User talk:Kzollman/Archive2

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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);[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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.

Request for Arbitration

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

winning strategy

Hi Kevin,

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Arbitration

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

Alleluia! He is Risen!

Jesus Christ is risen today, Alleluia! Archived 2005-06-19 at the Wayback Machine
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)[reply]

Thanks

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

Thanks...

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

Hp timeline

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

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

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! howch e ng {chat} 18:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Helicobacter and silver staining

Hi Kevin, great work with the list. In some cases, Helicobacter can be detected with regular haematoxylin and eosin (H & E) staining, but it's poorly seen (I think Warren made reference to a "thin blue line" in his Nobel Lecture). However, (1) there can be a paucity of organisms in infected patients and (2) Helicobacter can take a coccoid as opposed to a curved bacillus form, making it difficult to ascertain on regular testing. The gold standard for detection of bacteria before the 70's was Gram staining: Helicobacter does not take up the Gram stain well (technically it is a Gram negative rod) and gastric tissue is not the best medium for Gram staining as it is solid. I think the standard thought was that the shadows seen on routine staining were dead organisms.

The silver stain is classically used with spirochetes (like the pathogens of syphilis and Lyme disease), and (despite earlier descriptions of "spirochete gastritis") it would have been atypical to use it for stomach specimens. Silver stains tend to pick up proteins well, and were associated with neurological tissue and with organisms not usually found in the stomach. The outer membrane of Helicobacter contains proteins that tend to be avid to silver staining. The other thing is that electron microscopy was exploding in the 1970's and I think the striking EM pictures of H.p. began to give early credence to Warren's work. In his Nobel Lecture, Barry Marshall put a slide from Ito's histology textbook up that showed an EM of the stomach with a spiral organism in plain view.

The list is fabulous; I'm sure it will be featured soon. This is a brilliant review that I'm sure you've already seen [1]. Take care -- Samir धर्म 19:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the featured list! I will add therapy and molecular info as I have time tonight. And well done! -- Samir धर्म 00:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for edits

Hi Kzollman, thanks for your edits on Turkish Airlines Flight 1476. I'm not a native english speaker, so your edits are really very helpful on the article. Cheers --Ugur Basak 21:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Chicken (game)

Responded on article talk page, FWIW. (Busy busy busy here, up to my 'pits in work, just sent off grant renewal, the feds doing lab inspection tomorrow, umpteen referee reports behind schedule, students producing data faster than I can keep up with, etc, etc etc. Enjoy Vancouver. Greatest place in the world, too bad there's a whacking huge city there. I had a place on the corner of Burrard & Davie, not only cheap, but the landlord paid back the damage deposit with interest when we moved out. That'll never happen twice in one life). Cheers, Pete.Hurd 05:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I started a replacement article for Chicken (game) at discoordination game...

What do you think of the article Probability-based strategy? I've put my thoughts on the authors's (Catalin Barboianu?) talk page, User talk:Infarom. Stochastic programming seems to have covered all of this long ago. On the other hand, googling turns up a bunch of hits related to gambling strategies. I thought you might know whether this is a notable gambling concept, or puff. Pete.Hurd 07:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll knock up an Afd. PS, Glad you liked Vancouver. My wife & I lived in the back of a '76 GMC suburban for a month one Vancouver winter. FWIW, if I had to be homeless, I'd pick Austin TX over Vancouver if it was the rainy season... Cheers, Pete.Hurd 21:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you have thoughts on this debate about a criterion for "science", I'd be keen to hear. It's been a while since the last time I took an epistemology class. Pete.Hurd 23:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probability-based strategy AfD

Just a note to let you know that I have nominated the article you have edited, or expressed interest in, for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Probability-based strategy Pete.Hurd 05:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use.

~ trialsanderrors 06:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And on a personal note, I'm trying to take your qualifier to heart and show up more at game theory articles. I'd be up for starting a collaboration of the week, I guess mainly between you, Pete and me, since there's nothing much going on at Project game theory. ~ trialsanderrors 06:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure; you certainly deserve them. Not that I'm the best person to ask, but if you have any questions about aforementioned new tools, feel free to ask. I don't use mine all that often :) I'm sorry to see that the project has been inactive, but maybe a collaboration of the week would help get others involved. I also added rankings to the project template in the hopes this might spur discussion for ways to improve some articles (mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Game theory). I could definitely use help rating the articles. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 06:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Gambling userbox

Hi Kzollman, I created code that can be added to your userpage to create a userbox if you wish, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Gambling/Userbox. I used a subpage instead of creating a template to keep away from the userbox debate. Regards, Accurizer 15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holdem.jpg on commons

Hi! I sadly had to request speedy deletion because the picture appears to be copyrighted. See commons:Image:Holdem.jpg. --Con^structor 02:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for this! I answered on my talk page now. --Con^structor 10:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flickr

No problem regarding the comments on that image, I've been involved in the development of a workable (but not perfect) review system for these images on Commons for a while, and now I've initiated a central discussion at Commons:Flickr images (and its talk page). I've publicised this on the central commons pages, and I probably should on some en.wp pages too; but not sure where best to...--Nilf anion (talk) 13:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:02 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Texas Hold'em

Just to say thanks for the appreciation (in the "Possible correction" section of the discussion page). I left something there as well. Please, consider it from the POV of a very amateur player.

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Jon Wefald.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jon Wefald.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 13:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 01:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}[reply]

Peace war game revisited

Noticed these? [2] [3]? Pete.Hurd 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

upon reflection, I'm inclined to ignore, just an inclination, see also Trial's talk page. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 22:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

parodoxes and decision theory

Hey Kevin, I just created a stub at Choquet integral, which is used sometimes to reconcile the Allais paradox and the Ellsberg paradox. I also mentioned the definition of capacity at membership function (mathematics), though I'm not sure that they shouldn't be separated. Right now neither of these articles/sections are all that great, and in order to make them more comprehensible, I'd like to illustrate the Choquet integral article with a derivation of how the concept reconciles one of these two paradoxes. So what I'd like to ask is, which do you think is the better paradox to explain. I'm not sure what I mean by "better"; perhaps I mean more famous, more fundamental, or more in need of reconciliation. Both are equally easy in the sense that both will come right out of class notes/book examples. I know the question sounds a bit ridiculous, but I just figured asking would (a) get someone to look at the new material and help de-orphan it if they could and (b) delay my having to write out the derivation until someone responded. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 04:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Math font?

Hello. I've noticed that you've created a lot of math-related images (for example, in Commons:Category:Game theory). Lately, I've been trying to convert some images into the SVG format, and there are math images among them. However, I've been stumped by the problem of fonts. The default "serif" font doesn't look good in math diagrams, nor does Times New Roman quite satisfy for those capital Rs. So I thought I would ask you what font you use when you construct math images; it seems to be a standard-looking math font, but I can't find it anywhere. Thanks! MithrandirMageT 02:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, LaTeX's default font is Computer Modern. Pete.Hurd 00:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I used to be the same. Until one day, I was reading read something MS word had shat out of some student's printer and asked, "hey whyzzat so fugly?! ... I know! Why isn't the dot in the "i" in "fish" inside the "f"'s curly bit?! Eeewwwwww!". Kerning is the gateway drug to typographical ligature. Next thing you know... typesetting fetishism. One day, you're staring at three periods, sitting there one after another, shaking in a cold sweat, shaking your fist at the page, screaming "You call that an elipsis! What kind of philistine do you take me for!" Pete.Hurd 01:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funniest thing I've read today. --Ideogram 07:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Game tree

perhaps you're right in stating that game trees are used in game theory; however, the current content of the article on game tree has nothing to do with game theory and everything to do with combinatorial game theory (which is NOT a branch of game theory at all!) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.123.93.176 (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, I have restored your changes and made a link to extensive form game. Sorry for the misunderstanding, I had not realized that this article was so limited. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 13:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing Chicken (game)

I am currently reviewing Chicken (game) for GA status. Majoreditor 22:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article passed and has been elevated to GA status. Congratulations and keep up the good work. Majoreditor 23:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold'em

Hi, I see you are still making substantial changes to this article, but when you are satisfied with the content let me know and I will edit it for style. While you are at it, please look at User:Wang C-H and fix any of those common errors you find. Keep up the good work! (watchlisted you) --Ideogram 07:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideogram, I appreciate your help. I disagree with one recommendation, which you are now implementing, regarding fixed image size. Different images ought to be different sizes because they convey different levels of detail. For instance, in the Texas hold'em article the blinds picture should be larger because it has more detailed information while the pictures can be smaller because they do not. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have reached agreement that this one image needs to be larger than the default, while the rest don't need explicit sizes. --Ideogram 20:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note for this exception to the recommendation. --Ideogram 20:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Positive attitude

I don't think the view that people "just need to leave" is helping matters here. I would have agreed if we were talking about a vandal or plain idiot, but this sentiment in my opinion can never apply to seasoned bona fide editors. When they leave, it's because of some problem, and I believe that every problem is solvable. Wikipedia has a number of problems that I can see that I wouldn't like to discuss on-wiki, and probably a number of problems that I can't see. Wikipedia is definitely not an NP-complete problem. This is why shrugging your shoulders in defeatism is so bad. Assuming that you're smart enough, it means that you've either refused to start identifying the problem, or failed to acknowledge that a solution is possible. At worst, it could mean that you just don't care. To give an example of a possible solution to some of the problems, regularly checking the contribs of your wiki-friends, and siding with them on common sense issues would be a start. If all of us do that, this can be a better place. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of living philosophers and academics of philosophy‎

Copied over from my talk page: Thanks for the heads up. Have contributed (again) to the relevant talk page. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 03:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contextualism category?

Hi Kevin, maybe I'm just feeling pissy... would you care to pass the philosophical filter over this for me? Pete.Hurd 18:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (I caught it watchlisting nature versus nurture), Cheers, Pete.Hurd 00:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_July_9#Category:Contextualism Pete.Hurd 19:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of slang terms for poker hands

The debate really wasn't 6/2 - the "transwiki" guys weren't really arguing for deletion, but what's (essentially) keep content, take editorial action. If someone moves the article to Wiktionary, it can be speedied under A5 (as a dicdef). I definitely don't think delete was the actual outcome of the debate - though it could reasonably be labelled transwiki, the result is pretty muddy. In practice, results of transwiki and no consensus in this case don't really make any difference. Or do you disagree? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WilyD (talk • contribs).

The strong consensus was clear. Your closing and advocacy comment was completely inappropriate. The article should be deleted, and there is a plain consensus for that. Setting it up at Wiktionary is not a requirement of that. Now you've created an even worse mess via inappropriate action. 2005 22:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion, it may be worth your time to see how the second AfD plays out - but the most likely outcome is "close - take to DRV" I'd guess (it's certainly the most "policy-y"). My earlier thought that you could transwiki if no one objected and then speedy it might be best forgotten, until we see what comes of further discussion. Cheers, Wily D 04:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help on a redirect

After I did a clean up on an article about poker player Perry Green (poker player).

I did a search for Perry Green so I could then list a disambiguous link to Perry Green (poker player), but instead found that the page is being used as a redirect to Much Hadham in which has a small parish called Perry Green (population 175)

So anybody that were to do a search for the person Perry Green wouldn't be able to find him as it would be silly to add disambiguous link to the poker player to the top of Much Hadham. So I decided that I would page move Perry Green (poker player) to Perry Green, and add a disambiguous link on top to Much Hadham for people trying to find the small parish, but was found I was unable to do so without administrator assistance due to the already existing #redirect page, can you help? thanks ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 18:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, Thank you for the help (at the risk of ignoring my own talk page rules ;) ▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 18:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratings

Hey Kevin, feel free to change ratings, I tried to choose articles I had some, but not too much, knowledge of (too much and I can't jettison my POV-like perspectives). I had a bit of a hard time with the B-class definition, where it says "A casual reader flipping through articles would feel that they generally understood the topic, but a serious student or researcher trying to use the material would have trouble doing so..." I kept thinking that the problem was more likely to be that a serious student would find it totally adequate, but a casual reader would not. I think this is probably true for most articles on technical matters, I donno. Pete.Hurd 18:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few of the Start class seemed to me to be B class, but for the lack/paucity of references... Pete.Hurd 19:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eduard Scharf

Need of help again, Eduard Scharf to Eddy Scharf reason WP:UCN, I'm unable to this move as Eddy Scharf is a redirect page, He is known commonly by Eddy see mob profile & Fulltilt profile for example . Thank you again▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 18:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's taken care of. And, look, this time I'm responding in the right place! ;) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks again :)▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 19:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Thanks Sirex! --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 16:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adding sources to my articles

A while back you put a note on my talk page about adding sources to my articles (see User_talk:Loren_Rosen#Sources for Edmund FitzAlan, 9th Earl of Arundel). I'm back to work after a lengthy wikipedia hiatus, and the first order of business is to catch up on things like this that weren't so much the order of the day back then.

If you're curious the principal sources for that article and the many other english peerage articles I worked on are Burke's Peerage and the Dictionary of National Biography. Generally if I used some other sources I listed them as general references.

Loren Rosen 04:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did I forget this

To **Kzollman** for Timeline of peptic ulcer disease and Helicobacter pylori, which is a brilliant synopsis and a fabulous list. Well done -- Samir 05:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is for the timeline of PUD and Helicobacter pylori -> a fabulous featured list that I use for teaching GI residents regularly. I meant to give it to you ages ago. Take care -- Samir 05:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome and good luck on the dissertation! -- Samir 06:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request comments

I hope you will please check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poker#Tokwiro_Enterprises and offer your view. Thanks. 2005 00:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Edit war

I didn't initiate the edit war. I had several of my contributions reverted. I talked about them on the talk page. I added citations, changed the statements, and they were still getting reverted without cause, so I undid the revert. I also feel that the statement in question was very important to the article, or else I would have just dropped the issue.GusChiggins21 07:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two years in the making...

It's been two years since you welcomed me to the English Wikipedia, and looking back, it's been a long, strange, journey, but I thank you again for welcoming me. Yeah, there's shenanigans, but it's all worth it. Happy Holidays, and peace to you and your family. DodgerOfZion (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]