User talk:Martin Hogbin/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Notification of your BP article RfC

You recently sent the following notice to some editors:

• "I have started an RfC on the BP article and would welcome a response from you. I am sending this message to all users who have edited that page".

I edited that page and I wonder why I was not included in your "mailing list". ```Buster Seven Talk 10:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Hatting on Talk:Human

Hi Martin. In reply to your question, the reason I collapsed the discussion was implicit in my own edit summary. If you checked the link I provided, you'd see a rather strong indication that the party who started the thread is apparently here to hurl insults towards both BLP subjects and his or her fellow editors, not to build an encyclopedia. If you checked his or her other recent contributions, you'd see something perhaps even uglier: a disturbing willingness to absolve the Nazis of blame for at least one infamous atrocity during the Second World War. When someone comes to Wikipedia and starts spouting deliberately provocative, hateful nonsense, they're trolling. Sure, I could have just chimed in, as you did, with another "agree", but how many concurrences does it take to demonstrate that consensus is to depict typical humans, not young Caucasian models, in the image? Better to shut down the discussion—call it a SNOW close, if you like—than leave it open to tempt the next troll who happens along (and you know as well as I do there's an endless parade of them).

You also wondered by what "authority" I acted. I'm not going to scour a dozen or more potentially relevant policy and guideline pages looking for the perfect spoonful of wiki alphabet soup to justify my action. Off the top of my head, WP:IAR—which I've cited all of about twice in my years here—might apply. I'd also note that I did the same thing on the same page with less justification two weeks ago, and no one objected.

Incidentally, I hope you're not annoyed because I've been disagreeing with you at another talk page. In my last post there, I meant what I said about you most sincerely, and I hope we can continue to work together harmoniously at Human and its associated talk page. Rivertorch (talk) 15:46, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Rivertorch, thanks for your comment. My objection was really on principle that I do not think this is how WP should work, with discussions being arbitrarily closed by one editor. I completely agree with your comments about the edit itself but I did not check the background of the editor because that is, in my opinion, not the way things should be done here. I was annoyed because I could not add my comment to the section so I removed the hat. The section was hatted less than a day after the last post.

I did not notice who had closed the section so there is no connection between my action and our discussion elsewhere although I do admit to being rather perplexed by your comments on the BP page. I would be interested to continue that discussion in my user space. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I'm happy to continue the discussion there if you prefer, but at the moment I'd be inclined mostly to echo what Binksternet has already said. Rivertorch (talk) 05:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested then perhaps you could respond to this question there. Everything put into WP must be justified. How do you justify making 57% of an article criticism? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Thank you for your notice. I had dropped the article from my watchlist because of the acrimony there and was no longer watching it, so I would not have noticed the RfC if you hadn't given me notice. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

You're invited

Martin - the "arguments" page for the Monty Hall Problem is too contentious for my taste. I am not trying to win an argument. Rather, I am trying to dialog with you and rick such that you both understand my concern. I do not seek your agreement unless, on your own, you conclude that it's correct. Rather, I only want to explain myself well enough that you can say "oh, I see what you are saying". Then, once you can honestly say that, I want to discuss if there's any room in the article for the issue I am raising. And if not, why not. I invite you to dialog with me here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tweedledee2011/martin In the meantime, could you restore this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&diff=prev&oldid=588641130 It's my summation of my dialog with you and without it, my thread is incomplete on that page. It's been lost because I've been ganged up on and reverted. Tweedledee2011 (talk) 11:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem see you there. I was only trying to keep you out of a pointless fight. Some admins like to dish out block like school prefects. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that some others are being a bit heavy handed but am not going to get involved in an edit war. I suggest that you copy anything you want to another page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 5 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Faraday's law of induction page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Cat pheromone

Hi Martin,

I have checked the changes (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cat_pheromone&oldid=598686178&diff=prev) and do not think that I made a mistake. (Background: Feliway just made up the pheromone story to sell their pricy catnip spray. There is no evidence whatsoever for such a pheromone in the scientific literature. The patent reference is the only reliable source that they actually use Valeriana essential oil in their products. They have also white-washed this article on several occasions in the past.) Please could you check your reversion? Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

My point was that you put the trade name 'Feliway' back into the article. I have reverted to your version but deleted the second paragraph. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

In a different venue you may convince sufficient people

My main concern was the venue. An article talk page is not the place where such matters will ever change, nor be changed. On such a page the current policies (etc) are to be followed. If you find a suitable venue for the broader discussion you wish to have I will be happy to join it. I am not sure that I support your view, but I will promise to consider it with care and respond with care. Fiddle Faddle 21:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It's heartening that you think so highly of Wikipedia that you want to influence changes to processes (etc) to seek to enhance the way it is perceived and the effects it has. Whether you succeed with this one or not, do, please, keep seeking to improve it. It will not be easy. The alleged wisdom of crowds is not all it's cracked up to be. Fiddle Faddle 16:01, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It is very kind of you to say that but I am not sure that any change of policy is actually required. The main problems seem to be, a misunderstanding or misapplication of the term 'encyclopedic', the excessive reliance on media sources, and a certain detachment from reality in that some editors seem to forget that the people referred to in articles (even if not by name) are real people just like your mother brother or children. I thing that extra special care is needed of some ofthe relevant people may be minors.

In WP:WHATISTOBEDONE we already have 'When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia'. Ther is absolutely no doubt that the material that I would like to remove would not be in an encyclopedia.

in WP:BLP we already have (my bold), 'Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, and good discussion may convince me to walk towards you. I think we still need an authoritative venue for it. Fiddle Faddle 20:30, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

How about this for an argument. I see from your user page that you are into LGBT rights. Change the words so that all the sexual and general misconduct facts now refer to gay sex. Would you then see anything wrong with the article? Would you still consider all the 'facts' encyclopedic and necessary? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the answer is that I distance myself from my own emotional matters when I edit Wikipedia. Had the young lady been male and the young gentlemen had performed the same acts, which I think is what you are getting at (and I know you will correct me if I am incorrect) then I would accept the article as written. However I would wish to see the prior journalistic fervour reduced to more simple facts. IN time I may look at that article with a view to rationalising it.

I don't think the LGBT element helps me to get your argument, I'm afraid. Fiddle Faddle 15:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, let me try a different argument. Why do we have this article at all? This article shows that there are typically 700 female suicides per year in the 15-24 age range in the USA. What is so special about this one that it should have its own WP article?

When I asked this question, one of the replies I got said it was was, '...an article with over 2 million results on Google, worldwide media interest, a TV documentary, a mention by President Obama at the White House anti-bullying summit and the case resulting in changes to the laws of over 40 states'. That sounds good but, when I read the article there is little about any of that. No mention at all of President Obama or a summit. Why was there a summit, why did Obama mention it? What were the results of all this? Were they considered good results? In general, what lasting effect on the world did this incident have? That is what an encyclopedia should be about.

Instead we have what looks more like a (slightly watered-down) media article. The mention of statutory rape charges does nothing but stimulate idle speculation. Did the young men take advantage of vulnerable young women driving one of them to suicide, did the girls involved throw themselves at innocent and inexperienced young men in an attempt to gain high status boyfriends, or is it nothing more than the norm in that area. As in most places, under age sex is not that uncommon. Why were there prosecutions? Was it the justifiable punishment of miscreants? Was it a knee jerk reaction? Was it to try to cover the guilt of those who had failed to protect the young people involved. Those are the encyclopedic issues.

These thoughts are left rattling round in the heads of our readers, to the potential detriment to WP and possibly causing harm to those involved. If we do not have reliable sources giving some answers to those encyclopedic issues we really should not be mentioning the subject at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Your explanation of the things you perceive to be wrong with the article itself are things I agree with you over. You will get no argument from me if you edit sensitively.

"Should we have the article at all?" That is more interesting. There are two answers, and timing is the sole difference. The first answer is that, yes, we should have the content (as later modified by thinking such as yours), and, when the issue was fresh it was right that it be in its own article. Today we are just about at the tipping point where this and all similar articles should be combined into an article documenting the facts of suicides, plural in circumstances such as bullycide, and that article should be written from a very much more neutral perspective than each individual article is currently. Suicides in these circumstances have fallen off the media radar, probably because they are horribly commonplace. Our role is, I submit, to document the occurrences (more than one might expect) the sudden rash of public awareness (media hype?) and the changes, if any, wrought by 'society' in the aftermath of the media circus, followed by facts about the incidence today. But how does one create that article and then merge the relevant elements form the individual articles into it? Fiddle Faddle 14:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Where we seem to disagree is that I would take a harder line over non-encyclopedic articles. If an article has no encyclopedic purpose and could be doing real harm then, in my opinion,it should be deleted, or at the very least the potentially harmful material removed. If that leaves only a stub then so be it.

If an article currently has no encyclopedic purpose but is not doing any harm then I have no problem in leaving it to be improved.

As the article is, I believe that my WP:BLP policy quote from above applies. To repeat the main points again, the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment and 'The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material'. This is established WP policy and BLP is one that is very strictly enforced. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

To give you an idea of how I think the article should look until the important issues are covered, have a look at User:Martin Hogbin/sopp Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm?

I'm afraid I don't get it. Paradoctor (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

My edit summary was a response to VQuakr's edit summary. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hydraulic fracturing

Hi, Martin. I tried to organize Hydraulic fracturing and related articles in more logical way to avoid overlappings and POVFORK. It mainly means that I tried to summarize the Environmental section of Hydraulic fracturing while more specific information was moved to Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. I would like to ask you to take a look of the summarized section and make more summarizing, if necessary, or restored information which you think should be in this umbrella article. However, even more important to make a cleanup of Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing and Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. They are loaded with information, but it needs extensive cleanup and copyediting (and checking sources to discover potential original research) to make them decent articles. There are still some overlappings between these two articles. I hope you could help with this. Beagel (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I will try to have a look. As you know though, the concept of an encyclopedia seems alien to some editors here who think the purpose of WP is to promote their anti-business anti-oil views. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Refracktion

Hi Martin. I think that this article has some significant NPOV and notability problems. However, your recent edit removed references and left and entire paragraph (and the group's only claim to notability) unsourced. It wasn't obvious to me why you removed the text and references you did, as I believe that they are factually accurate. Can you take another look and consider, perhaps, rewording the text, instead, and restoring some of the deleted references? Pburka (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy to do that and to discuss improving the article with you on its talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of tightened regulations regarding radioactive material and greater volumes of water. <ref> [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/6th_Dec_-_Shale_gas_-_North_West_-_
• would be restricted well before residents and farmers see any impact on their supplies". <ref>[http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/protecting-our-environment/water/water-sourcing/</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of tightened regulations regarding radioactive material and greater volumes of water. <ref> [http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/6th_Dec_-_Shale_gas_-_North_West_-_
• would be restricted well before residents and farmers see any impact on their supplies". <ref>[http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/protecting-our-environment/water/water-sourcing/</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hydraulic fracturing in the United Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the note on my talk page. I've only just now seen the RfC from last December. Had I seen it before I wouldn't have bothered. Those articles are not about informing the readership, they're for corporate shaming. But as long as a clear majority of editors wants that, that is the only thing that they can be. Thoughtful readers will tend to recognize it as such. I also think that the alleged presence of shills editing those articles in the past, whether true or not, has salted the fields enough to prevent objectivity in the long term. This is a problem for Wikipedia's credibility, but not for me, thankfully. I agree there is nothing there worth getting oneself in trouble over, and I think it inevitable that eventually WP will right itself on those subjects, although that might be years away. Already much of the more extreme content looks ridiculous in hindsight. It will only become more so with time until it's fixed. Geogene (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like some editors have never seen an encyclopedia or at least they have chosen to forget what one looks like. As you say, this seriously harms WP's credibility. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for removing the introductory paragraph from List of vegans. I had thought of simply replacing the latest edit with the first sentence from veganism, but your solution is more elegant, and more likely to avoid edit warring. Edwardx (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I thought it might have seemed a bit heavy handed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Driver's license, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Please see WP:ARTCON. Wikipedia-wide consensus is to use consistent spelling throughout an article, not to switch to national spelling in article subjection. Discussion between three editors on one article talk page doesn't override that. Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your extremely kind advice. In the nearly eight years that I have been contributing to Wikipedia I have become aware of the Manual of Style and have even read it on occasions and I have noticed the general preference to maintain a consistent encyclopedic style and spelling throughout an article; a preference that I support.

I have also become aware of the fact that consensus can, in principle and in practice, override such a policy if there are good reasons for it to do so.

If you are interested in discussing changes to the Driver's license article, and maybe even changing my opinion, rather than edit warring I suggest that you use the article talk page to explain your reasons for editing against consensus. You might find this page of interest too. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Then reply to my comments on the talk page. I'd like to know what is so special Driver's license that is must use a solution which has been rejected by previous Wikipedia consensus. The MOS represents the work of hundreds of editors, not three. Yes, we could use more than one spelling in different parts of the same article, but we decided not to. That option is closed off. Unless Driver's license is unique among thousands of other articles. The discussion is at Talk:Driver's license#Spelling/terminology consensus. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Driver's license. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason.

Please stop edit warring. WP:BRD is not permission to edit war. You know that your edits violate the MOS. You have not provided any reasons why this article is an exception to the MOS. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who is trying to change the long established wording of an article. You made a WP:bold change, I reverted, now we discuss. Anything else is edit warring. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I need your help.

Mr. Hogbin,

I've been trying to fix up "Reactive Centrifugal Force". It's actually beyond hope IMHO (main thesis is pseudoscience) and belongs in the dustbin, but it has its defenders. The next best thing is to make it clearer. Could you take a look at its talk page for the last few days and see if I make sense to you? Could you help?

Montyv (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have had a look and in my opinion the best thing to do is to make clear that this is an obsolete term. I have said that on the article talk page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Headphones may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[File:In-ears-earphones.png|thumb|Among different types of headphones, in-ears are good at noise

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

List of vegans

Hi, and good to meet you. Thanks for catching the incorrect listings on the list of vegans. Although it would have been nice to see Kellie Pickler there, after she enjoyed eating sal-mon so much on the show. I've been eyeing this page off and on for years, and finally dove in and added the page to the "See also" sections of the entrants. One that has been reverted twice was Brad Pitt, so if you can find a really good source for Pitt being a vegan, one that editors who watch his page would allow, that would be Indian-food worthy. Randy Kryn 17:52 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not really sure what purpose this list serves but all I generally do is check that there is a source that confirms that the subject is a vegan and check that they have a WP page, otherwise the list would become a pointless mess. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

There should be a lot more people looking at the page now (check the view count) because for a list to reach its potential it has to be linked on the pages of the listed. With this one, being a vegan (and that's really a stupid word for the diet) is often or usually a lifestyle statement, it puts the people involved into a "group" world. Skimming most of the articles of the individuals listed many of them are actually active in the vegan cause in some way. I wish Brad Pitt were, so we could have a really good link, but bloggers can't be choosers. Thanks again. Almost time to eat! Randy Kryn 19:38 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft Monty Hall Re-write

There is a draft of a significant re-write of Monty Hall here. I'd appreciate your comments especially as regards WP:NPOV and with an eye to the history of the page. SPACKlick (talk) 14:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I think your version is a serious departure from the format agreed at the very thorough RfC that was held some time ago. have you seen the result of that? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I saw it some time ago, i didn't reference it while doing this draft, do you have a link to it? SPACKlick (talk) 10:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Martin, see here for RFC and here for ArbCom Gerhardvalentin (talk) 14:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have a link. The basic principle was to have the simple solutions first with associated material, then to have the more mathematical 'conditional' solutions.

You seem to have dropped some of the vos Savant stuff. This is what made the problem so well known and may be of more interest to our general readers that the minutiae of the mathematics.

I agree that the 'conditional' solutions should be covered, along with other mathematical issues, in a proper fashion but I think the popular stuff should come first.

This article has been the subject of probably the longest content dispute ever in WP and resulted in a Arbcom decision and a very thorough RfC, which was closed by three admins. The argument was essentially about which are the correct/best/complete solutions, the 'simple' ones or the 'conditional' ones. I was, and still am, a supporter of the 'simple' solutions, but I proposed a genuine compromise, which was accepted by the RfC, to have the 'simple' solutions (without disclaimers) with associated material first, then the full 'conditional' solutions. Of course I cannot demand that we stick to that without risking jail page for ownership but changing too much too quickly might upset a delicate equilibrium that has survived for some time.

Part of the problem still is that, as soon as anyone makes a suggestion, it is often assumed that they are just pushing their conditionalist/simplist POV. From that perspective it is good to have you here as someone who has not been involved before. Most important, in my opinion, is to write a great article that is accurate, properly sourced, accessible and interesting to a wide range of readership from the passing non-mathematical general reader to the expert in probability. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

As far as Simple v Conditional POV, I feel they both have similar merit dependent on where you stand on the unwritten assumptions. My major issue with the article was that it was a lot of repetition clearly meant to overcome the minute details of disputes between editors.

I haven't removed much of the Vos Savant stuff, I've just put it into a history section. I personally prefer the history going after the solutions but if it's what general consensus thinks more people are coming to the page for then it could easily be moved further forward. The major aim of this redraft, that I'll put to a wider discussion once it's nearer completion was to get the repetition out and trim what was there to only things which could be sourced or trivially calculated.

My main concern is that 1) The simple solutions each only be presented once and only in the form they exist in the source with the unstated assumptions required for them. 2) The conditional solutions and arguments for them each only get presented once and in the form they exist in the sources. 3) The strategic dominance solutions likewise. 4) The criticisms of any given solution are either with that solution or with the solution the criticism is justifying, or if they are significant enough, in the history of the problem section. Not in some standalone general criticism section which becomes a battleground 4) That the sources of confusion section discusses the psychology of the problem with direct reference to the source. I've got a lot of reference work to do which is difficult because of my limited access to some of the sources.

Following Gerhard's links I can say my aims align perfectly with the conclusions of the RFC

• the initial sections including 'Solution' and 'Aids to understanding' to be based exclusively on 'simple' solutions (with no disclaimers that they do not solve the right problem or are incomplete) then to follow that, for those interested, with a section at the same heading level giving a full and scholarly exposition of the 'conditional' solutions.
• Covering topics in the simplest way we can while still going into appropriate detail later on is my experience of Mathematics articles in general
• the host knows where the car is, that's the whole point of the problem.
• there are legitimate concerns raised by a number of RFC participants around describing the "simple" solution as simple that are raised by a number of RFC participants, I think "solutions to the standard problem" or similar is a more appropriate way to cover it, and that comes across as a more neutral wording.
• in particular, a separate "criticisms" sections was not supported.
• That the standard problem and vos Savant's approach should be discussed first and in the lead and body is supported by policy (e.g. due weight), guidelines (e.g. WP:UPFRONT, and other essays (e.g. WP:AESA and WP:ASTONISH).
• Conditional approaches should be discussed later. The amount of detail is expected to be long due to changes in problem parameters and probability discussion, but this length should not be unruly.
• the standard problem assumptions about Monty's knowledge of where the car is (he knows where it is) and that he chooses randomly are quite clear to me.
• it is not the role of Wikipedia to "get the problem right," as this project is intended to reflect what has been reported in reliable sources, proportional to their weight. Therefore, suggestions that the first problem have an entire criticism section or that we include long discussions of how a limited number of sources have criticized vos Savant's approach seem unwarranted.
• Consensus to assume readers implicitly understand "random" picking by contestant; random-picking of "goat doors" by Monty; no explicit mention needed.
• Consensus in the first sections we aim at the general reader, not "equally" at general readers and math tutors/students; the second group is minuscule compared with the first.
• Wikipedia is not a textbook. We don't aim to teach math or help students/readers understand concepts of probability from this problem.
• I see the best order as Krauss & Wang, vos Savant, Carlton, Adams/Devlin and the multi-door point of view, followed by the solutions of the second set.
• criticism of Savant's solution does not meet our neutral-point-of-view policy, since the context of WP is different from that of a journal intended for math pedagogy.
• we should avoid words such as random, uniform, unbiased and so on in the lead and the initial sections.
• I will point out the extensions to the vos Savant formulation (Monty Fall and Monty Crawl of Rosenthal an example) should not be treated in great length because: 1. The sources are actually primary, containing new analysis, and 2. In many cases, the sources are in journals without even an impact factor, indicating they, in this case Math Horizons, are meant for a non-research readership,
• Editors should not provide too much weight to extensions used by teachers to help students learn concepts. WP is not a textbook.

I would agree with all of that, although I will need to put some work in to get the simple solutions in the recommended order.

With regard to the Arbcom discussion, it has essentially banned users with regard to their behaviour and makes limited statements about the form the article is to take. SPACKlick (talk) 15:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all your points but would want the criticism of the 'simple' solutions to be with the 'conditional' solutions, not as some might think, to promote the simple solutions as the 'right' ones but so as not to confuse or put off the general reader from understanding that it is twice as good to swap and why this is so. This is in line with the RfC conclusion. It is also in line with many mathematics text books which start with simple (but not so rigourous) explanations and then go in to more detail later on.

Personally, I would prefer the sources of confusion goes between the 'simple' solutions section and the 'conditional' solutions section. I think this is logical and better for the reader who is less interested in the details of the maths and more interested in why everybody get the wrong answer. Virtually all the sources which discuss the psychology deal with the simple solutions. K&W, for example mention the 'conditional' solutions, but all their work is about why people get an answer of 1/2 and not 2/3; it is not about why they ignore the which door the host opens. You may get some objections from others if you put the 'conditional' solutions after the psychology because they think it is a dirty trick to demote those solutions by putting them later on in the article. I think that what I suggest is in line with the RfC result though. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

+1 to Martin. Imo the RfC comments of Ningauble (Extend content before the "Closing statements") is most important, and see my own comments there about the fundamental idea and basic concept of this "intended paradox", citing Henze's presupposed *secrecy* of the host. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Self-coup

"Don't be silly" – that's what I thought, but the user who added it is very persistent. Can you assist me at User talk:Martin196r? – Smyth\^talk 20:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly a politically motivated addition not supported by the sources. I suggest that you get some help from an admin. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pictures at an Exhibition may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Any chance you can comment

On the recent changes at Israelites which I think are basically pov OR, and the discussion at Talk:Israelites? I see sourcing, OR and pov issues but maybe I'm wrong. One problem is that the comments in this article on the Lemba contradict what Lemba people say and are based on an article published in 2000 and a BBC News article, while the main article used [1] which doesn't support a Jewish origin. Still summer holidays so a lot of editors are away. Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering at WP:3O

Hey there, I see you has answered some 3O posts in the past year and I really appreciate it. It's nice to know that there are active volunteers there. Sincerely, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Article bad altogether

I just noticed your work here and just wanted to note that the larger problem is that the article is generally wrong. I've been on and around the Vistula many times over the past few years and have never noticed an offensive odor. Oh, wait ... never mind. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC) (And let a 3O oldtimer add his thanks for your help there.)

I just provided a third opinion on two sources. Anything else I will leave to you. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

List of vegans

Do you want to open the discussion or should I? J Milburn (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just done so. Let is stick to BRD.Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I've no intention of reverting again until there's been some discussion of the issue. J Milburn (talk) 09:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired of this now. If you've not got anything more than what you've already said, I think it's time to add Thornton back to the list. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Oversight request

I have removed that information from the talk page, and oversighted all the edits up to that removal. I have also spoken to iNic, who I assume was unaware that was a violation of the outing policy. Daniel Case (talk) 15:19, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion

A case (Monty Hall problem) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

unproductive Talk page discussion

about this, see my note to albinoferret here: User_talk:AlbinoFerret#TPG. there are lots of sources that talk about risks; society (regulators, doctors, other folks) have a legitimate interest in considering risks of new technologies. instead of discussing what weight to give sources in the article (very legitimate Talk page discussion), albino accused other editors of soapboxing/speculating/scaremongering. that is not legitimate and worse, poisons the discussion and leaves no way to respond. on top of that he seemed to be claiming that we should the article based on what "users want". that is not how we structure articles - there is no basis for that in policy or guideline. there was literally nothing i could write back to him other than what i did. Jytdog (talk) 18:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have forgotten one basic policy of WP, which is that it is intended to be an encyclopedia not a WP:soapbox. That to me would seem to be his main point. You will often find me pursuing that point too. Using WP as a vehicle to support or oppose some great principle or right some great wrong is not its main purpose.

As you know, I gave up editing the BP article not because I am in any way a BP supporter but because it had been turned into a vehicle for attacking BP. This attitude is one of the most serious threats to the future and integrity of WP. It occurs regularly on a large scale (as in BP) and on a much smaller scale (for example an article on a US fraternity); someone wants to complain or make a point and they think it is OK to abuse WP to get publicity for their opinion.

AlbinoFerret wrote [with my comments added], ' An Encyclopedia is about information, not guesses, possibilities and worries'.

Exactly correct.

'What the health section has t is o much of to me a lot of speculation looking 5 years down the road before the evidence presents itself. Its scare tactics'.

Scare tactics (even if the threat turns out to be true) is not the purpose of an encyclopedia.

'But construction, and history is not speculation but about concrete things and developments. It appeals to people looking at the device, which is what the articles name implies should be its focus'.

In other words the article should be about the subject in its title.

'There is a large and growing community of users who have already made up their minds on the health aspects of them and has decided to use them. Writing to the concerns of the health community, which for the most part are not users has me concerned on the direction of the article'.

Our audience includes ES users who may want to know more that that ES will kill them (if indeed that is so).

'Other editors have even been against splitting the health section out to a article devoted to the health issues. This screams of not wanting to inform, but wanting a soapbox where they can force their views up front'.

No personal attacks here, just a comment on the direction that some editors seem to be taking. Let us keep it encyclopedic; this is, after all, an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

whew. you completely avoided my point that instead of discussing sources albino personalized it to choices other editors were making. this is destructive and ends conversation. we discuss content, not contributors.' we base articles on what reliable sources say, not on what editors think readers want to read. if you or other editors have ideas about WEIGHT, 'you discuss your ideas about WEIGHT, not other editors. and again, there are a shitload of reliable sources that discuss the risks of e-cigs. institutions that make society go have a legitimate interest in discussing and understanding new technologies that become widespread. sometimes those institutions help new technologies go (internet) sometime they try to stop them (crack cocaine) and sometimes they seek to regulate them (fracking, e-cigs). that is entirely legit. discussing risks is not "scare tactics". one can argue about weight sure. but again that discussion comes down to what you or other editors think weight should be - NOT what other editors think weight should be. WE DISCUSS CONTENT, NOT CONTRIBUTORS. period. Jytdog (talk) 10:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

SHOUTING does not make you right and is rather uncivil. I have included all of the pertinent contributions from AlbinoFerret, with my comments, above and there are no comments at all about other editors, only about the editing of the article in general. In fact, your comments, addressed to individual editors, are more against WP rules than anything that AlbinoFerret has written.

We can discuss what we like. There are no restrictions on what may be discussed on the talk pages (unless they are personal attacks or other banned comments). Our aim is to write an encyclopedia and sources do not tell us how to do that, that is decided by civil discussion on the talk pages about whatever is needed to improve WP.

No one is saying that stating known risks (supported by reliable sources) is scare tactics, only that the way they are currently presented (by editors in general) is. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)