User talk:Martin Hogbin/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Martin Hogbin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

TEP - Two envelopes

Martin, thank you for your comments on the TEP talk page. Please consider:

"If A is the smaller amount, then the other envelope contains 2A." To be exact, this means for the ORIGINAL VARIANT: "if A actually is 1/3 of the total amount of both envelopes, only then the other envelope contains 2A (2/3 of the total). And likewise:

"If A is the larger amount, then the other envelope contains A/2" means for the original variant "if A actually is 2/3 of the total amount, only then the other envelope contains A/2 (1/3 of the total).

The conclusion "Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2." clearly is a non-sequitur, it ignores the aforementioned restrictions "if" and "if". So the correct conclusion has to be:

"Thus the other envelope contains 2A (ONLY in case A actually is 1/3 of the total, otherwise not) with probability 1/2 and A/2 (ONLY in case A actually is 2/3 of the total, otherwise not) with probability 1/2."

The "imperfect conclusion" addresses only the Ali Baba variant of a pre-fixed A with its dependent B. Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 06:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Gerhard, thanks for your message. Firstly, I agree with you that the Ali Baba version is completely different and was not the originally intended problem. This should be in a separate section of the article. Let us disregard it in our conversations.

Secondly, before we get on to discussing the points you make above, it is important to realise that, unlike the MHP for example, there is no inherent paradox in the TEP. At first sight, to almost everyone, it seems that there is no advantage in swapping, and turns out, when the problem is properly analysed, to be correct, thus there is no paradox. The paradox has to be artificially created by proposing a bogus line of reasoning which suggests that you should swap. The problem is then to find the precise error in the proposed bogus line of reasoning. This is the only paradox. Without a bogus line of reasoning there is no TEP. An argument showing that you should not swap is not a resolution of the paradox, it is just a restatement of the obvious. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, proposed resolutions which find the flaw in an argument for switching that they themselves put forward are not answering the question as originally posed or as put in the article. To resolve the paradox it is necessary to find the flaw in the argument given in the article for switching.

To get to your argument above, it is not wrong but you need to say exactly where the error in logic lies in the argument for switching given in the article. That is not so easy because there are many ambiguities in the argument as given. To resolve the paradox, we have to first decide on exactly what argument for switching is being proposed. For a start, we have to decide exactly what kind of quantity 'A' is.

iNic seems to believe that there philosophical arguments that can show the flaw in the argument for switching without going into mathematical details but he a failed to convince Richard Gill or myself of that fact or to produce any sources to support his position. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC) Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. concerning "... to find the precise error in the proposed bogus line of reasoning." I'm going to repeat:

4. "If A is the smaller amount, then the other envelope contains 2A." is incomplete, it should read:
If A actually is the smaller amount of 1/3 of the total amount contained in both envelopes, then the other envelope contains 2A, i.e. 2/3 of the total amount.

5. "If A is the larger amount, then the other envelope contains A/2." is incomplete, it should read:
If A actually is the larger amount of 2/3 of the total amount contained in both envelopes, then the other envelope contains A/2, i.e. 1/3 f the total amount.

6. "Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2." is flawed, it should read:
Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2, namely ONLY in case that envelope A actually contains 1/3, and it contains A/2 with probability 1/2, namely ONLY in case that envelope A actually contains 2/3 of the total amount.

A conclusion could approximately read: "Switching envelopes is equally likely either to win 1/3 of the actual total amount (if envelope A contains 1/3 of that amount) or to lose 1/3 of the actual total amount (if envelope A contains 2/3 of that amount)." – That's what all serious sources say. By clarifying the mistakable lines of reasoning, the contradiction will be eliminated.

Can you see the mistakable lines of reasoning that do not address the original scenario, but in fact address the Ali-Baba scenario? These lines must be clarified. And please have a look to my correct formula (1/2 remains 1/2). Kind regards Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the argument you present above is correct. I also think that it is important that any argument for not swapping in the standard version of the problem should clearly show that you should swap once in the Ali Baba version.

Where I disagree with you is that I do not see how you have clearly identified the flaw in the given argument for swapping. All I think you have done is to present a parallel, and perfectly correct, argument for not swapping. Let me go through the three statements above to show what I mean.

4. "If A is the smaller amount, then the other envelope contains 2A." is incomplete, it should read:
If A actually is the smaller amount of 1/3 of the total amount contained in both envelopes, then the other envelope contains 2A, i.e. 2/3 of the total amount.

You have not shown an error in the statement, you have shown that there is an alternative way of looking at things. The proposed statement is, in fact, correct. Regardless of what sum is, or may be, in the first envelope, if it is the smaller amount, the other envelope will contain 2A, that is how the problem is set up.

A problem does arise when we ask ourselves exactly what kind of quantity A is intended by the proposer to be. Is it a constant (which it is if you look in your first envelope), an ordinary variable (which is not really applicable here), or a random variable (in which case we may need to ask about conditions and the distribution from to which it belongs)?

5. "If A is the larger amount, then the other envelope contains A/2." is incomplete, it should read:
If A actually is the larger amount of 2/3 of the total amount contained in both envelopes, then the other envelope contains A/2, i.e. 1/3 f the total amount.

The same points as for 4 apply here.

6. "Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2." is flawed, it should read:
Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2, namely in case that envelope A actually contains 1/3, and it contains A/2 with probability 1/2, namely in case that envelope A actually contains 2/3 of the total amount.

What you are doing here is, rather than showing what is wrong with the stated line of reasoning, you are suggesting an alternative, and correct way to look at things.

A conclusion could approximately read: "Switching envelopes is equally likely either to win 1/3 of the actual total amount (if envelope A contains 1/3 of that amount) or to lose 1/3 of the actual total amount (if envelope A contains 2/3 of that amount)." – That's what all serious sources say. By clarifying the mistakable lines of reasoning, the contradiction will be eliminated.

But you have not clarified the mistaken lines of reasoning, you have just replaced them with better ones. I agree that, according to some resolutions, the line "Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2." is incorrect but we need to explain exactly why that is so. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

we need to explain exactly why that is incorrect

Thank you so much.

"Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2" is a false conclusion, simply because it's an irrelevant conclusion, it's simply a fallacy. "Untruly" it takes the variable A (or the actual contents of envelope "A") to "be capable to decide resp. to determin" what the other envelope actually might contain. But this is not so. In the standard variant, the other envelope B simply doesn't contain with "any" probability 2A or A/2. Fallacy! It will contain 2A ONLY if A actually is 1/3 of the total amount, otherwise not, and it will contain A/2 ONLY if A actually is 2/3 of that amount. OTHERWISE NOT.

Just take a pencil and draw a very big sign "<" on a paper sheet A4 cross, use the full size of A4 cross. Then write an "A" at the left "edge", and a double sized "B" on the right upper end, and a half sized very small "B" on the right end below. That's the Ali-Baba version, where A "determined" the contents of envelope B, say where A "decided" the contents of envelope B.

And on another sheet, A4 cross draw a big "X", use the full size. At the upper left end of the "X" write a very small "A", and to the left low end write a very big "A". Then, at the upper right end a very small "B", and right below a very big "B". This depicts the standard version, where A never is capable to "determin" anythng. It's just an error to believe that as to the standard version the contents of envelope A can "decide resp. determin" what envelope B contains. How to express those two quite different scenarios? Regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that we have to decide what kind of quantity 'A' is so that we can decide what operations on it are valid.

If we consider the version of the problem where the player looks in their envelope before making their decision, then A becomes a simple constant. Suppose the player sees £100 in their envelope. How do you argue against the statement "Thus the other envelope contains £200 with probability 1/2 and £50 with probability 1/2"? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The value (in £ e.g.) is irrelevant for the mathematical problem, it's just of relevance for philosophers who found not £200, but one nickel only, or a cheque of an incredible large amount of hundreds of million £. As to mathematics, the actual amount in $ or € is irrelevant, and the fragmentary statement: "Thus the other envelope contains £200 with probability 1/2 and £50 with probability 1/2" is an ignoratio elenchi. Such fragment is pure nonsense (did you draw those two designs?), because for the standard version, the "X-Version" you only can guess to have actually picked either the LARGE end:

LARGE 2/3 ------versus------small 1/3 or to have picked the small end:
small 1/3------vs.------LARGE 2/3.

Only after having considered WHICH end you actually might have picked, you can start to reason: In case I picked the small amount, then the other envelope will contain twice the small amount. And if I actually picked the large amount, then the other envelope contains the LARGE/2 amount. Using one single variable called A for both values, for the "small left end" you might have picked AND for the "LARGE left end" that you might have picked, is pure nonsense in maths. Please help to express this "more perspicuous". Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

You are now moving towards a correct resolution that we already have in the article, which is that the statement "Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2" is not true for every value that might be in the initial envelope. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Too bad, I'm really disappointed. The article is a mess. As to the standard version and as to maths, envelopes A and B are equally likely to hold the small amount of 1/3, and equally likely also to hold the large amount of 2/3, no difference. Period. Irrespective of the actual size of "amount" in envelope A. And yes, mathematically this is valid for any actual value of A.

Only if envelope A contains a penny only or if A contains a very large amount, philosophers will conclude that it is better to switch resp. to stay.

As to maths, the "value of envelope A" is completely irrelevant.

You are quoting an incorrect statement. You say 'that the statement "Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2" is not true for every value that might be in the initial envelope.'

This is not correct, because the "absolute amount of envelope "A" is mathematically irrelevant. Mathematically the other envelope contains with exact probability 1/2 the double contents of envelope A, irrelevant of the "absolute value of A", namely ALWAYS if A is 1/3 of the total amount, and therefore the smaller of both, true for EVERY value of envelope A. And vice versa. Mathematically the probability is ALWAYS 1/2, always 1/2. That does never depend on the "actual value" of A. What matters is whether A actually holds 1/3, because only if A actually is only 1/3, then this small amount can be doubled, or whether A actually is 2/3, because only in that case this large amount A can be halved, otherwise not. Probability 1:1, probability does not depend on the "absolute value" of A. And in both cases size of difference will be exactly the same: (+/-) 1/3 of the total value.

IMO it is misleading to start the article with the false arguments and the incorrect formula

${1 \over 2}(2A)+{1 \over 2}\left({A \over 2}\right)={5 \over 4}$ without simultaneously showing the correct arguments and the correct formula:

{1 \over 2}(2a)+{1 \over 2}\left({A \over 2}\right)=1:1

.

Otherwise the rest of the article will remain an incomprehensible mess. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that you have now gone back to giving an argument why you should not swap. We all know you should not swap and that the argument given is misleading becuase it leads you to the view that you should swap. To resolve the paradox you need to pinpoint exactly where the problem lies in the argument for swapping given. It is no use just saying that it leads to a contradiction, that is the whole point of the puzzle; to present an argument that leads to a contradiction.

The trouble with the new paper is that it does not show where the error lies. If you enhance it, as you have done, that is not only OR but it brings it into line with existing resolutions. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So you still didn't read what I say, it's what the literature says (e.g. Léo Gerville-Réache, Bruss (1996), Bartz (in German only), Bliss, Federico O'Reilly, Tom Loredo or Tom Loredo and many many others). The statement "Thus the other envelope contains 2A with probability 1/2 and A/2 with probability 1/2" is just only an incomplete fragment that perforce leads to driveling false conclusions. "This mistake is adding apples and oranges" as mentioned by Schwitzgebel and Dever.

(I guess you still didn't draw those two figures.) The correct approach: firstly, you have to consider that there exists the total amount of both envelopes. For the standard version, in 50% you have EITHER picked the smaller one: 1/3, or in the other 50% you have picked the larger one: 2/3. Now the correct consideration is (above I have asked you 'Please help to express this "more perspicuous"'):

in 50% I will have picked the small amount (a), and if so, the other envelope contains 2*small (B), but having picked
in 50% the large amount (A), then the other envelope contains large/2 (b).

For the standard version, "2A or A/2" is a furtive nonsensical false conclusion, just to lead us up the garden path. A false result, due to incomplete fragmentary reasoning. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 15:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Gerhard, your two links seem not to work. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The picture: Standard version and Nalebuff's Ali Baba variant. Regards, Gerhard --Gerhardvalentin (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I see your picture but it does not explain the error in the given line of reasoning.

You don't? This discussion lasts already for years, now. The cryptic article should clearly say what the literature says. Ruma Falk e.g. says on page 19 "Fault finding": "This reasoning is faulty. The fault lies in the formulation. Because the other envelope contains the double amount ONLY THEN, IF mine actually holds the smaller amount, and vice versa the other envelope contains half of mine ONLY THEN, IF, my envelope actually holds the large amount. So each term in formula item 7 represents another value, but both terms are denominated by A. As per Rawlings (1994, p.100) this means committing the cardinal sin of a double seizure of an algebraic variable." IMHO this error should be shown as early as possible, and as clearly as possible, in a comprehensive way. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Your Léo Gerville-Réache link is quite extraordinary. It is an arXiv preprint directly addressing a Wikipedia article. Presumably the author is not aware that WP articles can be edited by anyone, including himself, and therefore the contents is subject to arbitrary change.

Federico O'Reilly would appear to be an unpublished private paper written by an academic whilst on leave and Loredo is a paper on a the staff section of an academic site. Unfortynately, I cannot read German.

Richard Gill has contributed to this article and has a good understanding of the published papers. I will try to contact him to see if he can help. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 21 November

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 Uses of radioactivity in oil and gas wells page, your edit caused a cite error (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) 00:24, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Nationality

Martin, Regarding the discussion on the Maxwell talk page, I can see now that you are dealing with an editor who has an agenda to ban the word British, and who is willing to edit on the main article against a consensus. An admin called Dave Souza agrees with you but says on his talk page that he hasn't got time to go into this. I suggest that you take the matter to some kind of opinion forum. The question needs to be asked in general terms "Does the nationality field in the info box refer to sovereign nationality?". If this is not tackled generally, the Scottish nationalists and the 'ban the word British' groups will systematically remove the word 'British' from all articles. As regards that essay which was produced as guidelines, it is total piffle, written by somebody who wants to ban the word British. The editor FF-UK is very keen to close the discussion down on the Maxwell talk page, but I suggest that it is only temporarily adjourned rather than closed down, until an opinion forum is consulted. I can't see why anybody other than an anti-British person would try to argue that nationality refers to sovereign nationality except when that nationality is British. 86.145.98.85 (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes we should address the issue globally, I could start an RfC on the one-man essay page on the subject but I see no reason to stop discussingthe specific case of Maxwell onb that talk page, that is what the talk page is for.

By the way, can I suggest that you register. There is no need to use your real name (although you can if you wish, as I do) and your IP address will not then be shown publicly. There is no real disadvantage to registering. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Maxwell was a British subject and not a British citizen. The nationality field should therefore read 'British' and not 'Scottish'. Here is a government link which explains how the pre-1983 status was 'British Subject' https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/british-subject . British citizenship was only introduced for the first time with the 1981 act. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.152.249.9 (talk)

Yes, we all know that, but some editors insist on claiming Maxwell for Scotland by the abuse of the 'nationality' field in the infobox. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:40, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with using British/United Kingdom in the UK biographies. Just pointing out that you're going to face strong resistance. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If you look in the Village Pump page you will see that I am only trying to limit the use of the term 'nationality' to a well defined and usually very clear legal meaning. So long as the insistence of using the formal nationality is limited to just that useage I think it can be justified.

One of the biggest threats to WP's integrity is the embedding of opinions into articles. Using anything other than the well defined legal/international meaning of 'nationality' can only be an attempt to claim ownership of the subject. No one should be doing this; we should just state the facts. Nationality should be a simple fact like age, date of birth etc, not a word that tries to describe the whole national identity of a person. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Good luck, in your NPOV quest :) GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. You can contribute to the RfC when it comes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I've suggested a poll on the Maxwell talk page. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, your !vote seems to appear both under oppose and support in the RfC you just created. You probably did not mean it. “WarKosign ” 13:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

No I made a mistake. Thanks for correcting it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's a link you may find useful http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/1911_Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica/Maxwell,_James_Clerk I'm sorry I can't find a link for James Laidlaw Maxwell. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 20:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And in the 19th century, the Americans looked upon him as being English http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_American_Cyclop%C3%A6dia_(1879)/Maxwell,_James_Clerk This goes to show the need to get the nationality correct. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And here's more evidence from the year 1880 that he was considered to be English in his own time http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_17/May_1880/Sketch_of_James_Clerk_Maxwell All the more reason to describe his nationality as British in order to avoid controversy. 109.152.249.9 (talk) 20:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

National Identity

Please have a look at the latest proposed compromise on the talk page of James Clerk Maxwell. It notes the distinction between nationality and national identity. If the proposal is not acceptable then the reference to nationality in the info box will have to be removed altogether. 109.152.248.204 (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Conclusion to be drawn from the rfc at the village pump regarding the definition of nationality

Martin, I can see that quite a few editors have shot you down in flames and baulked at your very reasonable idea that the term "nationality" in an info box should have a clear meaning that readers universally understand. Some of your opponents seemed to be thoroughly affronted at the whole concept of nationality, so much so that they wouldn't contemplate the idea that the word could have any concise meaning. That now leaves you in a bit of a limbo. On the one hand, the guidelines for biographies advise that the subject's nationality be stated in an info box at the beginning of the article, while on the other hand there seems to be strenuous opposition to defining what we actually mean by nationality in an info box. Your proposed definition was very much in line with what most reasonable people would understand the term to mean, but most of your opponents were adamant that nationality definitely doesn't mean what you had suggested, yet they failed to provide any alternative definition, baulking at the whole idea of having it defined at all. Since they are putting obstacles in the way of having the readers understand what is meant by nationality, then the only conclusion that I can draw is, that the nationality field in the info box must be deleted altogether, because it refers to a piece of information about which we are not allowed to be clear on the meaning. The uncertainty about the meaning leaves the door wide open for fudging and exploitation by separatist movements, so the term needs to be removed altogether in order to remove all doubt. On the subject's talk page, you were chased away to the wider forum. On the wider forum, they passed the buck back to the talk page again. So that's where it needs to go now, with a view to removing the nationality field altogether. I'm sure you'll get the full support of all your opponents, who are so affronted by the term nationality. They'll back you to the hilt when you remove it, because they don't like that term. 86.180.32.141 (talk) 07:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

That was a suggestion that I was considering making. It is absurd to have a field in an infobox where no one knows what it means. I am not sure that all respondents undestand what I mean so any way you could help make this clear would be useful. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

As I've predicted, your commonsense proposals are not going to be adopted. PS: As you can see, Wikipedia is not perfect. But, it's the best we've got. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

You may well turn out to be right but the argument is not lost yet. It seems that most respondends have no understood the proposal correctly and that they are talking about descriptions and ignoring what sources say. If there is any way that you can help explain that I am only referring to 'nationality is XXX' statements that would be helpful. If a person's nationality is to be decided by a small bunch of editors, based on their own personal beliefs and feelings, then WP will loose all credibility.Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well absolutely. They totally misunderstood your point, but I don't think they wanted to understand it. They were carried away by wave of emotion. It was the "how dare you foist a nationality upon me!" attitude. They would say "let the subject decide his own nationality" while ignoring the fact that the subject in question that began the debate is long dead. They would assume without question that a Scotsman is naturally in rebellion about being British, and of course we just had to have the anon IP server 71 come along wearing his Sporrins eschewing the idea that anybody would consider him to be British. They recited the old mantra "stick to the sources" while ignoring the fact that there are multiple sources in existence citing Maxwell to be British, Scottish, and even English. They told you to deal with each case individually, yet they refused to discuss the particular case that started it all. There was the assumption that Maxwell was like an Armenian in Turkey who wouldn't want to identify with Turkish nationality. I think that you have said all that needs to be said at the village pump. They are ignoring you. It's just become a wild party of people expressing phony outrage at the whole concept of nationality having a definition. Anything sensible that you say will swiftly be buried in a sea of spam. I think the next move should be to remove the nationality field in the info box on the grounds that there is no consensus about a definition of nationality, and so the field cannot be allowed to be abused by separatists. 86.180.32.141 (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

It's impossible to know for certain why the editors who are opposing usage of British, are opposing the usage of British. What's more important is that they simply are opposing & because of that fact, there'll be no consensus for inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 17:16, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

PS - As you can see with my latest proposal, some editors are going to oppose anything that replaces, accompanies or deletes the usage of Scottish, Welsh, English & Northern Irish/Irish. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I can see exactly that. Some kind of (inapproprate) point is being made but I am not going to speculate about what it might be. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sports Country

I think the most ridiculous thing that I heard yet was the argument that Andy Murray's country is Great Britain as opposed to the UK, because he played for Great Britain in the Davis cup. A person's country is fact and not decided by what sports team he plays for. It gets worse all the time. All references to British and the UK are to be eliminated by consensus, under the guise of any pathetic argument that suits the particular circumstances. 86.129.126.155 (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that many people do not understand how the UK works. It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland but the associated nationality is 'British'. The country is 'UK'; the nationality is 'British'. The problem is that some editors either do not know this or do not like it and want to change the world through the medium of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed. They want to use wikipedia to describe things how they would like them to be, and the system allows them to do that, because consent over rides sources. Did you notice at the village pump how there are many editors spending a lot of their time there making up rules, yet the one thing they hate most when it comes to the crunch, is a rule. Also did you notice how an editor deleted the fact that Maxwell was born and died in the UK. He claimed that UK amounted to excessive disambiguation, yet I have just sampled a selection of Hollywood actors whose info boxes describe them as having been born in the US, along with their state. I haven't noticed anybody going around removing the initials US on the grounds of 'too much disambiguation'. Then notice how editor FF-UK insists on a source to state that Maxwell was British, but when it comes to 'Scottish' he is happy enough to infer that without any need for a source. Under wikipedia's rules, if four or five editors came together, they could insist on calling France 'Pretty Polly'. 86.129.126.155 (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is crazy and it seriously degrades the credibility of WP. Soon it will all be just stuff that people have made up. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:28, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Editor FF-UK and 71.228.66.131

For your information, each of these two editors have reverted at the Maxwell article. They both edit on the same articles about electricity mains supplies. 86.180.33.175 (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

British Nationality

For your information,

Until 1st January 1949, the status of 'British subject' was a class of British nationality throughout the entire British Empire. From 1st January 1949 until 1st January 1983, this status continued in conjunction with a local citizenship that took primacy for administrative purposes. In the case of the UK and colonies, it was "Citizen of UK and Colonies". New Zealand, Australia, Canada, South Africa, and Southern Rhodesia introduced their own citizenship in conjunction with the umbrella British subject status. From 1st January 1983, the 'British subject' status was phased out, now only used for special situations. British citizenship was introduced for the first time. Here are some links you may find interesting, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267907/britnatacts.pdf

http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/citizenship/page-1

https://www.gov.uk/types-of-british-nationality/overview

This one in particular is a very compelling government source. See section 1.2

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/267913/britnatsummary.pdf

86.180.33.175 (talk) 21:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for those sources. I have started a page at User:Martin_Hogbin/MWB for the collation of sources showing that Maxwell had British nationality. Arbcom will not arbitrate on this but it is important to show that there is a good case for listing his nationality as 'British' in the infobox and that those who want 'Scottish' are asserting page ownership and violating WP:V and WP:NPOV by insisting on keeeping 'Scottish'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

On further reading of those sources they seem definitive now. Perhaps you could help me present the argument clearly on my User:Martin_Hogbin/MWB page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Especially the last of the four sources, and especially the bit in section 1.2 about Scotland and England uniting in 1707. Just as an aside, my understanding is that when the two crowns united in 1603, Scottish subjects became English subjects ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin%27s_Case ). Then in 1707, they all became British subjects, and that being a British subject meant having British nationality. Anyway, I see your point now which is that this tribunal will not rule on content, and that you will be putting the case that since sources can be found to support the point of view of either side in the dispute, that it amounts to page ownership if one side insists on having their point of view prevailing. You will be asking the tribunal to rule according to an existing policy, that being that in such contentious issues, the contentious material should be removed altogether. 86.180.33.175 (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is right. The forced retention of the contentions and unreferenced 'nationality' in the infobox is completely against the core Wikipedia policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV and suggests page ownership by one editor. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Maxwell

I think you've had a pretty good run for your money there. With this edit you are pushing it. I am now asking you nicely to let it go. The essay that explains all this is at WP:UKNATIONALS. Please ask at the talk there, at project talk, or maybe at the village pump for any further help with nationality. --John (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for asking me 'nicely' but WP:V is not subject to limitations, it is a fundamental policy of Wikipedia.

The essay that you point me to is nothing but the opinion of a few editors, with all dissenting opinion ignored. There is no nationality of 'Scottish' and certainly no authoritative sources saying that Maxwell's nationality was Scottish. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Be careful that you don't push commonsense on these articles, too much. My attempts in the past, help led me into a 2-yr topic ban from British & Irish articles. GoodDay (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that I have done anything that warrants a topic ban so far and I do not intend to do anything that does. As I said to another editor, if Arbcom are not going to support my compromise proposal, which is based on NPOV and verifiability then there is no hope for WP anyway. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Recommend you walk away from the James Clerk Maxwell article & concentrate on opening an Rfc for all UK bio articles. Afterwards, if you don't get a consensus for your propose changes? then it would be in your best interests to walk away from the entire topic. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, I understand what you mean, but there is soemthing seriously wrong with Wikipedia when a group of editors is able to control a number of pages to suit their own beliefs. I will take this to Arbcom. That is not intended to be a threat to anyone, it is what Arbcom exist for; to ensure that editors behave in a way that promotes the development of a better encyclopdia; one free from personal opinion. My suggestion of blanking both the 'Citizenship' and 'Nationality' fields until a consensus has been reached is obviously fair and neutral yet it has been rejected out of hand.

I have looked through all the discussion on this topic and it is clear that there is not, and never has been, a consenus to show constituent countries of the UK as nationalities. Something is wrong and it needs putting right. If Arbcom cannot help it will be a sad day for WP. If things go against me and I am ruled as being disruptive just for proposing a neutral compromise then that is too bad; for WP and for me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Martin, If you do decide to take this matter to the tribunal, you could draw their attention to the Humphry Davy page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphry_Davy I tried to change the Cornish nationality to British, but editor John reverted it and left me a note telling me not to make changes without discussing them first. I'm pretty sure that there is no such rule on Wikipedia, and yet this editor John is an administrator who seems to have an anti-UK agenda and seems to believe that what he is doing is fine under Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.33.60 (talk) 00:43, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, there are a couple of other pages where this kind of thing has happened. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed_topic_ban_of_Martin_Hogbin

A heads up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 22:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you wish to revise your latest comment there or if I am misunderstanding. The version I was referring to as the "compromise" puts nationality in the infobox as both British and Scottish - not just one or the other. Or are you saying you don't consider this a compromise at all? That isn't to say your proposal wasn't made as a compromise either; just that this is a newer proposal which seems to have been enacted by another editor in the meanwhile. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, the version you have seen was edit by Richard Gill quite recently. It was quickly reverted. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I have closed the proposal to topic ban you as lacking in consensus. In my opinion it was lacking in basis too. Chillum 22:35, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. As you will see, this is just a content dispute in which one side is using a variety of improper tactics to get its way. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Misrepresentation

Make sure you note their tactic, which is to try and falsely make out that you are trying to deny Maxwell's Scottishness. This is their cover story while they try to promote the concept of 'Scottish Nationality'. Every time you explain to them that you are not denying Maxwell's Scottishness, they ignore you and resort to incivilities, and then simply repeat the allegation that you are denying Maxwell's Scottishness. It seems clear to me that it is the concept of 'Scottish nationality' itself, and Scotland as a nation, that they are trying to promote, while the specific issue of Maxwell being Scottish is only of minor importance to them. Also, remember that editor FF-UK and 71.228.66.131 edit the same articles. 86.129.126.193 (talk) 20:13, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all that. It is best not to to make insinuations of sockpuppetry against other editors unless you have some solid evidence. If you do, then take it to WP:SPI, who will investigate.

By the way it would be a good idea for you to identify what other IP addresses have been used by you so that no false accusations can be made against you. Better still register. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year!

Martin, I wish you a Happy New Year, and thank you for the good cooperation in the past as also in the future. Beagel (talk) 12:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbcom request case

Howdy MH. Would you please exclude me as an involved party in your case request? I'm still under siteban probation ('til May 21, 2015) & being named in such a case, might be bad for me :) GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. The template only allows 7 parties so I will add someone else. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

You were named in a case request Infobox_nationality_of_people_from_the_UK which was declined by the Arbitration Committee. The committee concluded that one issue in the case was content, which is outside the remit of the committee, and the remaining behavioral issues should be handled by the usual processes. The arbitrators comments can be found at the Permalink to arbitrators decisions For the arbitration Committee --S Philbrick (Talk) 20:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Biophoton

Hello! You have deleted the same material twice, giving two different reasons. Giving that the source is an adequate popular science book, let us leave the first. This means that you will need a source that backs your statement "this is pseudo-science". The reason is; that the USSR continued investigation into electrical inter-cellular communication, which was dropped in the west when enzyme macromolecules were isolated, and I have seen no refutation. If you have an adequate source to back your view, that will be fine, but as far as I know the paper still stands. Redheylin (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

For your help a Google[1] This gentleman has engaged in a wide variety of strange experiments, but I must say I can not find duplications, denials or contra-indications. Redheylin (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The article talk page is the correct place for this discussion. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You may post your rationale where you wish, but I can not see it there. Please go ahead. Redheylin (talk) 02:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Leaving

Hi, I stopped contributing as of August 2014 and now I am definitely leaving Wikipedia. It was always a pleasure to work with you, and I hope you will stay here for a long time, since your contributions are extremely valuable. I hope everything is well with you. --D.H (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, sorry to hear that you are leaving. You excellent contributions will be missed. Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

UK NATIONALS

It appears our infobox proposals are virtually ROA (Rejected on arrival), as far as British bio articles go :( GoodDay (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Part of the reason for that is that the discussion is contiually be drawn into the more general case of how nationality is described in the text of an article. This is a quagmire out of which WP is unlikely to be dragged in the near future, at least not until we get some more independent editors.

The infobox is a much more straightforward case. Infoboxes generally use one or two words for the fields. It ie therefore imposssible in an infobox to give a subjective indication of nationality because nobody will know what it means. I think that, if stick to the simple logic of what should be put in an infobox, we might get a consensus to use the legal or formal nationality. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

MOSBIO, is likely your best chance for getting your proposal adopted. IMHO, UKNATIONAL is a mess, a mere tool for promoting usage of English, Scottish, Welsh & Northern Irish/Irish. GoodDay (talk) 10:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

That is an idea but we will probably meet the same people there. Hopefully there will be wider involvement. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

@GoodDay @Martin Hogbin Gentlemen, I have put forward a proposal here for updating the UK Nationals guidelines, I would like to hear your opinions. Essentially, the lede reads 'British' with a link to 'British people', the info-box reads 'United Kingdom' and the country from within the UK they were born (for example Donald Davies was a British scientist, the personal section starts with mentioning where he was born ie: Wales and the info-box lists the United Kingdom and Wales thereby satisfying all editors concerns. The lede follows legal and constitutional fact, the personal section covers his nationality within the UK and the info-box lists both the UK and the country within the UK. Twobells^t@lk 15:06, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

To use Donald Davies as an example. If anyone were to replace Welsh with British & replace Wales with United Kingdom or add United Kingdom, without support from alot of editors? that individual would face a 'fight to the dagger', at that article. There's an editor who frequents those Wales-related bio articles & that editor isn't going to roll over for British and United Kingdom usages. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Sticking to the facts

Martin, if you wish to take part in discussions, please do not misrepresent what other editors have said or take their comments out of context. Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, what have I misrepresented? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Martin,

It's been a while since we worked on the same article. Since that time I've worked in some pretty contentious areas where the norm is to be as nasty as the WP laws will allow (or even nastier, if you have admins who will cover for you at ANI). I've become so used to it that to find your extremely civil responses to me each night, even though we are opposed to each other ideologically, is shocking, and wonderfully so.

I've learned from you that refraining from personal attacks and from being a jerk is so much more meaningful than being right, or winning the fight for content control.

So for whatever reason you continue to not be a jerk, I just want you to know that someone out there really appreciates it.

Best, petrarchan47 คุ ก 06:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, your comments are appreciated. I hope that you can understand that I have no axe to grind. My only aim is to make WP into an encyclopedia. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

It's likely that the vast majority of us are here for the same reason, but we come from very different viewpoints. That's fodder for endless RfCs.

I do have an axe to grind - I can't stand to see whitewashing and spindoctoring in WP's pages. Unfortunately there never will be any shortage of it.

What WP does have in short supply are kind-hearted, patient editors, which is why I had to stop by and say thank you for being one of them. petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I am equally against whitewashing and spindoctoring but I cannot see how that justifies promoting the, patently false, view that GM food is poison. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, what I see as covering a protest movement, you see as promoting its views. It's a good thing we have the RfC option. I'm glad you went ahead with it. petrarchan47 คุ ก 10:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not quite see your reasons for wanting verbatim quotes from the movement in the article. Is it to promote them as fact? Is it to show extreme and unrealistic the marchers' opinions were? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It's no different from how I edit any subject. I aim to give the reader as much information as possible and to not engage in censorship. Check out my Decorah Bald Eagles article. See the use of quotations? petrarchan47 คุ ก 20:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I can see it is your style. It is in my opinion very unencyclopedic, more like a newspaper. You do not see writing like this is written encyclopedias such as Britannica or Chambers.

It also raises the question of who to quote and why. In uncontentious articles this may not matter very much but I still think it is much better to stick to the just writing sourced facts in our own words.

It isn't just my style, as you can see from the RfC, the community is almost 100% in favor of the quotations you find extraneous and dangerous. The thing is, it's best to drop your personal POV before logging in to WP. When you are finding yourself so dramatically at odds with the community, chances are your personal leanings are making NPOV impossible, and that you have no awareness of it. petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It is not 'almost 100%' but I agree that it is a majority. This is a serious problem in WP on most contentious topics. Fanatical supporters of a particular POV will always outnumber general non-POV editors like myself and many others. Curiously I will be taking your advice, to some degree, as I think WP is probably doomed to become a mouthpiece for minority and extreme opinions of all types. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Registration for the user that requested the RfC on sustainable energy

Hey Martin, while I appreciate your suggestion that I register, as you can tell my impression of wikipedia so far is rather, shall we say disillusioning. Presently therefore I simply wish to see how the RfC goes before entertaining the notion to register. I would very much like to say more but feel that it may jeopardize your neutrality in the RfC, so therefore until it is over, I'll leave it at that. 31.200.131.159 (talk) 15:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

It is of course entirely up to you whether you register or not but there really is no disadvantage to doing so. There is no obligation to identify yourself in the registration process and you can use any user name that you like. In my opinion WP is slowly being taken over by minority groups and the more neutral editors that we have the better. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

As you will see on the article talk page, not registering invites certain forms of criticism when your IP address changes. Whether you have done that intentionally or it is just part of your ISP's dynamic address assignment does not matter, some people will assume the worst. Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

They can try and make a deal out of it, but as there is no other IP editor involved, I don't feel there is a great pressing need to register to prevent confusion. In saying that, as my ISP does assign a new IP everytime a connect, I'll try and make the effort to stay connected for as long as possible.

I empathise with your feelings about the strongly held views of editors/groups* and the general state of this encyclopedia. I've often wondered that perhaps a solution would be a sort of lottery that from time-to-time assigns article work to editors on topics that they're completely uninterested in. In the hopes that they'll, not only edit that article with a decided lack of emotion but also that this would enlight them by beginning to see the importance of similarly doing so on articles that they are interested/vested in.

Do we really have evidence of them escalating into marauding "groups" right now?

31.200.131.159 (talk) 23:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

James Clerk Maxwell

Thank you for this message: "It seems that there is not much to be done about this until more editors turn up supporting what I think is the real consensus. Good luck."

A bit facetious, in my opinion. But we always suppose good faith. Of course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varnebank (talk • contribs) 21:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Our example for Coriolis effect

Hello Martin, I left an answer at the talk page of the article. I think your idea is good. Will you make the changes or do you prefer that I take care of it?. Regards.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 11:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Please do have a go. I am busy at the moment but will be back. I think it is important to use the correct technical language and to make clear which frame we are working in at all times. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Milk jug

(If you want the page to be deleted, please folow the procedure.Xx236 (talk) 08:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Milk jug

I redirected it because the last version of the article was so brief. If you or anyone else want to expand it, that would be great. Trivialist (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

But a redirect is completely pointless. A stub is a start for other editors to improve upon. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mpemba effect, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Black. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Commenting between paragraphs

If you're posting small comments in the middle of another editor's longer post, as you did here, you should use the {{Interrupted}} template to attribute the comments you interrupted. Particularly if the initial thread was as much of a mess as that one was. --McGeddon (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course I would never want to interrupt another editor's train of thought but, as you say, the original post was a bit of a mess and, in fact, contained three separate questions, each having a different answer. I split it to create separate discussion threads, as a service to the OP rather than an interruption. I have put a note on the OP's talk page asking if they mind what I have done.

It would probably be better to put the three original suggestions under three separate headings so that they can be properly discusssed. If you think the discussion could be formatteed in a way that would better promote clear discussion of the points raised by the OP please feel free to reformat yourself. I am reluctant to make any more format changes at this stage.

On the other hand, it is completely unacceptable to remove another editor's comments just because you do not like the way that they were formatted. I was trying to help an obviously inexperienced editor to get useful replies to their suggestions. Maybe it could have been done better but deleting my work is not the answer, better to work together to make discussion easier for all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That was a different editor reverting you, I just came in and added a couple of {{Interrupted}} templates. The problem isn't that you're inconveniencing the original poster, it's that you're making the thread confusing to everyone else - this can be easily read as your reply to two anonymous comments followed by a new, unrelated comment from Ciybersal, or even as you posting two oddly-indented and conflicted comments.

If you don't know how to refactor talk pages or don't have time to, just stick to writing regular comments at the bottom of sections - don't arrange a talk thread into some ambiguous halfway state that's a bit like how it might look when refactored. Even if someone does realise what you were trying to do and fixes it up for you, you're still confusing everyone who reads the page before that happens. --McGeddon (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not accuse you of deleting my comments I realise that it was another editor.

In my experience splitting conversations into subjects is quite commom on talk pages and often very helpful in understanding. I have never seen a template used for this purpose. As I said, my main purpose was to facilitate useful discussion on improving the article. If you, or anyone else, think that the formatting could be improved please feel free to refactor. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've never seen it done without {{interrupted}} templates to clarify that the fragmented comments were made by the same specific editor, rather than being a bunch of mystery unsigned ones. If you're saying that you don't think the "add indented replies in another user's comment, leaving the cut ends unsigned" style could be improved, maybe this is worth a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Refactoring_talk_pages. --McGeddon (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I have seen your template and it appears to work well so I will try to remember to use it in future. There are no hard and fast rules on talk pages (except not to delete editors' comments) so the page users are free to decide how best to work together. Now can we get back to discussing the page content please. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

That all comments should be in some way signed by the person who wrote them is a clear policy. Shifting a thread around such that those signatures fall off goes against that. --McGeddon (talk) 11:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Bell, Khrennikov...

Hello, Martin Hogbin. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Boris Tsirelson (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

BoB sig

Hi Martin, your signatures on this series of comments seem to have gone astray. In my view a significance section is a good idea, but I think we can go into much more detail than the paragraph you proposed, and can show sources which contest the significance. As in the Luftwaffe view that it was all part of the air war against England, which included the Blitz. . . dave souza, talk 19:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed the sigs. I am happy to include all views on the significance based on relaible sources. Which sources do you think contest the significance? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Seeking WP:Environment members

Hi Martin, I'm looking for editors to collaborate on making some improvements to Efficient energy use, and I noticed you were a member of WP:CCTF. I have a paid COI regarding the article, which has been declared. Would you be interested in helping me out?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 01:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)