User talk:TotalClearance

Welcome to Wikipedia, TotalClearance!

Welcome to wikipedia! If you like Monty Hall Problem, then I can also recommend to you the Boy or Girl paradox, and the Two Envelopes problem. Richard Gill (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TotalClearance, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi TotalClearance! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just interested

Just interested if you are the same guy as 213.102.96.77 (and similar close-by IP addresses, location Stockholm?) who recently made many anonymous contributions to the Monty Hall Problem talk page. If so, perhaps you could return to those contributions and sign them so they are no longer anonymous. It would help, in order to understand the discussions. Richard Gill (talk) 09:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is not important who the editor is but which the content is. You may observe that all IP's contributions to the talk page since October 12. 17:35 are written by me. --TotalClearance (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but it is often easier to understand the content of a particular contribution in the light of other contributions by the same person. And it is also a matter of politeness and accountability. Richard Gill (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may also have noticed that Monty Hall Problem is a mine-field, where a whole gang of editors have been fighting one another for years. Several people even got banned, during these wars. Just recently things have been calmed down a bit: there has been a "Request for Comments" and this led to a concensus (that does not mean that everyone agreed, it just means that there is a clear majority opinion) that the first part of the article will deal with popular solutions, without criticising them, and the later part of the article will include, among other things, mathematicians' solutions and mathematicians' criticisms of popular solutions. Seems you walked into the mine-field and set off a few bombs. If you are new to Wikipedia editing, maybe you should learn about the policies and guidelines which everyone has to accept. Verifiability, No Original Research, Neutral Point of View. See Wikipedia:Core_content_policies. Richard Gill (talk) 14:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am missing the Neutral Point of View in the present MHP article. --TotalClearance (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? The conclusion of the RfC was that the first part of the article will deal with *published* popular solutions, without criticising them, and the later part of the article will include, among other things, *published* mathematicians' solutions and *published* mathematicians' criticisms of popular solutions. Precisely in order to comply with Neutral Point Of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research. That's what we have to live with for the time being.

If you are unhappy with some of the popular solutions, note that Wikipedia doesn't claim they are correct: Wikipedia just says that so-and-so presented this-or-that as a solution. Later in the article there is room to write that someone-else presented this-or-that criticism of the popular solutions. Richard Gill (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Table of 6 solution now in MHP

i put your table of 6 equally likely cases into the MHP article, having found it used by several authorities. Thanks! Richard Gill (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]