User talk:Oliphaunt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented.

If I post on your talk page, I will notice any replies posted there.
Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here.
I will usually post a brief note on your talk page to let you know that I have replied, unless your talk page instructs me otherwise.
If you write a reply to me here, I may decide to move your text back to your talk page in an effort to keep the thread in one place.
If you are just pointing out something written to me elsewhere, edit here.
Such pointers are useful if you've written to a comment I made many days ago.
I refactor my talk page, so
To see older messages please view the history.

[edit] Pings

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Example (talk · contribs) 12:46, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Carson image vandalism

might it be a good idea to delete that vandalised picture? Doesn't seem respectful, and all that. Or is it important to keep it in while the vandalism is in progress? Phaunt 00:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure about policy on deleting image revisions. Past vandalism of text pages does remain in the history, so I'm erring to the side of caution here. --fvw * 00:44, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Maybe follow this procedure? I can't do it, since the page is protected. Don't intend to bug you - I'm a wikipedia newbie, really... Phaunt 00:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't really apply, that's just for deleting entire images, not just separate revisions. The vandalised revision wasn't used in the creation of the current one, so I guess it can be deleted though, so on second thought I have. Thanks for flagging the matter on ViP! --fvw * 00:57, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

Try reloading the page, you probably still have an old version. --fvw * 01:07, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

[edit] Né

If you look the great majority of Pope articles use né sometimes people change them because they believe that it is not English. If there was some concensus and reworking of articles to change them all I guess I wouldn't have a problem... but I don't think we should swap synonyms just because we can. gren 07:22, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Monty Hall praise

Thank you very much. I didn't really do that much; the article was very good and quite complete when I found it. I pretty much just responded to the comments at WP:FAC. Like most things here, it was a collaboration. If you're in a praising sort of mood, you might add a general "to everyone who worked on it" note on the article's talk page (completely up to you). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nog steeds geblokkeerd: hoe kan dat?

"Oscar" blokkeerde me vanmorgen voor een periode van 12 uur (lees tot 14:42 uur), maar nu heeft hij me, zonder dat ik ooit nog iets heb kunnen doen, verder geblokkeerd, terwijl ik niets meer heb ik kunnen doen op de site ondertussen: dat is toch volstrekt tegen de regels, of niet dan soms? Op 8 sep 2005 12:48 (vervalt op 9 sep 2005 12:48) blokkeerde Oscar:

3242 (U werd geblokkeerd omdat uw IP-adres overeenkomt met dat van "Bart Versieck". Deze gebruiker werd geblokkeerd met als reden: "negeren en ontkennen van de conventies".) Bart Versieck 18:11, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ping

I have replied to you on my talk page. Feel free to remove this note after you have read it. --Gmaxwell 09:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Van Eck phreaking

I noticed an edit of yous on Van Eck phreaking, and I was wondering if you could help me with something. I know Wij vertrouwen stemcomputers niet has their report on the Nedap/Groenendaal ES3B voting systems and it includes being able to record spurious emissions (like in the video), but there has been talk of of problems with the SDu NewVote voting machines. Do you have any information on the possible problems with the SDu NewVote voting machines (preferably in English)? Thanks, -- Electiontechnology 17:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look at their website, but all available information seems to be in Dutch: [1]. You could ask the people at wijvertrouwenstemcomputersniet if they can summarise the information for you in English. Oliphaunt 18:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. This sort of information would be very useful in the US, and there is so little translated into English on the topic. The US is currently writing voting system standards which hopefully will become known as an international standard on the subject, and it would really be great if they had some more information on some of the international examples of voting technology (particularly in the Netherlands). If you happen to come across any information in the future, please send it along. -- Electiontechnology 20:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Prince Pondicherry; Thomas Johann Seebeck; Anna Pavlovna of Russia; Playboy; The Candy Man; STS-119; Grandpa Joe; Ear; Rashid Sunyaev; Edward Waring; Robert Ochsenfeld; Walter H. Schottky; Aerospace engineering; Mark Haddon; Pete Abrams; Lighthouses and lightvessels in the Netherlands; Lennard-Jones potential; Ids Postma; Linalool

Cleanup: Action of 29 June 1694; Homework; Military of Aruba
Merge: 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann; Radio Frequency Identification; Keystone (architecture)
Add Sources: Sandbag; Baltic Republics; Kansas Joe McCoy
Wikify: John Proctor; Christa Schröder; Paul Samuelson
Expand: Mr. and Mrs. Teavee; Andrew Claude de la Cherois Crommelin; Ishikawa diagram

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 00:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British vs. English POV

On the article where I made the correction, it was originally fiber, and someone changed it to fibre, so I changed it back. So technically, they violated the rules, not me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C++ Template (talk • contribs) 14:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thankyou

for your comments. Happy Easter! Andycjp 00:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French Fourth Republic

(moved Barryob's reply to his talk page to restore context 22:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC))

[edit] British anti-invasion preparations of World War II

I thought that you might like to know that British anti-invasion preparations of World War II, an article to which you have previously contributed, has been put forward as a featured article candidate. Thank you for your help. If you would like to comment on this article's nomination, please see here. Your opinions will be most welcome. Gaius Cornelius 12:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shortcuts

Hey Phaunt, You recently added a shortcut to {{uw-error1}}. We try and keep the uw system of warning as harmonised as possible, so editors know that if they can enter uw-e1 as you have done they can also do uw-e4. Could you create the other shortcuts please? Many thanks ^Khukri 07:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, much appreciated. ^Khukri 10:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You were quite right to point me to a bit of work I left undone. Sorry for my initial laziness :-) Oliphaunt 10:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please don't think I left the message because I thought you were being lazy. I know these thing just get overlooked. Cheers again. ^Khukri 12:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Thanks for linking to a disambig"

Removed Myles Long's replies as he also posted them on his own talk page (and I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented). Oliphaunt 21:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Look before you leap

I have used wikipedia for a while and don't need your ridiculous comments on my talk-page. Check your facts before posting patronising pre-written stupidities, however well you mean. 89.168.3.105 20:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Would you please tell me how I could have known (by "checking my facts") that you were a long-time user, as you allege? Your contributions (16 in number) don't go back to before 18 April, and neither have you been welcomed before.

Also, I would like to ask you to remain WP:CIVIL.

Please feel free to make the welcome message less patronising or stupid, as I'm afraid I don't share your opinions of it. Phaunt 21:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

I'm sorry about the personal attacks, I wasn't aware that we wern't allowed to do this on personal Talk Pages. Also, in all fairness, he was the first one to "grind my gears". In any case, I'll refrain from all forms of personal attacks.--PoidLover 22:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your username

Ha! Suitably delightful! I have placed a copy of this image on my desktop for future amusement, and shall have to visit Joure the next time I'm in the area. Thus far, my wanderings have centered around France, and while I've been that far East (into Germany) and that far North (into Britain), I've never attempted both simultaneously. I hereby resolve to do so! Jouster (whisper) 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Jouster has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

[edit] Re: POV at Rogue Wave

I think my calling the edit POV-related was a mistake; sorry about that. It was conversational, but most importantly, s you pointed out, was irrelevant to the article. --Quintote (talk) 17:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard spaces at MOS

[Ha ha! I just realised that MOS is itself a "hard space" – a hard place at which to get any useful action.]

I think you will be interested in the section Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Non-breaking_spaces. Some of us are ready to take this further, and make a sustained effort for reform at the village pump. Care to take a look? Perhaps you'd like to express your support, at least, at the end of the section. Your involvement would be much appreciated.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your note in reply, Phaunt. I think the details can be left for the discussion at the page we make for all this. I look forward to working with you. An interesting new way of doing things!

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 10:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Phaunt, thanks for your note at my page about admins and such. A handy link that I wasn't aware of. Of course I knew that editor was an admin. It was a rhetorical question: his page ought to show that clearly, and it didn't. My frustration was simply about poor communication of basic facts like that; contrast the annotation that I placed at the redirect page he deleted, solely for an admin to read and to take into account, even if only by putting a warning at my talk page. Never mind! It doesn't matter.

Let's do what we can to keep things moving along at User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP. It would be good to have more editors participating, and the present ones not dropping out, yes?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard spaces again

Things are moving along at our page concerning hard spaces. I hope you will stay involved, as we approach a crucial vote. Your contribution is of great value.

Best wishes to you.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 00:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your current editing at User:Noetica/ActionMOSVP

That's great, Phaunt! I'll move out of the way for a while, now. Just one thing: if you're going to show alternative interim versions of the summary text (in part or as a whole), you might adopt this convention: underline altered text, and mark removed text with something like "...". I know you want to keep things clear and readable, and that you are good at that! We should make such procedural moves explicit and easy for others to adopt as well.

Your earlier FAQ-type list was a fine idea. Pity it was split for a while. Note that I have proposed active discussion at all of these current subections.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your considerations and praise :-) But as you may already have read, I'm done for now. No further discussion for me anymore tonight. See you later! Phaunt (talk) 01:49, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Nice work! I'm now making a small modification, so that we have a working text preceded by a current consensus text. I'll set my original version up as the consensus text for now, and we can accumulate agreed changes as the process goes on, to update the consensus text. Good?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 01:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll see tomorrow what you've cooked up. Good luck! Phaunt (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've followed your lead. A progressively updated summary in a subpage can be transcluded at any other page, and there is a link to our discussion for anyone wanting to join in:

Better markup for the hard space, using ,,

Summary

The hard space is an important but neglected element in good Wikipedia editing. It stops an unwanted line break, so it is also called no-break space, or non-breaking space. An example (one sort from very many): no line break should occur in "17 sq ft". At present there are two ways to achieve this: first, with the raw HTML   code (17 sq ft); second, with the {{nowrap}} template ({{nowrap|17 sq ft}}). These options are hard to remember, hard to input, and hard to interpret on the screen. Some cases are far more complex.

The solution? Introduce simple new Wikipedia markup, similar to the existing markup for italic (''italic text'') and bold ('''bold text'''). Although these are converted by the system into HTML code (italic text and bold text respectively), the text always appears in the edit box with the markup '' or '''.

The proposal simply adapts this useful and accepted idea, to include the hard space. Extensive discussion among interested editors, followed by a poll, shows that ,, (two ordinary commas) is the best markup. When it is implemented, one could type 17,,sq,,ft in the edit box, which would be converted internally to 17 sq ft, so that the reader of the article always sees an unbroken "17 sq ft". Editing, we would always still see 17,,sq,,ft. This innovation is easy for experienced editors and welcoming to Wikipedia newcomers, since it is the same style as markup for bold and italics.

Analysis shows that comma-based markup could be extended for other formatting and punctuation; but that is beyond the present simple proposal.

[Last revision: 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC). See and discuss the full proposal here.]

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 09:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change at WT:MOS

Thanks Phaunt. In fact, I did intend to open a new section, because the topic is broadened and I want discussion for a change in MOS.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ...hard spaces again

[Stable draft; last amended 11:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC). Development page: WT:NOWRAP.]

Better markup for the hard space
A proposal to implement ,, as markup for the hard space ( )

1. Overview

2. Technical details

3. Objections and replies

4. Implementation

1. Overview

The hard space is an important but neglected element in good Wikipedia editing. It stops an unwanted line break, so it is also called no-break space, or non-breaking space. An example (one sort from very many): no line break should occur in "17 sq ft". At present there are two ways to achieve this: first, with the raw HTML   code (17 sq ft); second, with the {{nowrap}} template ({{nowrap|17 sq ft}}). These options are hard to remember, hard to input, and hard to interpret on the screen. Some cases are far more complex.
The solution? Introduce simple new Wikipedia markup, similar to the existing markup for italic (''italic text'') and bold ('''bold text'''). Although these are converted by the system into HTML code (italic text and bold text respectively), the text always appears in the edit box with the markup '' or '''.

The proposal simply adapts this useful and accepted idea, to include the hard space. Extensive discussion among interested editors, followed by a poll, shows that ,, (two ordinary commas) is the best markup. When it is implemented, one could type 17,,sq,,ft in the edit box, which would be converted internally to 17 sq ft, so that the reader of the article always sees an unbroken "17 sq ft". Editing, we would always still see 17,,sq,,ft. This innovation is easy for experienced editors and welcoming to Wikipedia newcomers, since it is the same style as markup for bold and italics.

Analysis shows that comma-based markup could be extended for other formatting and punctuation; but that is beyond the present simple proposal.

2. Technical details

The system's existing parsing of markup for italics ('') or bold (''') is a little complex. Those markups are "dual", requiring distinct interpretations as either beginnings (, ) or ends (, ). Those markups have to coexist with the use of ' as a single quote mark and as an apostrophe. Italics and bold are often applied together: sometimes overlapping, but more often nested like 'this' (markup: ''nested '''like 'this''''''). The WP community accepts the occasional ambiguity, and where the system fails to parse as an editor intends, there are workarounds available.
The proposed markup for the hard space will be much more straightforward – for originating editors, subsequent editors, and the system itself. There are no beginnings and ends, just single applications. Still, some slight complexities will arise, and they are easily dealt with. We start with the simplest case:

The case of ,,

Exactly two adjacent commas will always be parsed as a hard space, yielding the HTML code  . Inadvertent typing of ,, instead of , will cause no serious damage: its effect can easily be detected and repaired.

The case of ,,,

The markup ,, must coexist with the use of , as an ordinary comma in the text, though it will rarely be adjacent to such a comma. If this ever does happen, the natural parsing of ,,, would be as comma +  . This could conceivably be needed in a complex subscript, like this: W_{1, 2, 3, ... , n} (markup: W1,,,2,,,3,,,...,,,n).
It is hard to think of a case in which the reverse would be needed (  + comma); but if that ever did arise, <nowiki></nowiki>,  , and {{nowrap}} would always be available, as they are now.

The case of ,,,, (and higher even numbers of commas)

Sometimes more than one hard space is called for: in fine-tuning spacing in tabular work, for example. (This is deprecated by some, but often a convenient solution.) The natural parsing of ,,,, would be as   +  . A similar interpretation would apply to any string of 2·n commas: it would be parsed as n instances of  . And similarly for longer even-numbered strings of commas. If the editor intended comma +   + comma, the existing alternative resources should be used.

The case of ,,,,, (and higher odd numbers of commas)

The sequence ,,,,, would be most unlikely to occur, and might arise more often as an error than as meaning anything specific. But the natural parsing would be comma +   +  . And similarly for longer odd-numbered strings of commas. If the editor intended   + comma +  , the existing alternative resources should be used.

In short, there is a single rational parsing for any comma-based markup that could arise; and in the rare cases in which no comma-based markup will yield the desired non-breaking HTML code, alternative resources will meet the need as they do now.

3. Objections and replies

Objection 1
Hard spaces? I never use them! Why should I care?

Good editing requires hard spaces, even if many editors know nothing about them. Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS) explains some of their uses; and more uses would be added there, if only the markup were simple enough.

Objection 2
The no-break space can already be input with  . Recently this code has been attached to a button for insertion, under the edit box. Isn't that enough?

There are three points to make.

First, the code   is hard to remember, hard to type, and hard to interpret on the screen, especially to those who are unfamiliar with HTML. One simple example: an en dash often needs a hard space before it. Consider "89 sq in – 3 sq ft". To keep this from breaking improperly you need to type, or later edit, this code: 89 sq in – 3 sq ft. Under the proposal, you would simply type this instead: 89,,sq,,in,,– 3,,sq,,ft.

Second, note that the goal of wikitext is to abstract HTML codes away from the user, especially for common markup such as ''italics'' and '''bold'''. If the hard space is to be used as often as MOS advocates, it also needs this treatment.

Third, the new insert button does not help with interpreting the code seen in the edit box. It helps with inserting: but you still have to find the button, then find your place in the text again. Do you really want to do all that three times, for the example just given?

Objection 3
Why not use the Unicode character for the no-break space, attached to an insert button?

There is still a problem with insert buttons as a solution. In contrast to  , the Unicode non-breaking space is visually indistinguishable from the ordinary space. This is unacceptable, since the editor needs to be able to see the difference in the edit box.

Objection 4
There is also a {{nowrap}} template. Why not use that?

This template may be useful in some longer phrases that shouldn't be wrapped at any point; but again it is too visually intrusive to be used extensively for single no-break spaces. With the example above, the code would be {{nowrap|89 sq in –}} {{nowrap|3 sq ft}}. And many cases are more complex than that. Currently, {{nowrap}} does not behave well, since a space at the start or end of the enclosed text is rendered in HTML outside of that text, leading to unexpected breaks. There are other templates similar to {{nowrap}} that cater for specialised requirements; but all of these come up against technical inadequacies in the template system itself. And they all use the HTML  tag, which is interpreted differently by different browsers with unpredictable results. Use of   instead is simpler, more intuitively understandable, and more reliable in its results on the reader's screen no matter which browser is used. That is what the proposal for ,, achieves.

Objection 5
I use a non-standard editor with aliasing, so when I want a hard space I type /h to get  . Easy! So what's the problem?

There are two problems. The code you make is still hard to read and edit; and not everyone can do what you can do.

Objection 6
I'm used to  . That's what I'll always type!

You could do that, of course. You'd still make markup text that's hard to read and hard to edit. Some people (very few!) type  and  in the edit box. But they'd make life easier for themselves and others if they just typed '' instead.

Objection 7
The proposal is technically too hard to implement, and is not standard anywhere.

It is in fact easier to implement than '', ''', and other non-standard markup used at Wikipedia (see Technical Details). Wikipedia is the leader in these matters. Our developers have the capacity to innovate, and others would almost certainly respect their precedent, and follow it.

Objection 8
The new markup is unintuitive, and unlike anything we have already.

In fact it is quite intuitive, at least for editors who are already used to '' and '''. Beginners have to learn that markup: the new markup simply uses , instead of ': similar but distinct characters, both with their own stand-alone uses as apostrophe (or single quote mark) and comma, and both also used in markup.

Objection 9
Markup with commas is impractical, and a dead end in development.

The comma markup has potential to be extended in all sorts of useful ways. Because a comma hardly ever occurs without a space or a digit after it, it is quite readily available for alternative use. We might in future consider markup like this: ,., (to force a break: equivalent to ; ,--, (for an en dash: equivalent to – or –); and so on. Such markup could be combined: ,,,--, (for an en dash with a hard space before it: equivalent to  – or  –). But any such extensions would be negotiable. Accepting the present proposal does not commit anyone to any such extensions.

Objection 10
German and some other European languages use the character „ as an opening quote. Markup with ,, could easily be confused with that; and that markup might be needed in future for „ or for some other purpose.

In fact there is little likelihood of the two being confused. Their appearances on the screen in common fonts are less similar than the appearances of '' and " are: and we all live with those quite happily. As for reserving ,, for some other purpose, the present proposal makes its own strong case. If others want to make their claim as well, well and good. But we see no evidence of any such claim; and the hard space is of such importance that it is unlikely to be trumped by anything more pressing. After all, those who use „ already have their own established ways of inputting it, just as we do for ".

Objection 11
Other changes in the wiki-markup system would be more sweeping and more "wiki-like".

Certainly the suggestion is unusual in that it proposes substitution of the single HMTL-entity   for the single marker ,,. But the fact that this is easy to implement is not a principled objection, and certainly not a convincing technical objection. The logic of the subsitution is laid out in full above. As for the possibility of overall changes that would make this change redundant, this can be no serious objection either. We have been promised solutions to problems like the one we address here for a long time; but they are not forthcoming, and there seems to be no consultation about them beyond the technical development community within Wikipedia. The present problem has been identified by serious, active editors concerned with style and ease of use, and we find that the proposed solution does all that is needed. If a better solution eventually comes along, no harm has been done in the meantime.

Objection 12
It's all too hard! How can editors bring about a change like this?

It is hard work to bring about such a change. But the rewards for this simple innovation are significant. And Wikipedia is made up of editors with good ideas that they pursue energetically. That's really what it's all about! Developers and decision-makers will take seriously a proposal that grows out of the concerns of competent and committed editors.

4. Implementation

After appropriate discussion at WT:NOWRAP, and possibly at MetaWiki, the coding and system changes for the new markup are a matter for developers. This proposal simply outlines the desired behaviour of the markup (see full specification in Technical details, above), and responds to predicted and actual objections so far.
Once the new feature is in place, it would remain harmless and unnoticed by most editors, since they would rarely if ever input two adjacent commas. (This is a virtue of the proposed markup, in fact.) The community will therefore need to be informed of the change. This can be done at a variety of forums, including:

Village pump (proposals); Village pump (technical); Village pump (policy); and other Village pump pages

Manual of style; Manual of style (dates and numbers); and other MOS pages and talkpages

Various community noticeboards

Helpdesk; New contributors' help page; How to edit a page; Cheat sheet; and other articles outlining basic editing and markup

The details can be determined once the new markup has been accepted for incorporation. In the meantime, nothing is lost through uncertainty and confusion, since the proposal adds a feature, but does not take anything away. In this respect it is safer than almost any alternative. For example, :: has meanings in mathematics (and : has meaning in current wiki markup); ;; may occur when HTML entities fall adjacent to a semicolon (and ; has meaning in wiki markup); `` has a meaning in some existing systems of wiki markup; etc.
By notifications as outlined above, and through general community interactions, the new ,, feature should soon become a part of accepted practice, just as '' and ''' are already accepted and appreciated.

How's that?

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 07:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Best wishes

Phaunt, I know you'll be leaving soon for a month. I just wanted to wish you well with all that, and I look forward to interesting collaborations on your return.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 05:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Noetica. Today, I defend my Master's thesis. I've been keeping half an eye on WT:MOS, but you seem to be doing nicely there. On my return, I hope to see that matters have progressed nicely :-) Phaunt (talk) 08:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Monty Hall problem

Hi - I thought I'd drop by and let you know your input is definitely welcome. As you've surmised there is at this point considerable history on the talk page. The anonymous user currently at 70.137.136.97 has what I think is a valid criticism that is not yet fully addressed. For whatever reason this user's comments come across with a great deal of hostility - I'd encourage you to try to read beyond the hostility for what he's actually saying. His basic point is that there is a difference between an unconditional analysis (not considering the specific door the host opens) which applies on average to all players and a conditional analysis that applies to a given player knowing what door the host opens. In the "standard" version of the problem the result in both cases is a 2/3 chance of winning by switching, but the analysis to get to this 2/3 chance is different (and the conditional analysis leads to a different result for some versions of the problem). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi - Re this comment, yes indeed the point 70.137.136.97 is making is that if the host does not choose equally between two goat doors the player's chance of winning by sticking with his/her original choice might not be 1/3. There's an explanation of this on the talk page here. It doesn't (can't) change the player's original 1/3 chance of having picked the car (so the average across all players is 1/3 chance of winning by staying with the original choice regardless of how the host picks between two goat doors), but if the host has a 100% preference for one goat door over another (say the leftmost one) there are two different situations with different probabilities depending on the door the host opens. In this case if the host opens the rightmost door, the player's chance of winning by staying is 0 while if the host opens the leftmost door the player's chance of winning by staying is 50%. The overall chance across all players who stay is still 1/3 since the host will open the rightmost door only 1/3 of the time and the leftmost door 2/3 of the time (so, overall chance of winning by staying is 1/3*0 + 2/3*50%), but the chance of winning by staying depends on which door the host opens. The "equal goat door constraint" eliminates this quirk and makes the probability of winning by staying remain 1/3 regardless of which door the host opens. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to me. Almost directly after I posted the comment, I figured host behaviour of this type must be possible to change the 1/3 chance; I guess that up until now I've just always tacitly assumed the "equal goat door" axiom. And because you noted before that this was really off-topic in the current discussion, I decided to remove my comment instead. Thanks again for taking time for what is actually a repetition of stuff that is already in the talk page... :-) Phaunt (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rollback

I've analysed your contributions and believe you can be trusted with the tool. Please remember that it is for blatant and obvious vandalism only; if in doubt, use the undo function, as it allows you to put in an edit summary. Please take the time to visit Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback to practice, and ask if you need help. Best, PeterSymonds | talk 21:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Oliphaunt (talk) 21:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

No probs! Happy editing, PeterSymonds | talk 21:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

(moving this to my talk page to keep the discussion all together) Equazcion •✗/C • 22:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)