bridge since that time. No fun if one single person halts progress.
I think you are likely a nice person with good intentions, and I don't have the intention to treat you in an unfair way. If you place all my reactions in context, I don't think you can claim I offended you at any stage. If it does feel like that, sorry, but if you place your heels firmly in the ground, you must possess firm legs. No hard feelings from my side, but working together will remain a problem, I'm afraid. Cheers, JocK 19:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks for making your position clear. Abtract 19:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Dalhuijsen

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Peter Dalhuijsen, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Peter Dalhuijsen. Please also see WT:POKER for discussion▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡Talk 03:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Hutten

Hey JocK, I would like to complement you on the excellent article you wrote on Richard Hutten. There is a request (not by me) for some independent sources for the statements made in this article. Thought of letting you know. Keep up the good work! gidonb (talk) 13:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 2 February 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ouzo effect, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)