User talk:Pete.Hurd/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 masc vs defem 2 Wikiproject game theory? 3 re: nat seln 4 Bootstrappers 5 Thanks 6 Alakon 7 Categories in mathematics 8 Heritability of stature 9 Talk: Allan Bloom "children of divorce" 10 Best response correspondi 11 edit counter 12 Testosterone poisoning 13 Billy Idol 14 Not -> Now 15 WP:SCH 16 Please elaborate 17 The saga continues 18 Your delete vote on Brian Lawrence 19 Coarsening 20 Thanks! 21 Talk:Differential replication 22 Maintained 23 Political compass

[edit] masc vs defem

I got the papers, thanks. I'll read them this weekend and it will probably be worth continuing this topic on the talk:sexual differentiation page. It occurs to me we may want separate articles for humans and animals or for behavioral vs anatomic differentiation. alteripse 8 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)

See defeminization. I read your papers, but have to say that this is not a term commonly used in discussions on human differentiation and it seems a misnomer to use it for prevention of female development when the common sense meaning is removal of female characteristics. I put full comment in talk:sexual differentiation so perhaps reply there about this topic specifically. alteripse 10:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject game theory?

Hi there - Thanks for your comments on the matrices for game theory articles. I really appreciate your input. I have been sending out feelers for people interested in a wikiproject on game theory. Do you think you might be interested? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:52, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Pete - I have started Wikipedia:WikiProject Game theory. Please join in! I need to do a bunch of work on it, but I think it will help us to focus on what needs to be done and (more importantly) encourage people to add to game theory articles. In "its a small world" news, a friend and I were reading one of your papers on signaling last week, very nice. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 23:44, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: nat seln

Basically, [1] seemed to be confusing a species with natural selection. For a start, it's just not relevent to that sentence, if nat seln affects the ability to reproduce it doesn't matter whether or not the offspring are fertile or not, and therefore basically, wrong. Dunc|☺ 19:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bootstrappers

I should put it on there. Don't know why I didn't. (I don't have a copy :( ) BTW, the Bootstrappers were Watt, George Hurley, and Elliott Sharp. Kira wasn't involved. Cjmarsicano 05:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Pete - Thanks for your kind words on my RfA, I really appreciate it! I am now an admin, I hope that doesn't mean you need to gouge my eyes out ;) I just remembered, I need to send you that paper about normative signaling too. Remind me, if I don't. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear not at all! No offence taken. It would have been worse to have thought that people read it and ignored it writing me off as some kind of wally. I only found myself questioning why didn't you alter it for me?! :-) Anyhow, it's done now. Thank you dear fellow. Celtmist 21-10-05

[edit] Alakon

Pete - Thanks for pointing this out. I removed the book reference, I can't find it on Amazon, in university catelogues or on the web. I think his contributions are either hoaxes or vanity (more likely the second). I'm going to put his article Brent Henry Waddington up for deletion, since I can't find much reference to him on google. His addition to List of non-fiction authors seems to be legit. I'll do some more looking. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

His contribution list is pretty short. I was able to verify his other major contribution Bloodgood Cutter. I think we ought to just chalk this up to vanity or something. Lets see how the AfD transpires. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 01:13, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Bloodgood Cutter absolutely wasn't vanity - it can't be. I have no connection to the man. I just found it a really interesting topic and wrote an article about it. I do have a connection to the publisher in the BHW case, though I have no financial stake and I believe my role to be well within the accepted norms at Wikipedia. I do agree with your judgement that the BHW page should be taken off the game theory page, at least until the actual book is published tomorrow (and to be unbiased I'll allow it to happen naturally and without my help).

Thanks for your nice message about brent henry waddington!! =) Bwithh 04:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the barnstar award!!! and sorry for the delay in seeing your message =) Bwithh 22:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Pete - There is such a tool, and its called Checkuser. Only one active wikipedia has access to it, and he will only use it in extreme cases of abuse. Soon a few more (maybe 2 or 3) folks will get access. I left a message at WP:ANI about this incident and nobody seemed to care. I think we're on our own with this guy. Once the AfD is over I will leave him a polite warning, and I'll try to keep an eye on him. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 04:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categories in mathematics

As far as I know, Wikipedia has got some rules concering the categories. We do not put (except in exceptional cases) [[Category:X]] and [[Category:Y]] in the same article, if X is a subset of Y. There is no need for an article to have "Calculus" and "Mathematics" category. Otherwise, we would have to put *everything* related to calculus in the math category. Mathematics has its concepts, and almost all of them can be categorised. The top categories must contain a small number of articles, the specific ones should contain more. Look at mathematics - we do not have even the article number there; it's subcategorised; similiary game theory should be too. It is one of the topics of cybernetics (read the template), so I reverted your changes. Regards, Googlpl 17:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this is nonsense. You have cybernetics claiming ergodic theory as a subtopic??? Sorry, that's way over the top. Cyberneticians, whatever they are exactly, may have interests in ergodic theory and game theory, but there's no way workers in the latter fields think of themselves as specialized cyberneticians. Maybe game theory should go through other subcategories before getting to Category:Mathematics, but it shouldn't be limited to one as obscure as cybernetics. --Trovatore 17:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Game theory is a subset is economics, in some sense, and a subset of mathematics, in some sense; but cybernetics? That's pretty nutbar. Pete.Hurd 18:09, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, if you think that game theory shouldn't be a topic in cybernetics, then it should be removed from Template:Cybernetics and Cybernetics article. Thanks, Googlpl 18:16, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Heritability of stature

I've collected some papers on the heritability and genetics of stature, including those you referenced. I don't know when I'll get to it, but I do intend to significantly improve the article (I'm most interested in the biology, environment, and interactions thereof --the "why"; most people seem obsessed with the population heights and comparisons with little done elsewise), with this among the highest priorities. Any other suggestions are welcome (I have access to almost anything through my university). Evolauxia 09:06, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Allan Bloom "children of divorce"

I just read and responded to your several months old comment about children of divorce since I just read it tonight. You may be as busy as I, and not care to respond, or whatever, but I thought I'd mention I did have something to add to your question, which is an excellent question/point to bring up, even though i disagree with your shallow assessment. --Mikerussell 07:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Best response correspondi

Hi Pete - I was taking a look at those best response correspondences you created for Best response. I was thinking about cropping them a bit. For instance, I don't think we need the title on the top of this one because that information is repeated in the caption. Would you mind if I cropped them a bit and replaced the old ones? I think this will let us make the correspondences bigger and easier to see. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 17:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As you can now see, I have uploaded a cropped version of the three stag hunt correspondences. I think their easier to see. If you ever decide to return to the book, I suggest you name it Trout. It seems a good name for a game theory book :) --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 19:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] edit counter

is this still not working for you or did you have the same problem other people also reported (which should be fixed now)? kate.

[edit] Testosterone poisoning

Your contributions to the page are much appreciated. Please reformat your citations to be consistent with the rest of the page. Best wishes. Durova 17:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Idol

I'm intrigued...how did mention of this venerable rocker spoil your evening? Or was it the awful joke that did it at [[2]]. Eddie.willers 23:44, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not -> Now

Pete - You are indeed correct, I will fix it. Thanks! --best, kevin _└ ^KZOLLMAN/ _TALK^┐ 01:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SCH

(a.k.a. "WhooPeey:SCHitt")
In light of WP:AFD/Birchview Elementary, you might find this to be of interest. I got both bored and disgusted with the debate and was inspired to write my own essay on the topic. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Something else you might find interesting: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David M. Zimmerman Elementary School. I now have reason to believe said school is a hoax. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 21:21, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Please elaborate

Can you please elaborate upon what you meant by this comment? Bahn Mi 21:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The saga continues

The latest strange event Next GW Bush will be calling... --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your delete vote on Brian Lawrence

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brian Lawrence I just rewrote the article from a nonsense version to a valid stub on the current baseball pitcher. Could you change your vote if you can. Thanks --Aranda ⁵⁶) 04:06, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Coarsening

Yeah I had noticed those edits. I haven't heard the term either, but I understand the motivation. When you think of most of the solution concepts as "equilibrium refinements", this usually means nash equilibrium refinements. And correlated equilibrium is not properly that, since its more general than nash equilibrium. I'm inclined to let it go, and after the christmas break I'll ask my econ friends if that's an econ phrase or not. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Pete - Thanks for the barnstar. I'll hang it on my barn.  :) I need to see about getting GT scheduled for the main page now. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Differential replication

See User talk:Dacoutts about Differential replication - you're right, it's probably original research. We're giving the author some time to find sources, otherwise, it'll go up for AfD before too long. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 00:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

5 of these articles are up for deletion; two more were redirected. The links: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Heliovore, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Couttsian_Growth_Model, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/6_Billion, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malthusian_Selection, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nanosphere -- stillnotelf has a talk page 15:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maintained

Pete - Feeling turgid today? I was impressed by the vocabulary on the TfD. :) There is an extensive system that they want you to use for putting your name into {{Maintained}}. Its documented at Template talk:Maintained. Its cumbersome, but I see the advantages (in particular it prevents others from adding you to other articles without you ever noticing). I would just do it for you, but it involves editing in your User space... --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you're probably right. I never expected that template to slow down any vandals. Does a vandal really check the talk page before adding "poop" to an article? I mostly hoped that it would lend a sense of credibility to those pages that ought to have it. Even more importantly, once the template gains wide use it would help us to identify articles that are likely to let vandalism slip by. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:27, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ooops. Sorry I misunderstood. I hadn't looked at the anon edits yet and I thought that you were being sarcastic. I always thought that argument was a bit silly. I was very cautious in the beginning, but it had nothing to do with any tag on any of the articles. I'm just cautious. I think that personality has much more to do with editing habits than anything. P.S. Did you see those two very good articles in Nature? Finally some good press! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Political compass

User:Pete.Hurd -8.25 -6.92 Alberta Canada

Man, I *did I ever* move to the right over the last 20-30y!

So glad I haven't so moved :-). Maybe you should drift west to BC (to the left coast), and avoid the conservative influences of Alberta. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Heh, I was about to say that. karmafist 05:38, 22 December 2005 (UTC)