User talk:Tailpig

Please keep an eye on Monty Hall problem and talk page for a while?

69.180.7.137 (talk · contribs) has been warned about the 3RR, but he's also been vandalizing Talk:Monty Hall problem so I think we have a real rogue on the loose. Can you keep an eye on things for a while? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the next couple of days sure. Tailpig 18:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy Feldspar is a troll. Did you actually bother to read the description before reverting it on behalf of him? The solution he keeps reverting to (I can only guess that he wrote it and is plugging for shameless self promotion) is a terrible explanation of the problem (the entire actuarial discussion forum at D.W.Simpson has demonstrated this) and in many was just wrong. The methods used in the old explanation are vastly inferior and only arrive at the right answer by a myriad of coincidental factors. A solution to any problem is supposed to work in any case not by coincidence, and if for whatever reason you do have a specific case approach to a problem you are supposed to site why it works. I have explained to this clown several times why his personal intuition that its ok to ignore the fact that the goats are seperate entities is not Universal and many people have found the wiki explanation he keeps reverting to to be utterly useless. He has resorted to tactics such as editing my writing both to make it appear that I said something I didn't say and to trick me into defending arguments that weren't mine to begin with.

Here is clear evidence of such editing but done by you. Please refrain from editing others' writings. Tailpig 15:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doing things on behalf of someone else without considering the situation defeats the whole purpose of wikipedia. It's not supposed to be a place where some self righteous little snot such as feldspar can dictate what information is given here. Its a place where the person who is right is supposed to win because he has more motivation to continue arguing, convincing others etc while the person who is wrong cannot continue arguing much longer after realizing he is wrong.

By allowing yourself to be manipulated by this fool, you are destroying what Wiki is all about. The belief that he can manipulate the system and gain power over others regardless of whether or not he is correct in his beliefs gives him motivation to continue arguing despite having realized he was wrong about something. Please look at arguments and decide for yourself what is correct rather than just reverting something to serve someone else's ego. 69.180.7.137 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia a democracy?

Actually fortunately it isn't. See WP:NOT. It's a good thing too, because we can remove links that aren't from peer-reviewed journals no matter who shows up to "vote". -- SCZenz 23:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So it seems. Tailpig 23:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incompleteness versus POV

You wrote: Harald88, don't confuse NPOV with incompleteness. If you're an expert on the subject, please make the appropriate changes here. The talks page is useless and populated by trolls (Twin paradox).

Tailpig, you are of course right that incompleteness isn't necessarily due to a POV conflict. In this case, the article was already incomplete before the debate started; I had failed to find articles that clearly describe and defend the mainstream opinion about the deeper issue, which hindered completing the article in view of WP:NOR, and so I did not expand on minority POV's and we had also asked for contributions by others - as you indicated already, the Wikipedia way is to add to such incompleteness.

The objection to the current version is, that the explanations of the cited articles had been briefly mentioned, since they are essential for a good understanding of the cause of the paradox while the different views of cited articles should be fairly mentioned according to WP:NPOV; but the views were deleted, even of the articles that are still being cited. As green put it, they were wiped under the carpet (compare [1]).

Some editors demand a return to the old version, but that version was work-in-progress and I prefer the current version but with a proper mention of the differing views.

By now I have found more peer reviewed articles that describe the different POV's including the mainstream one (curiously enough that was the hardest to find in this context!), so that it will be possible to complete it with all notable POV's mentioned in a satisfying way without any Original Research issues.

Regards, Harald88 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]