User talk:Kzollman/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 WikiProject Game Theory 2 Hi! 3 Holidays & Mainpage 4 Re:University of California, Irvine project 5 mop and bucket 6 Game Theory - inserted text? 7 Vandalism rates 8 Game Theory project 9 Problems with Raul 10 Project Game theory 11 Archive a talk page 12 do you know how to read? 13 Hobart Freeman 14 Hi Kevin 15 Don't worry 16 Discouraged yes but..... 17 Request for Arbitration 18 AFD: Statistical game theory 19 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana 20 winning strategy 21 making figures 22 A request from a fellow teacher 23 Cooperation and Gaia 24 RE: link on tutorial for editing/sandbox 25 Many-worlds interpretation 26 Arbitration 27 Alleluia! He is Risen! 28 Thanks 29 New Section On Purification Theorem 30 Thanks 31 Gone live 32 Thanks 33 Strict Nash? 34 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana 35 For the welcome.. 36 Thanks... 37 Collaboration 38 Thanks etc. 39 Thanks and a question 40 Justin Bonomo 41 Category:Accounting 42 Justin Bonomo 43 Battle of the Sexes 44 Game Theory Wiki 45 Talk:Ram Vaswani discussion 46 Subgame perfect equilibrium 47 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous Nairs 48 Minor edits reminder 49 List of games in game theory 50 Hp timeline 51 Featured picture promotion! 52 Featured list nomination 53 Dictator Games page 54 Philosophy of science

[edit] WikiProject Game Theory

Thanks for the welcome. I've taken some classes on game theory (including a Combinatorial game theory class by Elwyn Berlekamp :) It's been a while but I'll dig out my reference books. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-07 22:22Z

[edit] Hi!

Hi Kevin, thanks for the wonderfully nice comment on my talk, I was really pissed off, and was serious about leaving, but really I had just forgotten how many nice people like you there are around! Martin 21:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Holidays & Mainpage

Hey Kevin, holidays... in the words of George Bernard Shaw:

"I am sorry to have to introduce the subject of Christmas. It is an indecent subject; a cruel, gluttonous subject; a drunken, disorderly subject; a wasteful, disastrous subject; a wicked, cadging, lying filthy, blasphemous and demoralizing subject. Christmas is forced on a reluctant and disgusted nation by the shopkeepers and the press: on its own merits it would wither and shrivel in the fiery breath of universal hatred; and anyone who looked back to it would be turned into a pillar of greasy sausages."

anyway, wretched holidays over (don't suppose we can get Bill O'Reilly to put a stop to all that commercialization of christmass and have it turn back into an obscure little withered birthday appendix of a solstice holiday that we can then all ignore) and the crazy season of term has started. So far so good ... mind you last term wound up with me losing my temper at a colleague I collaborate with. He claims to have sustained a concussion when his head hit the floor after I choked him unconscious. I bought his wife chocolate and alcohol to appologize for the incident... It's spelled "academia" but it's pronounced "academentia". In any case, I put some comments on the brief summary for the main page where you have probably already noticed them. Best regards, Pete.Hurd 07:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:University of California, Irvine project

That's an interesting project. Wikipedia community definetly appreciates such interesting projects - kudos to both prof. Jeffrey Barrett, you and all others involved in this. Based on what I have seen in the past, I am sure the results will be impressive.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mop and bucket

I have just been presented with a mop and bucket. Thanks for your kind comments and support. Looking forward to working with you in the future. Banno 03:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Theory - inserted text?

The otherwise-excellent piece on 'Game Theory' appears to begin with an inserted 'joke' paragraph which is not available in editing mode (13/1/06 at 23.14 GMT). Strange?

Thanks for the complement. Some inserted the joke paragraph at, but it was removed 3 minutes later. I presume that you saw this joke paragraph, but by the time you went to edit it it was removed from the article. Again thanks! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism rates

I havn't checked (obviously) but I'd be interested to know whether that rate of vandalism is typical of frontpage links, and I'd be keen to be pointed to any WP discussion forums on how better to deal with such things. Pete.Hurd 19:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Theory project

Thanks for the pointer, I added my name to the list and will try to write something up soon. radek 21:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with Raul

I assume that you are the anonymous user who previously debated with Raul about three additions to this article. Let me begin by appologizing for Raul's terseness, there are lots of people who wish wikipedia ill and dealing with them can make people unpleasant. May I also suggest, humbly, that you try to turn the other cheek and try not to be so confrontational. This may go very far to encouraging active dialog. I agree with your regarding two of the three additions, and I have added my comments to Talk:List of famous experiments. I have invited Raul to engage in a discussion amongst the three of us regarding the appropriate status for those three contributions. Will you please contribute? Thank you and welcome to wikipedia! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Response: This Raul person deleted my additions with spurious reasons, and his statements were consistently insulting, right from the start. I would not describe Mr. Raul's statements as "debate". He just writes that I don't "comprehend" and deletes may prose. He needs to learn some manners.

I am glad to respond to a serious debate, but will not agree to be insulted by this person. I am glad to not be anonymous individually to serious and polite individuals, but I don't want the entire world to know who I am. Is there a way to have private communications?

Mr. Raul has now deleted my request for mediation. He should not be vandalizing reasonable additions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeamays (talk • contribs) .

Dear Kzollman, Thanks for your assistance, but I don't understand why this Raul gets special privileges to delete other peoples' work. He needs to be restrained. -Signed Zeamays.

[edit] Project Game theory

Thanks for the welcome. I've had a look at the articles and I think that my basic grasp of game theory won't be enough to enable me to help that much. I'll do what I can though! RicDod 19:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archive a talk page

Key Kevin, Talk:Human_height page is getting long. I gather it requires admin power to archive (because it's a page move?). If it's not too much trouble could I ask you to do this? If you're busy I have a short list of other folks I can ask... Cheers, Pete.Hurd 05:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Pete.Hurd 20:07, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] do you know how to read?

do you know how to read? then do it below. i've made my point very clear many times beyond what you can read below; and the last time i did not "revert" (how horrible!) but rather eliminated the problem with a new, neutral formulation. it's the others who are truly being obnoxious on top of being wrong and insisting in peddling misleading "scholastic" garbage. ................ wrong and short is not sufficient. it's simply wrong. darwin is talking about the case in which the stuff is heritable because he cares about evolution by natural selection. however the definition of natural selection has nothing to do what darwin thinks about how evolution by natural selection takes place. ever taken a logic class? furthermore i) in evolutionary biology this distinction is crucial, standard, and widely exploited when measuring natural selection in the wild; and ii) this distinction is also crucial to avoid that people mix up the two things and come with all kind of messes when thinking "conceptually" about selection. finally don't you know that the fitness-wise most important phenotypic variation is either genetic but not heritable in the narrow sense or is not genetic at all? Marcosantezana 22:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC) .................

so in that case you either don't know how to read or don't want to read. in either case you are disqualified from sermoning anybody about being civil. since when it is civil to pontificate to others when you do not know what's been going on? take drugs if you need to feel better at *any* cost. sermoning others gratuituously lets you appear like a fool. warmest regards --  ;) 01:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hobart Freeman

Kevin,

Have a look at the article now. As the original author I've reverted it to before the controversy and added and useful bits that the controversy stirred up.

--Jgk168421 09:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Kevin

Interesting ideas, I especially like the idea of generating lists of people categories with no sort keys (I'll experiment with that now), finding unreferenced articles would be very prone to false positives but maybe some variation of your idea could work. There would be a slight difficulty in finding articles that have one but not both of {{Game theory}} and {{GameTheoryProject}} as one of these templates is a talk page one, but finding Category:Game theory articles without the {{Game theory}} template would be a pretty easy and useful task. If I get any results you might be interested in I'll let you know. Martin 11:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

These articles are in the gt category, but do not use the gt template, I'll let you decide whether the template is appropriate (sorry for just dumping it on your talk) Martin 12:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC);

1. Airport problem
2. Angel problem
3. Axiom of projective determinacy
4. Banach–Mazur game
5. Bankruptcy problem
6. Bertrand competition
7. Bertrand paradox (economics)
8. Bounded rationality
9. Branching factor
10. Bulgarian solitaire
11. Collusion
12. Common knowledge
13. Complete information
14. Cournot competition
15. Deadlock (game)
16. Drama Theory
17. Edgeworth paradox
18. El Farol bar problem
19. Evaluation function
20. Evolution and the Theory of Games
21. Expected value of perfect information
22. Expectiminimax tree
23. Fair division
24. Glossary of game theory
25. Hat problem
26. John Glen Wardrop
27. Jonathan Schaeffer
28. Keynesian beauty contest
29. Kuhn poker
30. List of publications in economics
31. Monty Hall problem
32. Moving-knife procedure
33. Non-credible threat
34. Normal form game
35. Outcome (Game theory)
36. Pareto efficiency
37. Pareto set
38. Parrondo's Paradox
39. Payoff matrix
40. Perfect information
41. Perfect play
42. Perfect rationality
43. Rational ignorance
44. Rendezvous problem
45. Replicator equation
46. Shannon switching game
47. Shapley value
48. Signaling games
49. Stackelberg competition
50. Strategyproof
51. Subgame perfect equilibrium
52. The Evolution of Cooperation
53. Tit for tat
54. Two-level game theory
55. Unbeatable strategy
56. Winning strategy
57. Zero-player game

[edit] Don't worry

I was not planning to revert. I doubt whether he will come to the talk page, I have invited him already so many times. The current version is factually incorrect, but unfortunatly, that is the way it is. Maybe someone else does the job. --KimvdLinde 06:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that most editors have resigned by now. I am going to give up also unless there is some willingness of other editors to make this a good page. As the situation is now, he owns the page. I do not know how much you have followed of the talk taking place at my and his talk pages. --KimvdLinde 06:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems he has choosen not to do that, and just revered the NatSel page using an IP-number. --KimvdLinde 19:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Good to hear that. I will keep working on it. --KimvdLinde 20:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, it seems just to continue as before. --KimvdLinde 07:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discouraged yes but.....

Please see also Wikipedia:Talk page#Can I do whatever I want to my own user talk page?, which makes it clear that talk page blanking is discouraged. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dickclarkfan1"

Thats because this matter is between THE FOUR OF US, not all of Wikipedia. If I don't want the public to know about it, then that is my business. I'll say this again, discouraged yes, but NOT AGANIST THE RULES. Now if I clear it out, I want it to stay out. Better yet, if you wish, i'll supply a Yahoo!, AIM, and MSN Messenger screen name if you wish to continue this discussion.

[edit] Request for Arbitration

I have filed a request for Arbitration with regard to Marcosantezana here.KimvdLinde 06:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AFD: Statistical game theory

Hey Kevin, I nominated Statistical game theory for deletion, but if I understand correctly WP:PN qualifies for speedy deletion. If you feel so inclined... Cheers, Pete.Hurd 03:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 18:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kevin, vacations are always good ideas (even though they often don't feel like it at the time). I'm not totally certain that Marcos' behaviour is best described as a pro-Sober POV war in essence, it cerainly has a bit of that, but I think it's no more than 25% of his motivation. I've been on the verge, a couple of times, of asking Sober for his opinion on this, if nothing else, it would be valuable to get a nice clean statement of his thesis for WP (I've asked Marcos a couple of times, but I think someone else would have to do it). Pete.Hurd 19:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] winning strategy

Hi Kevin,

why did you put winning strategy in category:combinatorial game theory? --Trovatore 04:14, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] making figures

Hey Kevin, I made the figures in the "picture" enviroenment in LaTeX, then did screen grabs of the postscript files in a ghostscript viewer. Sorta one step more high-tech than baking a clay tablet... I don't advise this as the most efficient method for generating nice pictures, but I've got too much stuff in LaTeX to be tempted to change. I'd be glad to send you the latex sources if you think it would be useful to you to modify them for your purposes. Pete.Hurd 00:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A request from a fellow teacher

Kevin --

I am writing to ask permission to borrow from your university project instructions for a class project that we are starting at the University of Hong Kong. I will of course cite your work, but wanted to check with you first. Kindly let me know. -- LMCinHK 03:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cooperation and Gaia

Hi! Would you please comment on these two pieces of text that I have written:

"Evolution of Gaia

In competition those who cooperate do better than those who don't. So during the evolution those who didn't ally as much as possible were much more likely to drop away than those who allied. That resulted in an evolution toward complex interconnected wholes: individuals consisting of many cells, packs, ecosystems and maybe larger wholes and even Gaia. During the evolution is wasn't the strongest who won, but the safest - whether it was because of srenght, allegiancies, lack of enemies or whatever reason

Animals understand moral

Most animals live in groups, so their survival has during the evolution beeen dependent, not only upon their own behaviour, but also on the survival and well-being of the group. That means t5hat working for the common good of the group is natural for animals. Animals also must have a natural understanding, that behaviour which is good for the group is to be supported and accepted easily, while behaviour which is destructive from the point of view of the group cannot be tolerated. So animals are by their nature moral and capable of guarding moral. ... Gaia(?) (interdependence, compassion, co-operation)"

Best regards, Kaisa Tervola [email removed]

With regard to the second, you're talking about Group selection. While there is still some discussion of its proper place, group selectionist explanations are widely regarded as inappropriate it most contexts. Please read our page on group selection, and the references therein for more. What are these for? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: link on tutorial for editing/sandbox

HI Kevin,

I tried the sandbox link from the tutorial, and it sent me to a page on soft paternalism. Thought you might want to know!

Carla

[edit] Many-worlds interpretation

Hi Kevin, I agree that this was poorly dealt with in its FA nomination. Two things stand out from the nomination, one is noone questioned the lack of inline citations. The other is the way the nomination responded to objections. When there are objections that cant be addressed they need to be explained. Where the nominator/editors respond to all issues raised you will find that additional people will also take an interest. Personally if I had seen this nomination I wouldn't have read any further because there was no signs of interest from the editors after the nomination was created.

Re-nominate the article, I think it deserves to be featured. Gnangarra 08:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration

Any idea when the ArbCom starts to act? KimvdLinde 03:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Alleluia! He is Risen!

Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia!
our triumphant holy day, Alleluia!
who did once upon the cross, Alleluia!
suffer to redeem our loss. Alleluia!

Hymns of praise then let us sing, Alleluia!
unto Christ, our heavenly King, Alleluia!
who endured the cross and grave, Alleluia!
sinners to redeem and save. Alleluia!

But the pains which he endured, Alleluia!
our salvation have procured, Alleluia!
now above the sky he's King, Alleluia!

where the angels ever sing. Alleluia!

-- Psy guy ^Talk 05:53, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thats for an awesome welcome message! I sure an here to stay! Chris 13:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Section On Purification Theorem

I am grateful for your kind comments on my talk page recently.

I have taken the liberty of adding a technical details section for readers who wish to learn a bit more about the caveats of the theorem. Any input and corrections would be helpful. Profundity06 00:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey Kevin, thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage (maybe the Rushton's ordering of the human races AFD got up somebody's nose... ) Cheers, Pete.Hurd 00:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey Kevin, I've got an adminny question for you. The AFD was closed as merge and delete (my proposed outcome). My question is who is responsible for doing the merging edits? The closing admin, me as nominator, the fork's creator? Is merge & delete really any difference from merge & redirect? Does the fork get deleted, or turned into a redirect? If the latter then there's no admin action necessary, but if it's the former then I guess an admin has to decide whether the merge has been properly conducted before deleting... Pete.Hurd 18:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gone live

I just copied the newly developed version of the natural selection page to the main space after it was clear that most editors supported the new version over the current version. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks, I will have to do a round of thanks anyway, do that tomorrow. And yes, if needed, I will pass by with questions! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

And thank you for the trust that you had in me when you supported my Request for Adminship. I am actually overwhelmed by the support that I received. Thanks again! -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 07:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, he is not active anymore at wikipedia (since may 16). So, I do not think there will be a need for blocking, but I agree, if you have a content dispute, let someone else do the blocking.

I have a question, would User:Ricardo_Lagos fall undr the category unappropriate user names because there is a Ricardo_Lagos article, which are definatly two different persons? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:34, 4 June 2006

What I just have done is to put it at the admin noticeboard, with my analysis. So, I will see what comes from it and get a better idea what to do next myself. (UTC)

[edit] Strict Nash?

Hey Kevin, remember me? (Pete's grad student...I haven't been around too much, mostly 'cause I'm just a lazy bastard. :-) I came across the comment you left about rewriting Nash Equilibrium on Pete's talk page while I was looking for something else, and I took the liberty of reading it over. One thing I noticed that mildly surprised me was that there was no mention of the difference between Nash / strict Nash either on your rewrite or the original article. Have you considered throwing in a sentence or two on that? Anyways, I'm interested to see how your efforts turn out - good luck! :) Khamsin 01:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Marcosantezana

This arbitration case is closed. The final decision is at the link above.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 02:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the welcome..

Many thanks! I've been using wikipedia for a while now and thought that now that I'm heading to college I should start putting something in. Hope it comes in handy. Guitar George 11:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks...

...for the welcome message. Former Wildcat myself.  ;) JFMorse 20:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration

Once again I wanted to thank you for your spirit of cooperation. I hope I'm not letting my disagreements with that particular other person sour what can hopefully be a very productive collaboration. Thanks for your level-headedness. Cheers, PhilipR 15:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Given the lack of positive discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poker, I'm going to infer that there is no room for short-term collaboration. Discussions like that one have me profoundly disillusioned with Wikipedia. - PhilipR 22:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks etc.

• Thanks.
• How's it goin'?
• If you have time: I created Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/BrittonLaRoche (which is a bit malformed) but I thought I had followed the proceedure outlined in WP:SSP, but the page does not appear on the list there when I got through. Did I miss a step and create an orphaned SSP entry, or does this not work in a manner similar to AfD?
• Cheers, Pete.Hurd 05:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks and a question

Thanks for welcome message, Kevin. At the request of my library director I've started a Wikipedia article on our library, State Library of Kansas. If you have time would you please look it over and let me know if it is a good beginning. Other than editing other articles I've never done anything like this before.

Thanks

Bill Sowers, alias grumpykansan

[edit] Justin Bonomo

Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators advises not to both nominate and close. As for "actual" deleting, I was distracted, sorry. Right onto it. Thanks for spotting the problem. `'mikka (t) 20:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Accounting

Hi. I've run into some minor problems trying to develop a category system for economics. We need a Category:Accounting for the subfield of economics. But some people want to delete it and make it Category:Accountancy which I think is silly. If you agree, maybe you could join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 19.JQ 20:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Justin Bonomo

In your vote for deletion in this article's AFD, you suggested that you might reconsider your vote if the article changed. I have attempted to properly source the article, and there are many more reliable sources discussed in both the first AFD and the deletion review that could possibly help too. Thanks. Grindingteeth 22:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of the Sexes

I think that there's an error with the computation of mixed strategy NE for the BoS page. The article lists the mixed strategy equilibrium such that each player plays his preferred strategy with probability 2/3. I've done the math a few different ways, and I keep coming up with 3/5. A (free and possibly erroneous) game theory software package that I have also returns 3/5 as the result.

My apologies if I'm incorrect; I've made my share of arithmetic errors in the past. I'd take a look and double-check the numbers.

Mateoee 21:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Game Theory Wiki

I left a message at the Game theory Wikiproject that may be of interest to you: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Game theory#Game Theory Wiki. EPM 23:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Ram Vaswani discussion

I just want to pass a note thanking you for the civility in tone that you have conducted yourself in the conversation on the Ram Vaswani page and in the reliable sources page. It certainly makes dialogue easy and more productive. I do want to clarify that it is not the reporting of tournament results per se, that I'm most concern with. (Though ideally I would have liked the actual tournament's sites or a news article) but rather it's the personal data that is taken from the Hendon site and other similarly not-so-stellar sources.Agne 02:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subgame perfect equilibrium

Hi Kevin, thanks a lot for the re-write, looks like a substantial improvement as well! When I first saw the copyvio tag I was intially a little shocked that all of it was tagged, and also because I may have contributed copyvio material! but at least it is resolved now. thanks! Martin 08:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous Nairs

Since you had commented at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Famous Nairs, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous Nairs. Tintin (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor edits reminder

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on electron microscope. However:

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! Twisted86 21:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps the minor edits policy/guideline should be changed to reflect the use of adminstrative functions then? Twisted86 22:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

p.s. Sorry about the reminder. Twisted86 22:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

<looks up WP:MINOR> Ugh. Egg on face. Thank you for not biting the (relative) newbie. Twisted86 22:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of games in game theory

This is the first time I've seen this page. Looks good. If I had gobs of time (alas I don't) I'd be tempted to expand the communication games, maybe subclassify: 2x2 matrix games, auctions, signalling games, but I think it's fine as it is. Yeah, go for FL. --Cheers, Pete.Hurd 21:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hp timeline

It looks great! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

P.s. don't you want to join WP:CLINMED? You don't have to be a specialist :-D

[edit] Featured picture promotion!

An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your uploaded image, Image:Riffle shuffle.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! howcheng {chat} 18:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured list nomination

I've added a nomination of timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori to WP:FLC. You may wish to comment there and/or monitor the discussion for suggested improvements. Great job compiling that timeline! Cheers, --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dictator Games page

Hi Kevin, Thanks for your welcome. About the dictator games page, at the moment it looks like it is being used to promote the work of the three economists mentioned in the last section. I've got nothing to hide here, so I don;t mind being identified as Nick Bardsley. I edited the page because I saw that something I had discovered was presented here as John List's discovery, and that there are PR publications coming out of the University of Chicago saying the same thing. John assures me that he is not responsible for any of this and he has kindly acknolwedged that my experiment was first, though his was independently conceived. Anyway, it would be nice if a disinterested party could work on the page to remove the appearance of either self-promotion or promotion of the University of Chicago. If not I'd prefer it if none of us were mentioned. I also have to point out that there are decades of work on the DG, whilst the main text currently makes it sound like Henrich et al discovered that dictators give in 2004! Sorry to sound critical; I think Wikipedia is great. I do appreciate it's difficult to get these things right and to keep people on board. Best Wishes, Nick Nb6 19:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy of science

Thanks very much for your edit to the philosophy of science article. Upon noticing your edit, I proceeded to post a "cleanup" template and a WP:WER template to note the apparent needs of this article as a whole. I hope those are reasonably consistent with your analysis of the current state of that article. ... Kenosis 05:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)