If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page (so the question and answer are together). I ALWAYS watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a while. If you leave me a message, I'll respond here unless you ask me not to.

Archives: 2009 • 2008 • 2007 • 2006 • 2005 • 2004

Contents 1 Listify category based on activity levels 2 About my "Re-verification" section in the "Japan mergers/dissolutions" article 3 Query concerning bot updates of Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2009 4 Re: 5 Monty Hall reference section 6 Re: Monty Hall reference section 7 Sean Salazar 8 Sean Salazar 9 edit conflict at Monty Hall talk page 10 MHP 11 Sympathy

[edit] Listify category based on activity levels

Hi Rick,

You may remember me from such threads as Wikipedia talk:List of administrator hopefuls. I was wondering if you could create a similar list for Category:WikiProject Video games members?

It should reside at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Members and break it down as follows:

• Users with at least 30 edits in the last 2 months
• Users with fewer than 30 edits in the last 2 months
• Users with no edits in the last 2 months

Updated at your convenience? (Maybe fortnightly or monthly) Thanks! –xeno^talk 14:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Xeno, I'd be happy to make the source available for the bot that updates WP:LA and WP:HOPEFUL, but I think I'd rather not add this task to it. It determines a user's activity level by doing a special:contributions and limits the query rate, so doing this takes a fair amount of clock time. I'm not sure I see the value of maintaining activity status of a more or less random WikiProject (if this one, then why not all of them?). In any event, if you're interested in the source just let me know (it's basically a unix shell script using awk for text processing and meta:pyWikipediaBot and mw:api for interacting with en.wikipedia). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you perhaps do a one-time run? The reason is because of a recent thread that wants to find out what the "biggest wikiproject" was, and WP VG was put up as a possibility, but our membership list includes inactive members. Else, just send it over to xenowiki at gmail.com and I'll try to figure it out. (I can use pywikipediabot but I haven't used any *nix since my teens =) –xeno^talk 23:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I really can't spare the time at the moment (real world has been quite intrusive lately). The main script for WP:HOPEFUL is at User:Rick_Bot/scripts/gethopefuls. It uses User:Rick_Bot/scripts/listcat. If all you want is an activity list it would take some ripping and hacking, but those two scripts would be a good start. You wouldn't even need a bot account to run them (just a machine that can run bash - I run them on a Mac, no guarantee they'd run unmodified on any particular flavor of Linux). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll take a look and see what I can do. –xeno^talk 04:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] About my "Re-verification" section in the "Japan mergers/dissolutions" article

Prior to March 31, 1999, there were the following numbers:

1. - Tōhoku - 67 districts; 400 municipalities (63 cities, 252 towns and 85 villages)

• 1.1 - Akita - 9 districts; 69 municipalities (9 cities, 50 towns and 10 villages)
• 1.2 - Aomori - 8 districts; 67 municipalities (8 cities, 34 towns and 25 villages)
• 1.3 - Fukushima - 14 districts; 90 municipalities (10 cities, 52 towns and 28 villages)
• 1.4 - Iwate - 12 districts; 59 municipalities (13 cities, 30 towns and 16 villages)
• 1.5 - Miyagi - 15 districts; 71 municipalities (10 cities, 59 towns and 2 villages)
• 1.6 - Yamagata - 9 districts; 44 municipalities (13 cities, 27 towns and 4 villages)

2. - Kantō - 64 districts; 453 municipalities (163 cities, 220 towns and 70 villages)

• 2.1 - Chiba - 10 districts; 80 municipalities (31 cities, 44 towns and 5 villages)
• 2.2 - Gunma - 12 districts; 70 municipalities (11 cities, 33 towns and 26 villages)
• 2.3 - Ibaraki - 14 districts; 85 municipalities (20 cities, 48 towns and 17 villages)
• 2.4 - Kanagawa - 7 districts; 37 municipalities (19 cities, 17 towns and 1 village)
• 2.5 - Saitama - 9 districts; 92 municipalities (43 cities, 38 towns and 11 villages)
• 2.6 - Tochigi - 7 districts; 49 municipalities (12 cities, 35 towns and 2 villages)
• 2.7 - Tokyo - 5 districts; 40 municipalities (27 cities, 5 towns and 8 villages)

3. - Chūbu - 110 districts; 668 municipalities (134 cities, 348 towns and 186 villages)

• 3.1 - Aichi - 16 districts; 88 municipalities (31 cities, 47 towns and 10 villages)
• 3.2 - Fukui - 10 districts; 35 municipalities (7 cities, 22 towns and 6 villages)
• 3.3 - Gifu - 17 districts; 99 municipalities (14 cities, 55 towns and 30 villages)
• 3.4 - Ishikawa - 8 districts; 41 municipalities (8 cities, 27 towns and 6 villages)
• 3.5 - Nagano - 16 districts; 120 municipalities (17 cities, 36 towns and 67 villages)
• 3.6 - Niigata - 16 districts; 112 municipalities (20 cities, 57 towns and 35 villages)
• 3.7 - Shizuoka - 12 districts; 74 municipalities (21 cities, 49 towns and 4 villages)
• 3.8 - Toyama - 7 districts; 35 municipalities (9 cities, 18 towns and 8 villages)
• 3.9 - Yamanashi - 8 districts; 64 municipalities (7 cities, 37 towns and 20 villages)

4. - Kansai - 78 districts; 395 municipalities (103 cities, 256 towns and 36 villages)

• 4.1 - Hyōgo - 20 districts; 91 municipalities (21 cities, 70 towns and 0 villages)
• 4.2 - Kyoto - 12 districts; 44 municipalities (12 cities, 31 towns and 1 village)
• 4.3 - Mie - 14 districts; 69 municipalities (13 cities, 47 towns and 9 villages)
• 4.4 - Nara - 8 districts; 47 municipalities (10 cities, 20 towns and 17 villages)
• 4.5 - Osaka - 5 districts; 44 municipalities (33 cities, 10 towns and 1 village)
• 4.6 - Shiga - 12 districts; 50 municipalities (7 cities, 42 towns and 1 village)
• 4.7 - Wakayama - 7 districts; 50 municipalities (7 cities, 36 towns and 7 villages)

5. - Chūgoku - 62 districts; 318 municipalities (49 cities, 232 towns and 37 villages)

• 5.1 - Hiroshima - 15 districts; 86 municipalities (13 cities, 67 towns and 6 villages)
• 5.2 - Okayama - 18 districts; 78 municipalities (10 cities, 56 towns and 12 villages)
• 5.3 - Shimane - 12 districts; 59 municipalities (8 cities, 41 towns and 10 villages)
• 5.4 - Tottori - 6 districts; 39 municipalities (4 cities, 31 towns and 4 villages)
• 5.5 - Yamaguchi - 11 districts; 56 municipalities (14 cities, 37 towns and 5 villages)

6. - Shikoku - 35 districts; 216 municipalities (30 cities, 145 towns and 41 villages)

• 6.1 - Ehime - 11 districts; 70 municipalities (12 cities, 44 towns and 14 villages)
• 6.2 - Kagawa - 7 districts; 43 municipalities (5 cities, 38 towns and 0 villages)
• 6.3 - Kōchi - 7 districts; 53 municipalities (9 cities, 25 towns and 19 villages)
• 6.4 - Tokushima - 10 districts; 50 municipalities (4 cities, 38 towns and 8 villages)

7. - Kyūshū - 82 districts; 570 municipalities (94 cities, 387 towns and 89 villages)

• 7.1 - Fukuoka - 17 districts; 97 municipalities (24 cities, 65 towns and 8 villages)
• 7.2 - Kagoshima - 12 districts; 96 municipalities (14 cities, 73 towns and 9 villages)
• 7.3 - Kumamoto - 11 districts; 94 municipalities (11 cities, 62 towns and 21 villages)
• 7.4 - Miyazaki - 8 districts; 44 municipalities (9 cities, 28 towns and 7 villages)
• 7.5 - Nagasaki - 9 districts; 79 municipalities (8 cities, 70 towns and 1 village)
• 7.6 - Ōita - 12 districts; 58 municipalities (11 cities, 36 towns and 11 villages)
• 7.7 - Saga - 8 districts; 49 municipalities (7 cities, 37 towns and 5 villages)
• 7.8 - Okinawa - 5 districts; 53 municipalities (10 cities, 16 towns and 27 villages)

8. - Hokkaidō - 70 districts; 212 municipalities (34 cities, 154 towns and 24 villages)

• 8.1 - Abashiri - 4 districts; 26 municipalities (3 cities, 20 towns and 3 villages)
• 8.2 - Hidaka - 7 districts; 9 municipalities (0 cities, 9 towns and 0 villages)
• 8.3 - Hiyama - 5 districts; 10 municipalities (0 cities, 10 towns and 0 villages)
• 8.4 - Iburi - 4 districts; 15 municipalities (4 cities, 9 towns and 2 villages)
• 8.5 - Ishikari - 3 districts; 10 municipalities (6 cities, 1 town and 3 villages)
• 8.6 - Kamikawa - 5 districts; 24 municipalities (4 cities, 18 towns and 2 villages)
• 8.7 - Kushiro - 5 districts; 10 municipalities (1 city, 8 towns and 1 village)
• 8.8 - Nemuro - 3 districts; 5 municipalities (1 city, 4 towns and 0 villages)
• 8.9 - Ōshima - 5 districts; 17 municipalities (1 city, 15 towns and 1 village)
• 8.10 - Rumoi - 4 districts; 9 municipalities (1 city, 7 towns and 1 village)
• 8.11 - Shiribeshi - 9 districts; 20 municipalities (1 city, 13 towns and 6 villages)
• 8.12 - Sorachi - 4 districts; 27 municipalities (10 cities, 16 towns and 1 village)
• 8.13 - Sōya - 5 districts; 10 municipalities (1 city, 8 towns and 1 village)
• 8.14 - Tokachi - 7 districts; 20 municipalities (1 city, 16 towns and 3 villages)

Hey Rick, the numbers I put were found on this document, which is in PDF format:

• The Development of Municipal Mergers in Japan

The part of the problem is on page 20 entitled "Table 6 - The Progress of Mergers according to each Prefecture", which has the data that I posted earlier. But can't find those municipalities that were between April 1, 1999 and March 31, 2004. Hope that answers for you. jlog3000 (talk) 21:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you're asking. What I've been working on (not actively for a while) is described at Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Gappei. I'm less interested in the historical numbers than accurate current data. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that you suggest me to ask or tell about my issue in Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan/Gappei. But did you at least check out the link I've posted before you replied? jlog3000 (talk) 22:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying I don't understand what your question is. Is there something you want me to do? Is there a problem with some article that you'd like me to look at (if so, which article)? I have looked at the link you posted. What is your point? -- Rick Block (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Query concerning bot updates of Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2009

Wikipedia:Featured articles promoted in 2009 seems to be missing quite a few articles from Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2009. Any technical or obvious reason for this I'm missing? Just wondering, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 00:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Assuming these are all recently promoted articles, the issue is that articles are only added when I run the bot manually assisted (it also runs fully automated, but doesn't do this task then). I haven't done this for nearly a week, but will some time in the next 24 hours. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Should be up to date now. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

That's correct. Sorry for any confusion! Cheers, iMatthew ^talk at 02:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Monty Hall reference section

Hi Rick, you undid revision 318535828 by David Callan citing: Reference section is for cited references. Pure research articles are often limited to cited references, but what's the rationale in general survey articles? What's the objection to a comprehensive bibliography?

The Callan ref in question is clearly relevant to the Monty Hall problem and likely to be of interest to anyone making a detailed study of the problem. How can I make it available to readers of the article?

David Callan (talk) 04:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Detailed response at user talk:David Callan#About references vs. further reading, and welcome. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Monty Hall reference section

Hi Rick, your points are well taken, but it is hardly fair to say the item "appears to be at best self-published". It appeared in College Mathematics Journal, a respectable math journal where all contributions to the Problems and Solutions section are, of course, refereed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Callan (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake (sorry) - I was looking at the online link which points to what appears to be your homepage at wisc.edu. BTW - both Barbeau references in the article are basically literature surveys. There's a fairly recent book as well, The Monty Hall Problem: The Remarkable Story of Math's Most Contentious Brain Teaser by Jason Rosenhouse. This book (and others) should probably be mentioned in the history section. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Salazar

Hello Rick, My name is Rubi Romero and I am a campaign volunteer for Sean Salazar, I would like to ask you why did you delete the information I added to Sean's information. I have Sean's full permission to use his bio information from his web page.

Thank you,

Rubi Romero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.103.74 (talk) 00:52, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sean Salazar

Hello Rick, thank you for your response. I have written my own version of Sean Salazar's Bio and also providing the references where I got the information from (mostly from his website/Bio), but I also used other sources as well. I just want to make sure that I did it right this time. I also moved the page from Sean Salazar to Dr. Sean Salazar U.S. Senate Candidate 2010, Washington State.

I don't know if you have can access to it, but if you can, please check to see if it's okay and if it is can you direct me to where can I get information on how to publish it (as Wikipedia has changed). My e-mail is rubiromero.7@gmail.com

Thank you,

Rubi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rubiromero (talk • contribs) 06:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] edit conflict at Monty Hall talk page

I have refactored. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

On reflection, I think that this was a mistake on my part since my proposal was intended to be a way forward acceptable to glkanter and Jeff rather than an alternative suggestion. It gives more detail on how the article might be structured. I have asked Jeff and glkanter to comment accordingly. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] MHP

It seems the discussion is going to continue as unproductive as it has been for years or to freely translate a term the Germsn Wikipedia uses to tag such discussion - it is a "infinitely boring discussion" ("unendlich öde Diskussion"). For that reason my time is better spend elsewhere in Wikipedia, So i probably will drop out of the discussion soon. However if you need urgent help to avoid total nonsense creeping into the article, feel free to notify me (again). Regards and keep up the good work, --Kmhkmh (talk) 17:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm filing a mediation request naming you as one of the interested parties. Are you OK with that? And, BTW, danke. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I can be around be around for that. However if the mediation itself turns into a neverending story I'd probably opt out. As far as the mediation is concerned the thing we can "give" Martin without compromising the article are imho: An article lead without Morgan and featuring the unconditional solution (carefully phrased) as an appropriate solution (with a symmetry assumption or as a reasonable heuristic) without an direct criticism in that section and morgan in a separate section. What he cannot have however is having Morgan or his criticism removed from the article (i.e. order or placement is negotionable but not content). Also framing the conditional solution as different problem or a mere variation of the "real" problem is something he cannot have either. Nor can the article in anyway define the "real" via simple editorial consent (rather than resources). regards--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sympathy

You have my sympathy, but I'm afraid that I'm deadly busy at work over the next month or so, and any time I spend on Wikipedia I probably oughtn't. I doubt that I could approach the situation with the care and patience demanded. Best wishes, and good luck to you. I don't know how you've stuck with that article for so long. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

In the short term (before the MedCab gets up to speed, if ever) about the only thing that you probably can do is seek the informal assistance of another admin. Unfortunately, what you'll probably find is that there will be complaints that you've just brought in another teammate for 'your' side. It's a bit of a lose-lose situation, but I can't see what else you could try, short of giving up on the article outright. Ideally you'd be able to find a mutually agreed-upon admin who is respected (or at least tolerated) by most of the participants. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)