User talk:Adpete

Hi. Hit the "new section" button to send me a message. Unless there is a delay (say, more than 2 days) in me responding - or unless you request otherwise - I will reply on this page rather than on your talk page. (That way conversations are easier to follow).

/Archive 1 (Dec 05 to Jun 07)

/Archive 2 (Jul 07 to Jun 08)

Comment on Australian elections

From a discussion at Talk:Next Australian federal election, I made a soapbox comment, which is better off here...

I think we're drifting off topic here, and you seem happy to leave my by-election mod in so we're all happy, so there's no point continuing this discussion. EXCEPT that you've brought up a new point which I can't resist replying to... "When was the last time a party was voted out of office federally unconvincingly?" - there's this myth, based on recent history, that when modern Australia votes out a government it'll always be by a large margin. It's a myth propagated by political journalists because it's their job to find cute theories. IMO it's rubbish, extrapolating from the past based on a few odd events. Whitlam got in on a small swing in 1972, so it's only the last 4 changes of governments which have been landslides: 1975, 1983, 1996 and 2007. 1975 was a special case. In the other 3 cases, the swing was magnified by the fact that the government had done better than expected at the previous election (1980, 1993, 2004). In the last two cases (indeed, perhaps all 3), this was because the opposition had a leader the voters couldn't trust. IOW, there wasn't really a big swing in 1996 or 2007 - it only looked like a big swing because of the Anti-Hewson/Anti-Latham vote at the previous election. In reality there was a gradual drift over 6 years, IMHO. The pattern is this: a government gets in, is popular for 4 or so years, then the electorate gradually gets sick of them. One day a Federal government will be unseated narrowly - it's happened lots of times at the State level and there's no reason it cant't happen at the Federal level. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like some WP:OR there! Don't look at the swing but the margin. Whitlam got over 7 percent as a 2pp swing in 69, and 2.5 in 72, to get to 52.70, the same as Rudd, just the seats fell differently. State governments/premiers change quicker than federal, perhaps it's the number of voters involved. Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The point still stands. One day an opposition will get in on a narrow margin. It almost happened in 1969 and 1998. It might have happened in 1993 or 2004 (or 1987 as another example) if the opposition hadn't shot itself in the foot. No seismic shift is required. It's just political journalists extrapolating from events in the past which have other explanations. But yeah, that is all obviously my OR/opinion. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

And the opposition supporters were so (apparently) sure in those close elections that the government would be voted out - but didn't happen. Five times the incumbent government has lost the 2pp but won the seats (IIRC). In 1998 the coalition won on 49.02 by retaining enough seats. In 1949 the opposition gained 51% but a lot of seats. I still maintain opposition wins need to be convincing to throw the govt out, in terms of 2pp. A lot of it I put down to compulsory voting and incumbency - a couple % usually shifts back to the govt at election time. I find it fascinating the number of people who voted Keating in 96, and Howard in 07, and concede likely to vote Rudd next election... IMHO there's a lot more of a swing at each election than the results let on. The only federal election heralding a change of government by a close call was 1913. I'd include 1940 but the government didn't change at the election. Timeshift (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Carr - I was two seconds away from making that change myself. Timeshift (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Chess grandmaster

Hello! You have written: "A consensus was reached that we would only put FIDE (i.e. 1950 and later) grandmasters into Category:Chess grandmasters". Well, would you explain why - for example - Siegbert Tarrasch or Frank Marshall (absent in the FIDE list of grandmasters in 1950) are included into the category? Of course, these players were described as grandmasters by tzar Nicholas II of Russia at St, Petersburg 1914, as well as Tarrasch, Schlechter, Janowski, Marshall, Burn, and Chigorin at Ostend 1907 by the tournament organizers. By the way, the term grandmaster was created there. So, there is not difference among them. Now, an inconsequence is seen here! Mibelz (talk) 11:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tarrasch and Marshall were meant to be deleted from the GM category but weren't, by accident. The tsar story is now widely seen as unhistorical - see the discussion at Talk:Grandmaster (chess)#Grandmasters before 1950 FIDE period. I'm sure a number of editors including me came to the conclusion that we should only include the FIDE GMs, but I must confess that now I can't find the relevant discussion. But I remember the discussion and (more importantly) I think it's only the consistent way to go. The term GM was very arbitrary pre 1950. The term dates at least back to 1838 - see the discussion referenced above. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Further thoughts... maybe there was a lot of discussion at Talk:Grandmaster (chess)#Grandmasters before 1950 FIDE period but the conclusion (to only put FIDE GMs in the category) was in my mind. Anyway, I think the solution is to re-raise the question at Talk:Grandmaster (chess). I don't really care what answer is arrived at, but I'd like it to be a clear-cut one. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, a formal point of view (FIDE GMs) is wrong. In that case, not only Tarrasch and Marshall but also Lasker, Capablanca and Alekhine ought to be delete from Category Chess grandmaster! So, it seems curious. User:Mibelz 18:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Kratochvilova page

I'm a great track and field fan, and it's a shame that in the article about Kratochvilova there are more text talking about doping (she never failed a control), taht about her incredible career.

There are other pages to talk about doping, but the page about her is not the more appropiate place. ¿Is there more text about doping that about his career in the Carl Lewis page? Now we know he was tested positive in the American trials before Seoul 88.

So the facts are:

- She is one of the greatest athletes of all time. - She never failed a test. - She has always claimed she never cheated (why don't believe her? Is wikipedia above laws, above the word of a honest person? - In the article there are more text talking about doping that about her career, when there are pages in the wikipedia talking about doping specifically.

I think these are very solid arguments to allow editting the page.

Thank you.

Jarmila Kratochvílová: I think we need both the allegations and rebuttals, but they need to have WP:Reliable Sources. Since the allegations are unsourced, deleting them is the right thing. But the article would be far better if the allegations (and rebuttals) were in there - with sources. Because there certainly was a lot of speculation over whether she used doping. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

TNIV

Hi, nice to know you are here at Wiki, like your up-front common sense User page. I also liked your edit at TNIV.

Just thought I'd let you know that I'm mildly interested in that page, but only indirectly.

People I respect in America put a lot of pressure on Zondervan and the CBT not to publish the TNIV. I agree with many of their views on translation, but not at all on their politics. Let Americans be Americans is what I'm resigned to—they are giving us Wiki to share, so it can't be all bad. ;)

What I think would be sad is if the TNIV article became too full of "it's so good" and "it's so bad" associated with the gender-neutral language issue. Historically, it was a kind of "test case" between evangelicals on that matter. That probably needs careful neutral treatment, not hidden, but not dominating things. It's just not fair to the TNIV otherwise, it's obviously not the only GN translation, just one run by people sufficiently evangelical to have taken strong criticism with as much grace as possible.

I'm sure you understand the issues here, and the difficulties of managing things in a Wiki context.

Anyway, nice edit from you at that page. Happy editing, and best regards for your chess as well. Alastair Haines (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not too happy with the TNIV page at the moment. I'm a big fan of gender neutral translations, but for balance the criticisms need to be discussed, rather than just a roll call of who does and doesn't like it. But it's a fair bit of work so I've avoided it so far. Anyway, thanks for your nice feedback! Peter Ballard (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha! It's a pleasure to disagree with you about GN translations so courteously, and agree about the importance of presenting arguments rather than head-counts. How "us and them" is the roll call thingy! The issues in the debate are much deeper than a short article can cover. The one good thing about the naming names bit is that it does show that reponsible people disagree on this point. An interesting side issue is that all the names would line up (I think) to retain masculine language for God. That says something important to an outside observer.

I'm glad you are a fan of GN translations, it encourages me to "write for the enemy" in this case and work at a neutral presentation. It's still not a high priority for me to do so at the TNIV, but I might write up some more extended coverage of the broader debate in other locations. If I do so, I'll make a point of seeking you out for feedback on what I produce.

Again cheers, Alastair Haines (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

John Howard, Iraq and the Senate

Ah, it appears I was misinformed. Thanks for clarifying that.

As the untruth was previously mentioned in the discussion, I'm going to just strike the statement instead of withdrawing it to indicate that it is void. Is that acceptably clear?

Carbon Rodney

17:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV

Thank you for your message. In your opinion, is the current article reflective of a NPOV? TemporaryBobDay (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As edited by you - no. Your involvement with the HR Nicholls society should not be removed by you. But I didn't like the old version either: the words "millionaire" and "right-wing" carry POV, in my opinion. Basically, your page needs work, but that is not unusual for the Wikipedia pages of comparatively low-profile politicians. Your page has come to the attention of a few regular editors now, so I suspect it will be substantially cleaned up over the next day or two. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

But he is a millionaire? How is it POV? But I will change right-wing to New Right, as it is what the think tanks are. What they are definately not (and what Bob changed it to) is conservative. The IR think tanks are anything but conservative. Timeshift (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's POV because it's in the lead sentence, as if that is his most notable characteristic. I don't see it in the lead sentence of Malcolm Turnbull or Thérèse Rein, and I doubt it's in the lead sentence of many other rich pollies. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh that's the issue? Fixed. Timeshift (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I did leave a warning. The user continued unabated without trying to communicate about the issue. Note that it was the minimum duration available - takes it to past the end of working hours. Orderinchaos 07:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Deep Blue: section on "Future"

I've tried to figure out if there is some way to accommodate both your and Mschribr's positions; your contributions would be welcome, or else it is difficult for me to establish a consensus. Without this, the best I believe I can do is to revert the uncited changes, which I know you felt still left the article with irrelevant material. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Goldbach's conjecture

If every integer greater than 5 is the sum of three primes, then every even integer greater than 4 must be 2 plus the sum of two primes, so this implies that every even integer greater than 2 is the sum of two primes.

If every even integer greater than 2 is the sum of two primes, then by adding 2 and 3 to each it follows that every integer greater than 5 is the sum of three primes. Hence the two are equivalent. Zander (talk) 02:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"If every integer greater than 5 is the sum of three primes, then every even integer greater than 4 must be 2 plus the sum of two primes" - why should that follow? Isn't that the same as saying that, if Goldbach's weak conjecture is true, then Goldbach's conjecture automatically follows? Peter Ballard (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get it now. Goldbach's original conjecture was for all integers, even and odd. I thought the original conjecture was for odd integers only, i.e. Goldbach's weak conjecture. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Kerr, etc

Good one, Peter! I've a long road ahead, a few books to get, not much time but all the necessary patience to eventually neutralise the trivial POV stuff in this and related articles. An ALP vendetta is a much greater and more intriguing fury than a woman scorned! Cheers Bjenks (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Xu Yuhua

Whatever approach we go for, you move of this page to Xu Yuhua (disambiguation) was confused and completely unnecessary. Even if we do move the chess player back to the main article for this name, there is no need to include a disambiguation page, it should just include a hatnote for the judoka. Do we have a consensus to move the chess player back? PatGallacher (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

See my response at Talk:Xu Yuhua (chess player). Peter Ballard (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Twelve Apostles

Now that I think about it, the link was beside the helicopter rides section - I probably though it was spam for the operator of said rides. Wongm (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I get it. I see it was an honest mistake. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and hope you don't think i'm a sockpuppet

The wikipeda policy pages are unclear because I'm not used to them. I thought there was only one type of delete nomination, but the one I chose made more sense. I only wished to propose the discussion of its deletion. I wanted it to be very mild subtle suggestion, and for anyone for any reason can remove the tag and my specific question was this one...

Is it correct procedure that I don't have to explain anything except that 1 line in the template box? And the person who takes it down must initiate the discussion? I thought that's the way it read, and wanted to make sure I didn't misuse the delete template, since its a very strong template. Sentriclecub (talk) 05:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes the Wikipedia help pages are a dog's breakfast. There are 3 ways, that I know of :), to delete a page: speedy delete (WP:SPEEDY), WP:PROD, and normal delete (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion) after discussion. SPEEDY and PROD are both for uncontroversial deletions, so I'm not entirely sure why WP:PROD exists at all. Chessmetrics has obviously been contested, so the only way to delete it is via the normal delete procedure, and I've no idea why an apparently experienced editor in User:Kainaw wanted to persist with PROD. You're within your rights to request a "normal" delete, but I would oppose the delete and I think the chances of it succeeding are very low. As for the other matters (on the use of Chessmetrics itself), I'll take them up at Talk:Chessmetrics when I have the time. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd really prefer to push it back. I'm glad that it has generated some responses. As a mathematician, I hate certain types of common mistakes (such as sig-figs) and also using ex post facto data to create a formula which predicts that same data, to boost its credibility. I'm extremely OCD about innumeracy which my radar goes off and I hate seeing it here on wikipedia and on the chess websites which I'm a member of. I do have some valid points that I wish to make, but its not some delusion that I think I can initiate and win a discussion to delete the article. I just feel like I'm on a roll, since I helped in a big way, the APR enigma and so many finance articles were in razor close to contradiction. Sentriclecub (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User Kainaw

Hi, Peter. Kainaw is the editor who was uncivil to me at Talk:Chessmetrics and who refused at least twice to read the Moul & Nye ref in the article, the full text of which is available for free. He's since posted another less than civil message on my Talk page. I'm quite prepared to go for an RFC - I've seen enough posts at the Village Pump that dismiss WP:WQA as ineffective. This isn't just personal, you may know that I've had one hotter dispute without going to formal dispute procedures. Have a look at this diff and draw your own conclusions. You supported my demand for an apology at Talk:Chessmetrics, and I'd have to mention that in an RFC. It would therefore be unreasonable for me to go ahead without your consent. What do you think? -- Philcha (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it's better to just ignore him, but I'm also happy for you to quote my support for you.

On the issue of your "this diff", i.e. the original request for support by User:Sentriclecub... I don't think there's anything sinister there. I'm assuming Sentriclecub is a good faith editor, so I'm taking him at his word - that he was just looking for advice from an experienced user. Unfortunately, Kainaw has not been helpful. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

You didn't wonder about the agenda then? -- Philcha (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)