|
User_talk:Gill110951/Archive 1 (November 2006 to December 2010).
User_talk:Gill110951/Archive 2 (December 2010 to February, 2011)
User_talk:Gill110951/Archive 3 (February 2011 to July, 2011)
User_talk:Gill110951/Archive 4 (July 2011 to November, 2011)
I wrote, at the suggestion of a fellow editor, during the Monty Hall Problem wars, a little essay on notation in probability theory: [1]. This could be useful for Two Envelope Problem editors, too. Richard Gill ( talk) 11:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Let A and B denote random variables whose joint probability distribution encapsulates our uncertainty as to the actual amounts a and b in the two envelopes. I do not need assume here that A is half or twice B. I just assume that A and B are always different and that their distribution is symmetric under exchange. The following facts can therefore be used for two envelopes (all symmetric versions), two neckties, two-sided cards; with or without subjective probability, with or without finite expectations. The derivation is elementary. The results are not surprising. The point is that they are general results. Many solutions take a particular prior distribution by way of example and show that certain of these facts are true. That is a bit unsatisfactory because it doesn't prove that the results always have to be true, hence leaves a doubt in the mind of the reader. For example, this is why Martin Gardner felt that neither Kraithchik's problem nor TEP were properly solved at the time when he wrote about them. He had only seen particular examples but this does not prove that what we see in those examples always has to be true.
Theorem
Proof
(1) is obvious (symmetry!)
(2) proof by contradiction with (1). If E(B|A) > A then E(B)>E(A) or both are infinite or undefined.
(3) proof by symmetry of "stochastic independence" between r.v. A and event { A < B }. Because if P(A < B|A=a)=1/2 for all a, then the event { A < B } is independent of the random variable A. Now replace A and B by A' = g(A), B' =g(B) where g is a strictly increasing function from the real line into a bounded interval of the real line (for instance, the arc tangent function). All the assumptions we made about A and B also hold for the transformed versions, but now we can be certain that expectation values are finite. From now on, I drop the "prime" and just write A and B for these transformed versions. Consider the trivial inequality E(A-B|A-B > 0) > 0. By finite expectation values, this can be rewritten as E(A|A > B) > E(B|A > B) = E(A|B > A) where the last equality uses symmetry. This inequality shows that A is statistically dependent on the event { A > B }, hence the event { A > B } is statistically dependent on the random variable A. Transforming back to the original variables this remains true.
Corollary (an exercise for connoisseurs/students of probability theory). Let g be a strictly increasing function and let A' = g(A), B' =g(B). Then the theorem also applies to the pair A' and B' . Extend to not necessarily strictly increasing g by approximating by strict and going to the limit (strict inequalities need no longer be strict in the limit). We find
These facts take care of the main variants of the two envelopes problem as well as all its predecessors two neckties, two-sided cards. The only way to escape the facts is to assume improper distributions. But they are ... improper. In fact, they are: ludicrous, according to Schrödinger, Littlewood, Falk, and just about everyone.
I have also posted this proof on my university home page, [2] Richard Gill ( talk) 14:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to see an interesting TEP like paradox when we cannot give a numerical utility to the two objects we must compare. I don't see anything interesting I can do in that direction. Maybe sometime you'll provide us with inspiration.
The derivation of (4) does not require finite expectations. And it follows that for any strictly increasing g such that Eg(A) is finite, we have all these results for g(A) and g(B). The application to bounded utility is immediate. Richard Gill ( talk) 10:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
So you say that these results are easier to apply in real cases than you unified solution? You never managed to show how to apply that in a single case. Instead you started to talk about utility theory and fundamental problems with infinity in real cases. Your theorem was never put to use. I'm glad that you say that these results are much easier to apply. Please show how to apply this in practice. Pick your favorite case.
You still haven't responded to the fish soup situation. Will you pick the other hidden dish or will you stick with the fish soup? This situation isn't symmetric as you already know what one of the dishes are. Your utility for the fish soup is some number X. The expected utility for the other dish is larger than X. What will you do and why? iNic ( talk) 13:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Richard, please have a look there. – I know, it's not your style, it's just mine. Nevertheless: is it correct or is it wrong? Regards, Gerhardvalentin ( talk) 21:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am unable to undelete this page, as I am not admin - I wanted to help and responded that was never deleted. Talk/Two Envelopes Problem/sources was never deleted. Talk:Two envelopes problem/sources was deleted and it is possible to undelete it. Bulwersator ( talk) 07:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Gill110951. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
I think you could seriously accelerate the end of the Bell's Theorem discussion by avoiding comments that refer to J. Christian as a person, and focusing on WP:Fringe as a policy. The more you talk about the researcher, the more upset they become and the longer the discussion. This issue can be resolved by WP:CON if you stop personal comments. And I do not think there is a legal issue yet, but if you continue those personal comments, those overtones will in the end appear. So it is best to avoid personal comments and focus on content and policy. History2007 ( talk) 08:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, I had the impression that Thomas Ray might be susceptible to mathematical arguments. He also remains polite and good humoured during heated scientific debate, in contrast to some others...
I don't like to see good people making fools of themselves. And talent being wasted. A lot of people in the quantum foundations community are really sorry for the predicament Joy has got himself into. He's widely thought to be a nice guy and he's certainly very intelligent and has many talents. But he does not take easily to criticism.
Bell's theorem is a really important topic. Very hard to get across to laypersons. It used to be squaring the circle, and perpetual motion machines, but nowadays Bell' theorem get's attention; intelligent independent minded people get fascinated and get convinced there's something wrong there. That means we scientists are not communicating well enough what it's about. A real challenge for Wikipedia. Richard Gill ( talk)
This is how I explain the mathematical core of Bell's theorem to teenagers:
Consider 4N runs of a Bell-Aspect-Weihs delayed choice CHSH type experiment. Suppose that Nature is such that in each run, binary outcomes A, A', B, B' (each +/-1) can be thought to all exist alongside one another, but that only one of A and A', and only one of B and B' are actually observed - the choices being made by independent fair coin tosses, independent of the physical processes generating the 4N realizations of the four binary variables A, A', B, B'
i.e. suppose we assume counterfactual definiteness (aka realism), locality (aka relativistic local causality), and freedom (from superdeterminsim) (aka no conspiracy).
It's easy to see that AB+AB'+A'B-A'B'=A(B+B')+A'(B-B')= +/-2 in each run. (B and B' are either different or they're equal ...)
It follows from taking averages over the 4N runs, that ave(AB)+ave(AB')+ave(A'B)-ave(A'B') lies between -2 and +2.
Finally: if N is very large, the average of AB over the runs where A and B are both observed (that's about N out of the 4N, and they're selected completely at random) will be very close to the average of AB over all 4N runs; and similarly for AB', A'B, A'B'.
If this last point is doubted, one can put numbers to "how close, with what probability" using Hoeffding's inequality for tails of the binomial distribution and of the hypergeometric distribution. It turns out that the probability that CHSH is violated by more than some amount delta is less than C exp( - D N delta^2) for certain positive constants C and D. To be precise, C = 8 and D = 1/64 will do, if we restrict delta to the interval (0,2).
The point is, everything here is discrete, finite, including the probability, which is really a counting argument, going through the 2^8N equally likely sets of different outcomes of the 8N independent fair coin tosses. Richard Gill ( talk) 11:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Richard, please can you have a look to what I wrote today 11 August there? Can you help with refs? Will you sign my RfC also, or do you have some other proposal? Kind regards, Gerhardvalentin ( talk) 13:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:
Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I took a quick look at your paper http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/essential_MHP.pdf , which someone mentioned in the RfC. I haven't had a chance to digest it yet. But I wonder if you could point me to one thing.
You say in the abstract that your approach is based on the minimax notion from game theory. But in that case it seems to me that your (the player's) odds are always 1/3, and your optimal strategy is never to switch. Rationale: Monty, your opponent, can always limit your odds to 1/3 by the very simple strategy of never offering you a choice. However, an equally good strategy for Monty, against a perfect opponent (and a better one, against an imperfect opponent) is to offer you a choice exactly when you've already chosen the car. Clearly, any strategy in which he offers you a choice when you have not picked the car is inferior for Monty.
Since Monty cannot do better, against perfect opposition, than 1/3, you should assume he is playing one of the strategies with value 1/3, which are all ones in which he never offers you a choice unless you have already picked the car. Therefore, if he offers you a choice, you have already picked the car, and must not switch.
Can you point me to where your assumptions differ from mine, or point out a flaw in the argument? -- Trovatore ( talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Gill, I like your recent comments on MHP talk (and support you there). But I bother that you also add your comments to the "Comments from Nijdam" section. Only Nijdam is allowed to write there. You know, "The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages..." We need you alive here! :-) Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi - Just so you're sure not to miss it, Martin has addressed a question to you [3]. Please respond there. -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
|
The Cleanup Barnstar | |
I am astonished by how much the
Two_envelopes_problem article has improved. Many mystifying or just wrong points have been removed by your edits, and clear resolutions have been put in their place.
Well done on diligently working through the issues, and thank you! Dilaudid ( talk) 09:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC) |
I vaguely recall you saying that your preferred solution is: The best strategy is to pick randomly and switch, giving you 2/3 overall chances of winning which can't be improved, I can't say anything about conditional probabilities, that's all. Is that accurate? If so, I am curious: How do you justify that view?
It seems to me that you are using game theory for this, essentially assuming that you're playing against a good opponent, and seek the best strategy against him. "Good opponent" means that nobody should be able to do better against you on average than he. But once you assume that and play the optimal strategy yourself, you have all the conditional probabilities you could ever want! How can you consistently claim not to have those? The justification for your strategy is that if you played otherwise your opponent would exploit it (if he won't, you can generally do better); or alternatively, that he might or might not exploit it (can't say) so you assume the worst (i.e. you assume he's good!). Any which way, you end up assuming a good opponent, don't you?
You could argue that you are only assuming the part of the result of such an analysis that you actually use: your own strategy. But if you do that, you have turned the result of a well-motivated analysis into an unmotivated, arbitrary assumption. Moving forward regardless, assuming "pick randomly, switch" to be optimal is equivalent to assuming the car is placed randomly. Of these two assumptions, the latter one is by far the more interesting one to make at the outset for basic MHP purposes, and once you do that, you get the Morgan 1/(1+q) solution, which you dislike.
Consequently, if you see MHP as a game theory problem, don't you end up getting a well-defined answer to the (conditional) probability of winning question as well? :) -- Coffee2theorems ( talk) 15:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Editor TotalClearance came up with the following solution to MHP. Suppose the goats are numbered Goat 1, Goat 2, and the host has a preference to reveal Goat 1. Suppose the three objects (Car, Goat 1, Goat 2) are equally likely to be arranged in any of their six permutations behind the three doors. Then we can set up a table of six equally likely possibilities as follows:
Original table as modified by Richard.
behind door 1 | behind door 2 | behind door 3 | opened door | result if staying at door #1 | result if switching to the door offered |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Car | Goat 1 | Goat 2 | 2 (to show Goat 1) | Car | Goat 2 |
Goat 1 | Car | Goat 2 | 3 (forced) | Goat 1 | Car |
Goat 1 | Goat 2 | Car | 2 (forced) | Goat 1 | Car |
Car | Goat 2 | Goat 1 | 3 (to show Goat 1) | Car | Goat 2 |
Goat 2 | Car | Goat 1 | 3 (forced) | Goat 2 | Car |
Goat 2 | Goat 1 | Car | 2 (forced) | Goat 2 | Car |
Switching gives the car in four out of the six cases. On those occasions when the host opened door 3, switching gives the car in two out of three cases. Richard Gill ( talk) 08:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
behind door 1 | behind door 2 | behind door 3 | opened door | result if staying at door #1 | result if switching to the door offered |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Car | Goat | Goat | 2 | Car | Goat |
Goat | Car | Goat | 3 | Goat | Car |
Goat | Goat | Car | 2 | Goat | Car |
Car | Goat | Goat | 3 | Car | Goat |
Goat | Car | Goat | 3 | Goat | Car |
Goat | Goat | Car | 2 | Goat | Car |
-- TotalClearance ( talk) 13:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monty Hall problem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayesian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Richard, I am sorry for the remarks about your complicating things on the MHP talk page. I completely misread what you wrote, somehow seeing it as saying that the presence of car next to a goat might make that goat more likely to open a door by affecting the goat in some way. When I read what you wrote again it is perfectly clear and correct. I was trying to create a case where a goat was revealed behind an unchosen door with certainty and the car was never revealed but I failed to do this properly. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Richard, I was surprised to read your comment, 'If we realise this in advance then the combining doors argument is completely justified'. The real problem with the 'combing doors' solution is that it gives the same (and now wrong) answer for the case where the host reveals a goat by chance. This is a fundamental part of the problem, mentioned by vS right at the start and many others since. It is far more important to show why it matters that the host knows where the car is than to fuss about door numbers. Am I really the only person ever to have noticed this?
Martin Hogbin ( talk) 14:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Luckily, I took your advice about Bayes' rule. Ignoring door numbers, this provides a trivial proof that the 'combining doors' solution is justified, and intuitively shows how why the answer changes when the host reveals a goat by chance. Rumiton seemed to be finally convinced by this argument.
Bayes' rule also provides a simple and intuitive fix for the 'combining doors' solution when door numbers are considered significant. Do you agree? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 13:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You probably have something interesting to say about the role of statistics in law. :) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi - Can you please comment in this thread, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monty_Hall_problem/Arguments#The_doors_are_not_necessary? Perhaps Martin might listen to you (he clearly isn't listening to me). -- Rick Block ( talk) 05:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to point out that recent edits you made to Bertrand's Box Paradox are resulting in a parse error. I get this error in both Chrome Version 26.0.1410.64 m and Explorer 8.0.7601. Are you seeing this error?
Note that the formatting error does not occur in earlier versions, starting with: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bertrand%27s_box_paradox&oldid=551101605
The change you made on 01:58, 19 April 2013 seems to have introduced the problem.
-- Coastside ( talk) 21:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI I stubbed Steve Gull. Glrx ( talk) 21:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Professor Gill, thanks to you and Professor Gull for posting the sketch proof regarding Bell's theorem. ( [4]) To help in understanding it, I've attempted to restate it as follows:
(1) A deterministic computer program that is intended to duplicate the results of QM implies the existence of a function p1(polarizer angle, trial number).
(2) QM implies that the probability p2 of correlation of measurements of polarizations made with polarizers set at two different angles equals 1/4(1 - cos(difference in angles)).
(3) The functions p1 and p2 must be equal if the program is to duplicate the results of QM.
(4) The Fourier transform of p1 in the trial number domain will be an infinite series of randomly varying 1's and 0's.
(5) The Fourier transform of p2 has only three non-zero components.
Conclusion: The Fourier transforms are not equal, so there is no such program that can duplicate the results of QM.
Is this an accurate restatement of the proof? If so, why is (3) above true? J-Wiki ( talk) 20:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit more complicated and actually I think Steve Gull has missed something, which is important, but fortunately can be fixed.
Consider one run. The detectors have to give identical outcomes when set to the same angles. So the information sent from the source to each detector must be a definite instruction, for each detector setting theta, to give an outcome +1 or -1. The instruction must be the same for both detectors. Let me denote the instruction by a function f(theta), theta in [0,2pi], taking values in {-1,+1}. Suppose now, in one run, Alice uses angle theta and Bob uses angle theta+delta, where theta is chosen uniformly between zero and 2pi. The correlation between Alice and Bobs' outcomes is rho(delta_ = int_0^2pi f(theta)f(theta+delta) d theta / 2 pi. Here I am thinking of the instruction function f being defined for angles outside 0,2pi by extending it periodically.
The formula for rho says that the correlation function rho is the convolution of the functions f and g where g is f mirrored about zero (g(x)=f(-x). The Fourier transform of a mirrored function is the complex conjugate of the original function, and the Fourier transform of a convolution is a product. Therefore FT(rho)=|FT(f)|^2 in other words, the Fourier coefficients of rho are the squares of the absolute values of f.
So you see I think that Steve did not quite tell us everything: he is adding a random rotation between 0 and 2 pi before defining correlations. But it is legitimate since the computer programs could be use to simulate this experiment.
His computer program would actually create a possibly different function f in each run. The observed correlation would be the average of the correlation observed in many runs. We should now think of the function f as being a random function. But still, each realization f has a Fourier transform, and the Fourier transfrom of rho is the average of the Fourier transforms for each f. The so-many'th Fourier coefficient of rho must be the average of the absolute value squared of the same coefficient of f.
Again there is a conceptual step missing in Steve's outline: different instruction functions f in each run of the experiment. The computer program would use a random generator to make a different f each time.
I've written to Steve with these comments. Richard Gill ( talk) 05:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Bell.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Thank you for your exceptional work on Bell's Theorem, for your effort as a specialist when the article was in need of expert attention! The encyclopedia received a great benefit through your contribution. Thank you for taking the time to discuss with other editors, ask for advice and listen their concerns! This makes you an example for the community.
Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place to be! Alma ( talk) 20:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC) |
In this article, seems like you meant instead of . wolfRAMM 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
A case ( Monty Hall problem) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 21:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Done
Giant
Snowman
10:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate your expertise in Wikiversity:Bell's theorem. There is an algebraic error and copy edits, but I can handle that stuff myself. I am interested in your probabilistic symbolic methods. Bell's theorem is a labor of love for me but I need to set it aside for a few weeks. May I ask you some questions when I find time to work on this again? -- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 23:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello mr Gill. Nijkamp's miss Kourtit is in my mailbox, asking for help with demanding action on
VU_University_Amsterdam#Scientific_misconduct. I'm not that easily persuaded, but I found both the phrasing biased and the sources insufficient. Since I know you have some knowledge on the matter (I reverted Nijkamp's article back to your version), might I ask you to have a look? Thanks, regards,
Sander1453 (
talk)
21:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The Polish link shows that Kourtit's thesis was submitted to defence at Poznan University last year. According to Google Translate it contains
82. Resolution No. 82-2013 / 2014 of the Faculty of Geography and Geology University. Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan on 23 September 2014 years to initiate Mrs Karima Kourtit of a doctorate in sciences natural sciences about the Earth, in terms of geography, to appoint promoter and doctoral examinations
83. Resolution No. 83-2013 / 2014 of the Faculty of Geography and Geology University. Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan on 23 September 2014 years the presentation of the doctoral thesis Ms Karima Kourtit and conduct public defense of the doctoral dissertation in English
There is a second document at Poznan, namely the evaluation report of a member of the PhD committee (in English) https://wngig.amu.edu.pl/strona-glowna/wngig/stopnie-i-tytuly/doktoraty https://wngig.amu.edu.pl/strona-glowna/wngig/stopnie-i-tytuly/doktoraty?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkZkemllZ2VvLXd3dy5ob21lLmFtdS5lZHUucGwlMkZ3d3clMkYwMV9TdHJvbmFfZ2xvd25hJTJGMDlfU1RPUE5JRV9JX1RZVFVMWSUyRkRva3RvcmF0eSUyRkthcmltYUtvdXJ0aXRyZWNlbnpqYTIucGRmJmFsbD0x Richard Gill ( talk) 07:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I was writing a draft for a Wikipedia article when the dean requested that I attempt to publish a paper. I have tenure and feel that my Wikimedia efforts have higher long-term value, but decided to humor him by submitting the draft to AJP. Let me know if you do not wish me to acknowledge you in the article I plan to submit soon (your contribution was to point out that probability is much easier to calculate than correlation in Bell's inequality). The draft is at User:Guy vandegrift/AJP-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 13:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:RDG110951.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. XXN, 15:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that Joy Christian’s work is very notable. I have started drafting a Wikipedia article on it. Comments, help, edits, are welcome.
/info/en/?search=User:Gill110951/Joy_Christian Richard Gill ( talk) 04:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, perhaps better, one should start an article on Bell denialism. It should be neutral, uncontroversial. So the name of the article should be chosen with great care. I suggest “Bell theorem opposition”. Richard Gill ( talk) 08:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I have started drafting a page on this topic, too. First thing is to come up with a good draft title. And check Wikipedia for existing material on this topic. Richard Gill ( talk) 08:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Gill110951/Bell_theorem_opposition
/info/en/?search=Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I took a look at the Wikipedia lists of this century's Dutch mathematicians and statisticians. I felt that a couple of the Wikipedia articles did not satisfy any of the criteria WP:ACADEMIC for Academic Notability (satisfying just one would be enough, and anyway, exceptions can always be made - they just need to be well motivated by reference to Reliable Sources). I found out how to put a warning notice of impending deletion at the top of the page, and how to have the creator of the web page automatically informed.
Motivation: another user had proposed a web page about my good friend and colleague Piet Groeneboom. It got rejected by a Wikipedia editor who evaluates proposed new articles on Wikipedia. Actually, the article looked pretty good, I believe it just needed a little more work - mainly reference to Reliable Sources giving evidence to the impact of Groeneboom's work. Anyway, it was certainly infinitely better than the web pages whose deletion I proposed. Richard Gill ( talk) 07:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
The page Niels Keiding has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://www.isi-web.org/news/node-1409. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello Gill110951! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as
Niels Keiding, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from
https://www.isi-web.org/news/node-1409, and therefore to constitute a
violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's
copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to
lose their editing privileges.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.
Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Niels Keiding saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa ( talk) 15:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi: There shouldn't be unreferenced information in a biography of a living person, especially personal data. Is the birth date published anywhere that we could cite it from? (Government registries are not citable for this purpose, but sometimes there's something online about a person's birthday.) Otherwise it should probably be removed from Wikidata too. Separately and less urgently, any citable source for the place of birth? Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.
MeltingDistrict (
talk)
00:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
MeltingDistrict (
talk)
01:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Snugglewasp (
talk)
11:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Snugglewasp (
talk)
18:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
El_C
11:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)No problem! Of course I have an obvious conflict of interest concerning Lucy Letby, and concerning the article about myself. Richard Gill ( talk) 07:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Structuralists, you deleted this comment which I put on your user page. You called it "rambling". I think you should at the least assume good faith on my part.
You wrote "This seems to me to be especially important considering the provided sourced context of Mr Gill and others: he has already been warned by police about contempt of court with his online activity, there seems to be questions on whether he will be arrested(!)". Let me tell you a little bit about that incident. Towards the end of the trial Cheshire Constabulary (who have had 60 to 70 inspectors working in "Operation Hummingbird" for six years, recently extended for another three) became increasingly nervous about the internet activities of four independent scientists who had created webapges, blogs etc. pointing out serious problems with the medical scientific evidence and the statistical evidence in the trial. We all received intimidating email letters from the police. In this letter, we are told that a police inspector had had a chat with the judge, who had said that our activities *appeared* to constitute contempt of court, which is punishable with two years in prison and the costs of redoing the whole trial. In the case of the two persons outside of the UK we were told that we could be arrested if we re-enter the UK. Now the judge also said that this was only an appearance, he would need to hear our defence before determining whether or not it was contempt of court. In all of our cases, our motive was not to influence the jury (and we did not influence the jury). Our motive was to communicate our concerns to the authorities. We wrote to the clerks of the court in order to inform the judge, but the clerks of the court gave our letters to the police, not to the judge. The judge was prevented from ever seeing them. We also wrote to the prosecution, to the defence, and to the director of public prosecutions. We did not receive any answer from any of these parties. We did all suspend our blog writing, stopped our tweets, removed past tweets with links to our blogs and webpages etc, till the jury were finished. I also immediately replied by email that I had done exactly what was asked of me, and I mentioned that I was not trying to influence the jury. Then three weeks later Dutch police came to my door in the night, to deliver the same letter in person. Checking my identity so as to have legal proof that I had received the letter. This is pure intimidation. Anyway, don't worry, they are not going to arrest me, I have not been charged with any crime. Richard Gill ( talk) 05:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes Structuralists, I was warned by the police, but no, I will not be arrested. The warning was purely intimidation, it had no legal basis. I did not influence the jury, I did not try to influence the jury, I did not try to pervert the course of justice, I did not commit contempt of court. In the appeal, the defence is using the material which the four "conspiracy theorists", one of them being myself, had put together and made public on internet. Richard Gill ( talk) 17:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Just to illustrate the role of the main stream media in the public opinion about the case in the UK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12553225/Warped-Lucy-Letby-fans-write-killer-nurse-rots-jail.html The editors of the Wikipedia article on Lucy Letby are taking articles like this (or the slightly toned down versions of the same story in the quality newspapers) as reliable sources! Articles which came out just a few days earlier! I think that an article on the Lucy Letby first round trial should be based on reliable sources and probably not be written at all, till perhaps a year after the trial. The poor woman has applied for an appeal. So at present, she is "guilty in law". That does not mean she is "guilty in fact". Whether or not she truly was guilty will of course never be known with absolute certainty. And Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say, not what is actually true (an exception being made for elementary arithmetic) Richard Gill ( talk) 07:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Folk interested in #lucyletby who also are into editing Wikipedia articles, especially those who are outside the UK, might be interested in getting involved in the Wikipedia articles on Lucy Letby, now spilling over into the article about myself. #FREEDOM4LUCY.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
El_C
19:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Thank you! I'm afraid that the pursuit of truth and justice for me trumps the pleasure of working on Wikipedia. Goodbye, folks! Thanks for all the fish! Richard Gill ( talk) 03:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Gill110951 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It turns out that the original conflict between myself and some other editors of the articles on Lucy Letby and about myself as a well known scientist was orchestrated by two editors who have now been banned for sock puppetry. See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BarehamOliver Of course I finally got banned for canvassing support. In my defence I will mention that I deliberately did that in plain view, on appropriate Wikipedia special interest group pages. I was not interested in my editorship. I was hopeful of attracting experts with relevant subject matter interests to those pages. Anyway, I certainly can promise not to edit those two pages again. I do feel I should be able to edit my user page and interact with other editors on topics of common interest. Richard Gill ( talk) 09:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not the place to pursue truth and justice. Once you go out and obtain truth and justice for the legal matter at issue, then it can be reported on here. I find your pledge to refrain from editing in that topic area kind of weak, and the rest of your pledge suggests to me that you will have few if any contributions to the encyclopedia itself("interact with other editors on topics of common interest" sounds like just chatting to me). If I've misinterpreted this, you are free to make a new unblock request. 331dot ( talk) 08:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I would like to support this unblock request. It is clear that this editor was being targetted in a way that would have made it look as if he had few options. Although the off-wiki canvassing was an error, it is perhaps understandable. Request admins not make a decision on this request for an hour or so to allow me to pull together some evidence. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Richard D. Gill, Lucy Letby, Talk:Lucy Letby for disruptive editing and WP:ADVOCACY that contravenes the conflict of interest guideline... for your advocacy and conflict of interest editing at the article for the convicted serial killer Lucy Letby. These partial blocks should serve as a final warning...
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:CANVASSING in continued pursuit of your real world WP:ADVOCACY and in violation of the conflict of interest guideline (WP:COI) yet again. A perennial problem spanning many years, from #Gill110951 reminded in a 2011 arbitration case, to the latest partial block and ANI complaint. It has become evident you will not cease from wilfully ignoring WP:NOTADVOCACY unless forced to desist.
This opinion is now becoming more widespread. Lucy has appealed against her conviction. There are plenty of grounds for an appeal. A few notable authorities in the UK have gone on record saying that she could be innocent. I tried to draw attention to this on the Lucy Letby talk page. It has been noticed in the mainstream media too, some of which have somewhat changed their tune in recent months.
It has become evident you will not cease from wilfully ignoring WP:NOTADVOCACY unless forced to desistis still entirely relevant, as Gill110951 is demonstrating here that he is still going to continue his advocacy behaviour. This in an indication of Gill110951's lack of reform of his behaviour and is further indicative of why he should not be given a 5th, 6th, 7th chance, having already been given previous warnings as far back as 2011. 148.252.159.203 ( talk) 18:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
It's probably time that talk page access was revoked. Theroadislong ( talk) 19:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear User:331dot. Thanks for your work. I do respect your efforts and fairness. I’m afraid I still think the block is unjust, but I don’t want to waste anybody’s time on Wikipedia by arguing about it now. As in a criminal court, we have to follow agreed procedures to resolve disputes. Possibly I will appeal against the block again, a few years from now. In the meantime I will continue my work which includes the academic study of modern-day witch-hunts. Part of my research is done by interacting on social media platforms with members of the witch-burning mob. Like it or not, Wikipedia is used by social media warriors of the worst sort to further their own aims. I believe in the principle “truth will out”, and therefore, sooner or later Lucy Letby will walk free. There is a problem in present day societies which some have called the “endarkenment”. The collective forgetting of the principles of democracy and the rule of law. See for instance today’s article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/04/plans-to-redefine-extremism-would-include-undermining-uk-values Richard Gill ( talk) 04:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Gill110951, please do not email me again, with threats of external canvass pressure, or anything else. If you'd like to be unblocked, make a normal unblock request like anyone else (see the block notice for details on how to do that). By policy, it will be decided by another admin. El_C 13:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The alternative is that I am forced, off-wiki, to canvass for support. I don't like doing that, and it seems to be considered an even more serious crime than "canvassing" on wiki.Which I read plainly. And it's not a catch-22. You are blocked. In order to resume contributions to Wikipedia, you need to succeed in getting unblocked. Until that happens, this user talk page's sole purpose is that unblock request. It really isn't that complicated. Emailing me about such an alternative was entirely for naught. And I'm not intimidated. El_C 14:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Gill110951 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I feel that my punishment (site-wide, indefinite block) was unduly harsh. I wish to be allowed to write on my user talk page, and on the talk pages of the two articles about myself on Dutch and English Wikipedia. Both those articles are being vandalised because of my support for nurse Lucy Letby. I am sorry for the errors I made in the past and I promise not to commit them again. I suggest you put me on probation for a year. Let me show that I can behave myself by letting me do a bare minimum of work on-wiki. There is lots to be done on the articles on quantum information, Bell's theorem, statistics, probability, forensic science, judicial reform ...
You have put me in a catch 22 situation. I cannot write on-wiki (on Talk pages) about factual errors in articles about myself. If I ask friends if they can do something about it, I am guilty of WP:CANVASS.
Context: Lucy Letby has appealed against her whole-life conviction. There are currently reporting restrictions in the UK, nobody may publish anything critical of her trial. However the tabloid media continues publishing lurid articles about her cushy life in jail and about the psychology of a baby killer - serial murder sells newspapers. Those newspaper articles form the "reliable sources" for Wikipedia articles. It is curious that the newspapers are not in "contempt of court". But what I write on social media, might be.
One in 8 convictions in the UK for serious crimes and with a defendant who claims to be innocent are later reversed. Many people are calling for judicial reform, the system has become more and more unfair over past decades. The public wanted law and order, wanted more convictions. They now do get more convictions. At the cost of more unsafe convictions.
People outside the UK are astounded that one does not have an automatic right to appeal in the UK. It is decided behind closed doors by a panel of three judges who will also take account of "public interest". It might not be in the public interest to find out that a high profile police investigation and high profile trial reached a false conclusion? Anyway, it is a clunky, antediluvial system, and it is making many mistakes, but many do not want to admit that. Richard Gill ( talk) 14:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Decline. Regardless of the merits of your arguments in defense of a convicted serial killer, Wikipedia is not for advocacy. Even if we ignored that rule, you have a clear conflict of interest and won't be allowed anywhere near the topic. – bradv 21:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I just found out that I am not banned on Dutch language wikipedia. It also seems that I can still freely edit my User page on English wikipedia.
Editors on Dutch wikipedia are presently busy restoring the vandalized article about myself there. I don't know them, I had nothing to do with that. Te vandalism was perpetrated as a vicious personal attack on myself by someone who called themselves @29InstituteRoad. That's the address of the house where my mother lived for many years before moving to a nursing home in the same town, Marlow, Bucks. She was recently in the news.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/03/pauline-gill-obituary
Some idiot (I suspect the same one) even started an internet petition to have Buckinghamshire police interview my mother.
It is very interesting from a sociological viewpoint how so many people are so obsessed with horrific murder, especially, a woman murdering babies. On Twitter and on Facebook I am constantly attacked in a vicious hateful way because I campaign there for a fair retrial for Lucy Letby. The police investigation into her case made all the mistakes in the book (the booklet, published by the Royal Statistical Society, of which I am a co-author):
I find it very disturbing how Wikipedia articles on alleged serial killer nurses are currently dominated by editors who, in my opinion, do not give proper weight to the fact that some of those convictions are contested. This is what led to my ban, because I tried to explain on the Lucy Letby talk page that the UK justice system makes many mistakes and that serious scientists in the UK are being suppressed by the establishment from raising doubts about the safety of Lucy Letby's conviction.
There are strong movements campaigning for retrials of British nurses Colin Norris and of Ben Geen. I find it disturbing that Wikipedia joins the UK establishment in calling these persons serial murderers. They are convicted, yes, but there are very good grounds to believe that the convictions are unsafe. Call them convicted serial murderers. Report that they claim innocence and that they are engaged in legal procedures to legally establish their innocence. Anybody who tries to discuss this is painted as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Wikipedia of course only reflects what is currently thought to be true. OK. But it should do that fairly. There is not consensus "out there" that Lucy Letby is guilty, even though the Daily Mail would have you think so. There is not even consensus out there that I am a crackpot conspiracy theorist, in fact more and more people nowadays dare to say out loud that they are not sure that Lucy Letby is guilty. I predict that in about a year from now the dam will have broken. Reporting restrictions will have been lifted and various reliable sources will be publishing the findings of investigative journalists.
The parallels between the cases of Lucy Letby and Lucia de Berk are discussed in this recent article in a Dutch newspaper. I believe that some English language newspapers will be following soon. UK based newspapers will be last of all.
Somebody cites this article in the English Wikipedia article about myself. Apparently they can't read Dutch because they misquote what is said there. They also clearly did not read the intimidating letter which I (and several others) got from Cheshire Constabulary. I was not told that I *had* committed contempt of court and that I *could* be arrested when I re-entered the UK. (I have since entered the UK twice with no problems). I was told that whether or not that crime had been committed depended on my personal motivation and the judge (who was consulted by Cheshire Constabulary about this) would have to ascertain my motivations before he could give any judgement on the matter. The judge never saw the confidential letter I had sent him because it was intercepted by a clerk of the court and given to police inspectors, who had no jurisdiction in that location. They were witnesses at the ongoing trial.
I should like to be able to give the correct quotations and references on the Talk page belonging to the article about myself. This is a very serious matter.
I refer Wikipedia editors to:
A site wide indefinite block violates these Wikipedia principles. I must be able to politely suggest corrections to the articles about myself, on the talk pages of those articles. Especially if they allege criminal accusations against me.
Richard Gill ( talk) 20:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Gill110951 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
A site wide indefinite block of myself prevents me from pointing out errors in the article about myself and thereby violates the following Wikipedia principles. WP:BLPEDIT WP:BLPSTYLE WP:BLPCRIME I humbly request the block to be replaced by some kind of selective block which does not prevent me from informing fellow editors of serious errors when they write about myself. Presently the article contains libellous material. I am not asking for the block to be completely rescinded. I am asking it to be made less severe. The article about me contains libellous and untrue material. I must be able to report that on the accompanying talk page. What editors do about it, is up to them. Obviously, if my complaints are not dealt with fairly, I might wish to resort to legal action. Richard Gill ( talk) 21:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are welcome to seek a remedy in the courts, or you are welcome work with the community here on your talk page to highlight the parts you feel to be libellous. These are mutually exclusive options - we will not entertain anything from you while you are threatening legal action. If you choose to go the legal route, you can find Legal's contact details at https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/ . In either case, you should not be editing the article yourself due to your inherent conflict of interests. stwalkerster ( talk) 12:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Presently the article contains libellous material.Please elucidate and I'll do what I can to help. – bradv 23:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Richard Gill ( talk) 10:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
In the article about myself, you can find the following remarks: "Gill also said in a 2021 lecture that he suspects Beverley Allitt is innocent, and in a 2020 paper said the case 'deserves fresh study'.
There is no reference to the published paper in which I am supposed to have said that the Bev Allitt case deserves fresh study. However, it is still true that I believe that a careful academic study of the case should be done, probably after Allitt's death (so perhaps only decades from now), because there are plenty of facts about the case which are not generally known, and some of them are somewhat disquieting. I will look in my published papers to see if such a statement exists in the academic record.
It is true that at the moment in 2021 that I gave that lecture, I did suspect that Beverley Allitt might be innocent. My suspicion was based on what I knew about the case at that moment, and in particular, based on recent discussions with journalists who had followed the case closely, and who told me some facts about the case which are not generally known and certainly cannot be found on Wikipedia.
As a scientist, I continually update my beliefs as I obtain new information, on any topic at all. During 2023, I discussed the Allitt case intensively with prof. Vincent Marks (RIP), and he told me things which are not widely known which *strengthen* the case against Allitt. By the way, they *weaken* the case against Lucy Letby.
For the record, my present opinions are: Bev Allitt, I am not certain she is guilty, though she might well be; further academic research is needed; Lucy Letby, very likely completely innocent. I will try to remember to put these statements on the public record next time I give a video'd lecture about serial killer nurses, or write an academic paper about them; or maybe just write them on my Leiden University personal home page. (Several talks are coming soon and several papers are in the pipeline).
Incidentally, Ben Geen's legal team has submitted a third application to the CCRC based on new statistical research which shows that events supposed to be very unusual, are actually very common. In my opinion he is completely innocent.
Happy New Year, everybody! Richard Gill ( talk) 09:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
[Gill] and other statisticians wrote letters of support in 2015 when Geen asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission to look into his case. The request was denied; Geen remains in prison.I think that sufficiently supports the statement in the article which reads,
Benjamin Geen's applications for a retrial have been rejected and in 2013 and 2015 Gill and other statisticians asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to look into his case. The appeals were unsuccessful.It sounds like your qualm may be with the publication Science and not with the Wikipedia article. EducatedRedneck ( talk) 15:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Meanwhile the Dutch Wikipedia article about me has been completely emptied. I think people are going to start all over again and will be translating material from the English language article. (Or maybe delete it entirely, then it will also not be libellous any more). We will see. I am going to try and keep my mouth shut. Richard Gill ( talk) 15:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Empty citation (
help): Cite journal requires |journal= (help).Gill110951 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I wish to be able to edit the talk page of the English Wikipedia article about myself, in order (in future) to be able to point out what might seem to me to be a factual error in a future version of the article, if such is drawn to my attention. WP:BLP says that I should be allowed that possibility. The present site-wide and indefinite block prevents it. I do not have any complaints about the article in its present state. I do not presently wish to do any other English Wikipedia editing. I have already apologized for past transgressions; I completely understand and accept the rules; and I promise to take care not to break them in future. Richard Gill ( talk) 09:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As you are still focused on libel, I see no reason you cannot continue to suggest edits here on your talk page in the manner you have above. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It moreover violates WP:BLP.
|
User_talk:Gill110951/Archive 1 (November 2006 to December 2010).
User_talk:Gill110951/Archive 2 (December 2010 to February, 2011)
User_talk:Gill110951/Archive 3 (February 2011 to July, 2011)
User_talk:Gill110951/Archive 4 (July 2011 to November, 2011)
I wrote, at the suggestion of a fellow editor, during the Monty Hall Problem wars, a little essay on notation in probability theory: [1]. This could be useful for Two Envelope Problem editors, too. Richard Gill ( talk) 11:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Let A and B denote random variables whose joint probability distribution encapsulates our uncertainty as to the actual amounts a and b in the two envelopes. I do not need assume here that A is half or twice B. I just assume that A and B are always different and that their distribution is symmetric under exchange. The following facts can therefore be used for two envelopes (all symmetric versions), two neckties, two-sided cards; with or without subjective probability, with or without finite expectations. The derivation is elementary. The results are not surprising. The point is that they are general results. Many solutions take a particular prior distribution by way of example and show that certain of these facts are true. That is a bit unsatisfactory because it doesn't prove that the results always have to be true, hence leaves a doubt in the mind of the reader. For example, this is why Martin Gardner felt that neither Kraithchik's problem nor TEP were properly solved at the time when he wrote about them. He had only seen particular examples but this does not prove that what we see in those examples always has to be true.
Theorem
Proof
(1) is obvious (symmetry!)
(2) proof by contradiction with (1). If E(B|A) > A then E(B)>E(A) or both are infinite or undefined.
(3) proof by symmetry of "stochastic independence" between r.v. A and event { A < B }. Because if P(A < B|A=a)=1/2 for all a, then the event { A < B } is independent of the random variable A. Now replace A and B by A' = g(A), B' =g(B) where g is a strictly increasing function from the real line into a bounded interval of the real line (for instance, the arc tangent function). All the assumptions we made about A and B also hold for the transformed versions, but now we can be certain that expectation values are finite. From now on, I drop the "prime" and just write A and B for these transformed versions. Consider the trivial inequality E(A-B|A-B > 0) > 0. By finite expectation values, this can be rewritten as E(A|A > B) > E(B|A > B) = E(A|B > A) where the last equality uses symmetry. This inequality shows that A is statistically dependent on the event { A > B }, hence the event { A > B } is statistically dependent on the random variable A. Transforming back to the original variables this remains true.
Corollary (an exercise for connoisseurs/students of probability theory). Let g be a strictly increasing function and let A' = g(A), B' =g(B). Then the theorem also applies to the pair A' and B' . Extend to not necessarily strictly increasing g by approximating by strict and going to the limit (strict inequalities need no longer be strict in the limit). We find
These facts take care of the main variants of the two envelopes problem as well as all its predecessors two neckties, two-sided cards. The only way to escape the facts is to assume improper distributions. But they are ... improper. In fact, they are: ludicrous, according to Schrödinger, Littlewood, Falk, and just about everyone.
I have also posted this proof on my university home page, [2] Richard Gill ( talk) 14:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
I have yet to see an interesting TEP like paradox when we cannot give a numerical utility to the two objects we must compare. I don't see anything interesting I can do in that direction. Maybe sometime you'll provide us with inspiration.
The derivation of (4) does not require finite expectations. And it follows that for any strictly increasing g such that Eg(A) is finite, we have all these results for g(A) and g(B). The application to bounded utility is immediate. Richard Gill ( talk) 10:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
So you say that these results are easier to apply in real cases than you unified solution? You never managed to show how to apply that in a single case. Instead you started to talk about utility theory and fundamental problems with infinity in real cases. Your theorem was never put to use. I'm glad that you say that these results are much easier to apply. Please show how to apply this in practice. Pick your favorite case.
You still haven't responded to the fish soup situation. Will you pick the other hidden dish or will you stick with the fish soup? This situation isn't symmetric as you already know what one of the dishes are. Your utility for the fish soup is some number X. The expected utility for the other dish is larger than X. What will you do and why? iNic ( talk) 13:18, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Richard, please have a look there. – I know, it's not your style, it's just mine. Nevertheless: is it correct or is it wrong? Regards, Gerhardvalentin ( talk) 21:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am unable to undelete this page, as I am not admin - I wanted to help and responded that was never deleted. Talk/Two Envelopes Problem/sources was never deleted. Talk:Two envelopes problem/sources was deleted and it is possible to undelete it. Bulwersator ( talk) 07:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Gill110951. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC) |
I think you could seriously accelerate the end of the Bell's Theorem discussion by avoiding comments that refer to J. Christian as a person, and focusing on WP:Fringe as a policy. The more you talk about the researcher, the more upset they become and the longer the discussion. This issue can be resolved by WP:CON if you stop personal comments. And I do not think there is a legal issue yet, but if you continue those personal comments, those overtones will in the end appear. So it is best to avoid personal comments and focus on content and policy. History2007 ( talk) 08:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, I had the impression that Thomas Ray might be susceptible to mathematical arguments. He also remains polite and good humoured during heated scientific debate, in contrast to some others...
I don't like to see good people making fools of themselves. And talent being wasted. A lot of people in the quantum foundations community are really sorry for the predicament Joy has got himself into. He's widely thought to be a nice guy and he's certainly very intelligent and has many talents. But he does not take easily to criticism.
Bell's theorem is a really important topic. Very hard to get across to laypersons. It used to be squaring the circle, and perpetual motion machines, but nowadays Bell' theorem get's attention; intelligent independent minded people get fascinated and get convinced there's something wrong there. That means we scientists are not communicating well enough what it's about. A real challenge for Wikipedia. Richard Gill ( talk)
This is how I explain the mathematical core of Bell's theorem to teenagers:
Consider 4N runs of a Bell-Aspect-Weihs delayed choice CHSH type experiment. Suppose that Nature is such that in each run, binary outcomes A, A', B, B' (each +/-1) can be thought to all exist alongside one another, but that only one of A and A', and only one of B and B' are actually observed - the choices being made by independent fair coin tosses, independent of the physical processes generating the 4N realizations of the four binary variables A, A', B, B'
i.e. suppose we assume counterfactual definiteness (aka realism), locality (aka relativistic local causality), and freedom (from superdeterminsim) (aka no conspiracy).
It's easy to see that AB+AB'+A'B-A'B'=A(B+B')+A'(B-B')= +/-2 in each run. (B and B' are either different or they're equal ...)
It follows from taking averages over the 4N runs, that ave(AB)+ave(AB')+ave(A'B)-ave(A'B') lies between -2 and +2.
Finally: if N is very large, the average of AB over the runs where A and B are both observed (that's about N out of the 4N, and they're selected completely at random) will be very close to the average of AB over all 4N runs; and similarly for AB', A'B, A'B'.
If this last point is doubted, one can put numbers to "how close, with what probability" using Hoeffding's inequality for tails of the binomial distribution and of the hypergeometric distribution. It turns out that the probability that CHSH is violated by more than some amount delta is less than C exp( - D N delta^2) for certain positive constants C and D. To be precise, C = 8 and D = 1/64 will do, if we restrict delta to the interval (0,2).
The point is, everything here is discrete, finite, including the probability, which is really a counting argument, going through the 2^8N equally likely sets of different outcomes of the 8N independent fair coin tosses. Richard Gill ( talk) 11:21, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Richard, please can you have a look to what I wrote today 11 August there? Can you help with refs? Will you sign my RfC also, or do you have some other proposal? Kind regards, Gerhardvalentin ( talk) 13:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:
Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
I took a quick look at your paper http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/essential_MHP.pdf , which someone mentioned in the RfC. I haven't had a chance to digest it yet. But I wonder if you could point me to one thing.
You say in the abstract that your approach is based on the minimax notion from game theory. But in that case it seems to me that your (the player's) odds are always 1/3, and your optimal strategy is never to switch. Rationale: Monty, your opponent, can always limit your odds to 1/3 by the very simple strategy of never offering you a choice. However, an equally good strategy for Monty, against a perfect opponent (and a better one, against an imperfect opponent) is to offer you a choice exactly when you've already chosen the car. Clearly, any strategy in which he offers you a choice when you have not picked the car is inferior for Monty.
Since Monty cannot do better, against perfect opposition, than 1/3, you should assume he is playing one of the strategies with value 1/3, which are all ones in which he never offers you a choice unless you have already picked the car. Therefore, if he offers you a choice, you have already picked the car, and must not switch.
Can you point me to where your assumptions differ from mine, or point out a flaw in the argument? -- Trovatore ( talk) 04:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Gill, I like your recent comments on MHP talk (and support you there). But I bother that you also add your comments to the "Comments from Nijdam" section. Only Nijdam is allowed to write there. You know, "The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages..." We need you alive here! :-) Boris Tsirelson ( talk) 20:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi - Just so you're sure not to miss it, Martin has addressed a question to you [3]. Please respond there. -- Rick Block ( talk) 02:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
|
The Cleanup Barnstar | |
I am astonished by how much the
Two_envelopes_problem article has improved. Many mystifying or just wrong points have been removed by your edits, and clear resolutions have been put in their place.
Well done on diligently working through the issues, and thank you! Dilaudid ( talk) 09:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC) |
I vaguely recall you saying that your preferred solution is: The best strategy is to pick randomly and switch, giving you 2/3 overall chances of winning which can't be improved, I can't say anything about conditional probabilities, that's all. Is that accurate? If so, I am curious: How do you justify that view?
It seems to me that you are using game theory for this, essentially assuming that you're playing against a good opponent, and seek the best strategy against him. "Good opponent" means that nobody should be able to do better against you on average than he. But once you assume that and play the optimal strategy yourself, you have all the conditional probabilities you could ever want! How can you consistently claim not to have those? The justification for your strategy is that if you played otherwise your opponent would exploit it (if he won't, you can generally do better); or alternatively, that he might or might not exploit it (can't say) so you assume the worst (i.e. you assume he's good!). Any which way, you end up assuming a good opponent, don't you?
You could argue that you are only assuming the part of the result of such an analysis that you actually use: your own strategy. But if you do that, you have turned the result of a well-motivated analysis into an unmotivated, arbitrary assumption. Moving forward regardless, assuming "pick randomly, switch" to be optimal is equivalent to assuming the car is placed randomly. Of these two assumptions, the latter one is by far the more interesting one to make at the outset for basic MHP purposes, and once you do that, you get the Morgan 1/(1+q) solution, which you dislike.
Consequently, if you see MHP as a game theory problem, don't you end up getting a well-defined answer to the (conditional) probability of winning question as well? :) -- Coffee2theorems ( talk) 15:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Editor TotalClearance came up with the following solution to MHP. Suppose the goats are numbered Goat 1, Goat 2, and the host has a preference to reveal Goat 1. Suppose the three objects (Car, Goat 1, Goat 2) are equally likely to be arranged in any of their six permutations behind the three doors. Then we can set up a table of six equally likely possibilities as follows:
Original table as modified by Richard.
behind door 1 | behind door 2 | behind door 3 | opened door | result if staying at door #1 | result if switching to the door offered |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Car | Goat 1 | Goat 2 | 2 (to show Goat 1) | Car | Goat 2 |
Goat 1 | Car | Goat 2 | 3 (forced) | Goat 1 | Car |
Goat 1 | Goat 2 | Car | 2 (forced) | Goat 1 | Car |
Car | Goat 2 | Goat 1 | 3 (to show Goat 1) | Car | Goat 2 |
Goat 2 | Car | Goat 1 | 3 (forced) | Goat 2 | Car |
Goat 2 | Goat 1 | Car | 2 (forced) | Goat 2 | Car |
Switching gives the car in four out of the six cases. On those occasions when the host opened door 3, switching gives the car in two out of three cases. Richard Gill ( talk) 08:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
behind door 1 | behind door 2 | behind door 3 | opened door | result if staying at door #1 | result if switching to the door offered |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Car | Goat | Goat | 2 | Car | Goat |
Goat | Car | Goat | 3 | Goat | Car |
Goat | Goat | Car | 2 | Goat | Car |
Car | Goat | Goat | 3 | Car | Goat |
Goat | Car | Goat | 3 | Goat | Car |
Goat | Goat | Car | 2 | Goat | Car |
-- TotalClearance ( talk) 13:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Monty Hall problem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bayesian ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Richard, I am sorry for the remarks about your complicating things on the MHP talk page. I completely misread what you wrote, somehow seeing it as saying that the presence of car next to a goat might make that goat more likely to open a door by affecting the goat in some way. When I read what you wrote again it is perfectly clear and correct. I was trying to create a case where a goat was revealed behind an unchosen door with certainty and the car was never revealed but I failed to do this properly. Martin Hogbin ( talk) 18:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Richard, I was surprised to read your comment, 'If we realise this in advance then the combining doors argument is completely justified'. The real problem with the 'combing doors' solution is that it gives the same (and now wrong) answer for the case where the host reveals a goat by chance. This is a fundamental part of the problem, mentioned by vS right at the start and many others since. It is far more important to show why it matters that the host knows where the car is than to fuss about door numbers. Am I really the only person ever to have noticed this?
Martin Hogbin ( talk) 14:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Luckily, I took your advice about Bayes' rule. Ignoring door numbers, this provides a trivial proof that the 'combining doors' solution is justified, and intuitively shows how why the answer changes when the host reveals a goat by chance. Rumiton seemed to be finally convinced by this argument.
Bayes' rule also provides a simple and intuitive fix for the 'combining doors' solution when door numbers are considered significant. Do you agree? Martin Hogbin ( talk) 13:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
You probably have something interesting to say about the role of statistics in law. :) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 23:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi - Can you please comment in this thread, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Monty_Hall_problem/Arguments#The_doors_are_not_necessary? Perhaps Martin might listen to you (he clearly isn't listening to me). -- Rick Block ( talk) 05:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to point out that recent edits you made to Bertrand's Box Paradox are resulting in a parse error. I get this error in both Chrome Version 26.0.1410.64 m and Explorer 8.0.7601. Are you seeing this error?
Note that the formatting error does not occur in earlier versions, starting with: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bertrand%27s_box_paradox&oldid=551101605
The change you made on 01:58, 19 April 2013 seems to have introduced the problem.
-- Coastside ( talk) 21:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
FYI I stubbed Steve Gull. Glrx ( talk) 21:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Professor Gill, thanks to you and Professor Gull for posting the sketch proof regarding Bell's theorem. ( [4]) To help in understanding it, I've attempted to restate it as follows:
(1) A deterministic computer program that is intended to duplicate the results of QM implies the existence of a function p1(polarizer angle, trial number).
(2) QM implies that the probability p2 of correlation of measurements of polarizations made with polarizers set at two different angles equals 1/4(1 - cos(difference in angles)).
(3) The functions p1 and p2 must be equal if the program is to duplicate the results of QM.
(4) The Fourier transform of p1 in the trial number domain will be an infinite series of randomly varying 1's and 0's.
(5) The Fourier transform of p2 has only three non-zero components.
Conclusion: The Fourier transforms are not equal, so there is no such program that can duplicate the results of QM.
Is this an accurate restatement of the proof? If so, why is (3) above true? J-Wiki ( talk) 20:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit more complicated and actually I think Steve Gull has missed something, which is important, but fortunately can be fixed.
Consider one run. The detectors have to give identical outcomes when set to the same angles. So the information sent from the source to each detector must be a definite instruction, for each detector setting theta, to give an outcome +1 or -1. The instruction must be the same for both detectors. Let me denote the instruction by a function f(theta), theta in [0,2pi], taking values in {-1,+1}. Suppose now, in one run, Alice uses angle theta and Bob uses angle theta+delta, where theta is chosen uniformly between zero and 2pi. The correlation between Alice and Bobs' outcomes is rho(delta_ = int_0^2pi f(theta)f(theta+delta) d theta / 2 pi. Here I am thinking of the instruction function f being defined for angles outside 0,2pi by extending it periodically.
The formula for rho says that the correlation function rho is the convolution of the functions f and g where g is f mirrored about zero (g(x)=f(-x). The Fourier transform of a mirrored function is the complex conjugate of the original function, and the Fourier transform of a convolution is a product. Therefore FT(rho)=|FT(f)|^2 in other words, the Fourier coefficients of rho are the squares of the absolute values of f.
So you see I think that Steve did not quite tell us everything: he is adding a random rotation between 0 and 2 pi before defining correlations. But it is legitimate since the computer programs could be use to simulate this experiment.
His computer program would actually create a possibly different function f in each run. The observed correlation would be the average of the correlation observed in many runs. We should now think of the function f as being a random function. But still, each realization f has a Fourier transform, and the Fourier transfrom of rho is the average of the Fourier transforms for each f. The so-many'th Fourier coefficient of rho must be the average of the absolute value squared of the same coefficient of f.
Again there is a conceptual step missing in Steve's outline: different instruction functions f in each run of the experiment. The computer program would use a random generator to make a different f each time.
I've written to Steve with these comments. Richard Gill ( talk) 05:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Bell.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. -- ImageTaggingBot ( talk) 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() |
The Special Barnstar |
Thank you for your exceptional work on Bell's Theorem, for your effort as a specialist when the article was in need of expert attention! The encyclopedia received a great benefit through your contribution. Thank you for taking the time to discuss with other editors, ask for advice and listen their concerns! This makes you an example for the community.
Thank you for making Wikipedia a better place to be! Alma ( talk) 20:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC) |
In this article, seems like you meant instead of . wolfRAMM 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
A case ( Monty Hall problem) in which you were involved has been modified by motion which changed the wording of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk) 21:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Done
Giant
Snowman
10:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I would greatly appreciate your expertise in Wikiversity:Bell's theorem. There is an algebraic error and copy edits, but I can handle that stuff myself. I am interested in your probabilistic symbolic methods. Bell's theorem is a labor of love for me but I need to set it aside for a few weeks. May I ask you some questions when I find time to work on this again? -- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 23:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello mr Gill. Nijkamp's miss Kourtit is in my mailbox, asking for help with demanding action on
VU_University_Amsterdam#Scientific_misconduct. I'm not that easily persuaded, but I found both the phrasing biased and the sources insufficient. Since I know you have some knowledge on the matter (I reverted Nijkamp's article back to your version), might I ask you to have a look? Thanks, regards,
Sander1453 (
talk)
21:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The Polish link shows that Kourtit's thesis was submitted to defence at Poznan University last year. According to Google Translate it contains
82. Resolution No. 82-2013 / 2014 of the Faculty of Geography and Geology University. Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan on 23 September 2014 years to initiate Mrs Karima Kourtit of a doctorate in sciences natural sciences about the Earth, in terms of geography, to appoint promoter and doctoral examinations
83. Resolution No. 83-2013 / 2014 of the Faculty of Geography and Geology University. Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan on 23 September 2014 years the presentation of the doctoral thesis Ms Karima Kourtit and conduct public defense of the doctoral dissertation in English
There is a second document at Poznan, namely the evaluation report of a member of the PhD committee (in English) https://wngig.amu.edu.pl/strona-glowna/wngig/stopnie-i-tytuly/doktoraty https://wngig.amu.edu.pl/strona-glowna/wngig/stopnie-i-tytuly/doktoraty?sq_content_src=%2BdXJsPWh0dHAlM0ElMkYlMkZkemllZ2VvLXd3dy5ob21lLmFtdS5lZHUucGwlMkZ3d3clMkYwMV9TdHJvbmFfZ2xvd25hJTJGMDlfU1RPUE5JRV9JX1RZVFVMWSUyRkRva3RvcmF0eSUyRkthcmltYUtvdXJ0aXRyZWNlbnpqYTIucGRmJmFsbD0x Richard Gill ( talk) 07:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I was writing a draft for a Wikipedia article when the dean requested that I attempt to publish a paper. I have tenure and feel that my Wikimedia efforts have higher long-term value, but decided to humor him by submitting the draft to AJP. Let me know if you do not wish me to acknowledge you in the article I plan to submit soon (your contribution was to point out that probability is much easier to calculate than correlation in Bell's inequality). The draft is at User:Guy vandegrift/AJP-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 13:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:RDG110951.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{ non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. XXN, 15:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that Joy Christian’s work is very notable. I have started drafting a Wikipedia article on it. Comments, help, edits, are welcome.
/info/en/?search=User:Gill110951/Joy_Christian Richard Gill ( talk) 04:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Alternatively, perhaps better, one should start an article on Bell denialism. It should be neutral, uncontroversial. So the name of the article should be chosen with great care. I suggest “Bell theorem opposition”. Richard Gill ( talk) 08:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
I have started drafting a page on this topic, too. First thing is to come up with a good draft title. And check Wikipedia for existing material on this topic. Richard Gill ( talk) 08:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=User:Gill110951/Bell_theorem_opposition
/info/en/?search=Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
I took a look at the Wikipedia lists of this century's Dutch mathematicians and statisticians. I felt that a couple of the Wikipedia articles did not satisfy any of the criteria WP:ACADEMIC for Academic Notability (satisfying just one would be enough, and anyway, exceptions can always be made - they just need to be well motivated by reference to Reliable Sources). I found out how to put a warning notice of impending deletion at the top of the page, and how to have the creator of the web page automatically informed.
Motivation: another user had proposed a web page about my good friend and colleague Piet Groeneboom. It got rejected by a Wikipedia editor who evaluates proposed new articles on Wikipedia. Actually, the article looked pretty good, I believe it just needed a little more work - mainly reference to Reliable Sources giving evidence to the impact of Groeneboom's work. Anyway, it was certainly infinitely better than the web pages whose deletion I proposed. Richard Gill ( talk) 07:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
If this was the first article that you created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
The page Niels Keiding has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appeared to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appeared to be a direct copy from https://www.isi-web.org/news/node-1409. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition has been be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
Please do not recreate the material without addressing these concerns, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you think this page should not have been deleted for this reason, you may contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion Review. — Diannaa ( talk) 12:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hello Gill110951! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as
Niels Keiding, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from
https://www.isi-web.org/news/node-1409, and therefore to constitute a
violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's
copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to
lose their editing privileges.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.
Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Niels Keiding saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa ( talk) 15:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi: There shouldn't be unreferenced information in a biography of a living person, especially personal data. Is the birth date published anywhere that we could cite it from? (Government registries are not citable for this purpose, but sometimes there's something online about a person's birthday.) Otherwise it should probably be removed from Wikidata too. Separately and less urgently, any citable source for the place of birth? Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:40, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible
conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.
MeltingDistrict (
talk)
00:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
MeltingDistrict (
talk)
01:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Snugglewasp (
talk)
11:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Snugglewasp (
talk)
18:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
El_C
11:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)No problem! Of course I have an obvious conflict of interest concerning Lucy Letby, and concerning the article about myself. Richard Gill ( talk) 07:40, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi Structuralists, you deleted this comment which I put on your user page. You called it "rambling". I think you should at the least assume good faith on my part.
You wrote "This seems to me to be especially important considering the provided sourced context of Mr Gill and others: he has already been warned by police about contempt of court with his online activity, there seems to be questions on whether he will be arrested(!)". Let me tell you a little bit about that incident. Towards the end of the trial Cheshire Constabulary (who have had 60 to 70 inspectors working in "Operation Hummingbird" for six years, recently extended for another three) became increasingly nervous about the internet activities of four independent scientists who had created webapges, blogs etc. pointing out serious problems with the medical scientific evidence and the statistical evidence in the trial. We all received intimidating email letters from the police. In this letter, we are told that a police inspector had had a chat with the judge, who had said that our activities *appeared* to constitute contempt of court, which is punishable with two years in prison and the costs of redoing the whole trial. In the case of the two persons outside of the UK we were told that we could be arrested if we re-enter the UK. Now the judge also said that this was only an appearance, he would need to hear our defence before determining whether or not it was contempt of court. In all of our cases, our motive was not to influence the jury (and we did not influence the jury). Our motive was to communicate our concerns to the authorities. We wrote to the clerks of the court in order to inform the judge, but the clerks of the court gave our letters to the police, not to the judge. The judge was prevented from ever seeing them. We also wrote to the prosecution, to the defence, and to the director of public prosecutions. We did not receive any answer from any of these parties. We did all suspend our blog writing, stopped our tweets, removed past tweets with links to our blogs and webpages etc, till the jury were finished. I also immediately replied by email that I had done exactly what was asked of me, and I mentioned that I was not trying to influence the jury. Then three weeks later Dutch police came to my door in the night, to deliver the same letter in person. Checking my identity so as to have legal proof that I had received the letter. This is pure intimidation. Anyway, don't worry, they are not going to arrest me, I have not been charged with any crime. Richard Gill ( talk) 05:46, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes Structuralists, I was warned by the police, but no, I will not be arrested. The warning was purely intimidation, it had no legal basis. I did not influence the jury, I did not try to influence the jury, I did not try to pervert the course of justice, I did not commit contempt of court. In the appeal, the defence is using the material which the four "conspiracy theorists", one of them being myself, had put together and made public on internet. Richard Gill ( talk) 17:31, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Just to illustrate the role of the main stream media in the public opinion about the case in the UK: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12553225/Warped-Lucy-Letby-fans-write-killer-nurse-rots-jail.html The editors of the Wikipedia article on Lucy Letby are taking articles like this (or the slightly toned down versions of the same story in the quality newspapers) as reliable sources! Articles which came out just a few days earlier! I think that an article on the Lucy Letby first round trial should be based on reliable sources and probably not be written at all, till perhaps a year after the trial. The poor woman has applied for an appeal. So at present, she is "guilty in law". That does not mean she is "guilty in fact". Whether or not she truly was guilty will of course never be known with absolute certainty. And Wikipedia only reports what reliable sources say, not what is actually true (an exception being made for elementary arithmetic) Richard Gill ( talk) 07:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
Folk interested in #lucyletby who also are into editing Wikipedia articles, especially those who are outside the UK, might be interested in getting involved in the Wikipedia articles on Lucy Letby, now spilling over into the article about myself. #FREEDOM4LUCY.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
El_C
19:11, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Thank you! I'm afraid that the pursuit of truth and justice for me trumps the pleasure of working on Wikipedia. Goodbye, folks! Thanks for all the fish! Richard Gill ( talk) 03:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Gill110951 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
It turns out that the original conflict between myself and some other editors of the articles on Lucy Letby and about myself as a well known scientist was orchestrated by two editors who have now been banned for sock puppetry. See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/BarehamOliver Of course I finally got banned for canvassing support. In my defence I will mention that I deliberately did that in plain view, on appropriate Wikipedia special interest group pages. I was not interested in my editorship. I was hopeful of attracting experts with relevant subject matter interests to those pages. Anyway, I certainly can promise not to edit those two pages again. I do feel I should be able to edit my user page and interact with other editors on topics of common interest. Richard Gill ( talk) 09:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not the place to pursue truth and justice. Once you go out and obtain truth and justice for the legal matter at issue, then it can be reported on here. I find your pledge to refrain from editing in that topic area kind of weak, and the rest of your pledge suggests to me that you will have few if any contributions to the encyclopedia itself("interact with other editors on topics of common interest" sounds like just chatting to me). If I've misinterpreted this, you are free to make a new unblock request. 331dot ( talk) 08:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I would like to support this unblock request. It is clear that this editor was being targetted in a way that would have made it look as if he had few options. Although the off-wiki canvassing was an error, it is perhaps understandable. Request admins not make a decision on this request for an hour or so to allow me to pull together some evidence. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Richard D. Gill, Lucy Letby, Talk:Lucy Letby for disruptive editing and WP:ADVOCACY that contravenes the conflict of interest guideline... for your advocacy and conflict of interest editing at the article for the convicted serial killer Lucy Letby. These partial blocks should serve as a final warning...
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for WP:CANVASSING in continued pursuit of your real world WP:ADVOCACY and in violation of the conflict of interest guideline (WP:COI) yet again. A perennial problem spanning many years, from #Gill110951 reminded in a 2011 arbitration case, to the latest partial block and ANI complaint. It has become evident you will not cease from wilfully ignoring WP:NOTADVOCACY unless forced to desist.
This opinion is now becoming more widespread. Lucy has appealed against her conviction. There are plenty of grounds for an appeal. A few notable authorities in the UK have gone on record saying that she could be innocent. I tried to draw attention to this on the Lucy Letby talk page. It has been noticed in the mainstream media too, some of which have somewhat changed their tune in recent months.
It has become evident you will not cease from wilfully ignoring WP:NOTADVOCACY unless forced to desistis still entirely relevant, as Gill110951 is demonstrating here that he is still going to continue his advocacy behaviour. This in an indication of Gill110951's lack of reform of his behaviour and is further indicative of why he should not be given a 5th, 6th, 7th chance, having already been given previous warnings as far back as 2011. 148.252.159.203 ( talk) 18:03, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
It's probably time that talk page access was revoked. Theroadislong ( talk) 19:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Dear User:331dot. Thanks for your work. I do respect your efforts and fairness. I’m afraid I still think the block is unjust, but I don’t want to waste anybody’s time on Wikipedia by arguing about it now. As in a criminal court, we have to follow agreed procedures to resolve disputes. Possibly I will appeal against the block again, a few years from now. In the meantime I will continue my work which includes the academic study of modern-day witch-hunts. Part of my research is done by interacting on social media platforms with members of the witch-burning mob. Like it or not, Wikipedia is used by social media warriors of the worst sort to further their own aims. I believe in the principle “truth will out”, and therefore, sooner or later Lucy Letby will walk free. There is a problem in present day societies which some have called the “endarkenment”. The collective forgetting of the principles of democracy and the rule of law. See for instance today’s article in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/04/plans-to-redefine-extremism-would-include-undermining-uk-values Richard Gill ( talk) 04:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Gill110951, please do not email me again, with threats of external canvass pressure, or anything else. If you'd like to be unblocked, make a normal unblock request like anyone else (see the block notice for details on how to do that). By policy, it will be decided by another admin. El_C 13:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The alternative is that I am forced, off-wiki, to canvass for support. I don't like doing that, and it seems to be considered an even more serious crime than "canvassing" on wiki.Which I read plainly. And it's not a catch-22. You are blocked. In order to resume contributions to Wikipedia, you need to succeed in getting unblocked. Until that happens, this user talk page's sole purpose is that unblock request. It really isn't that complicated. Emailing me about such an alternative was entirely for naught. And I'm not intimidated. El_C 14:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Gill110951 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I feel that my punishment (site-wide, indefinite block) was unduly harsh. I wish to be allowed to write on my user talk page, and on the talk pages of the two articles about myself on Dutch and English Wikipedia. Both those articles are being vandalised because of my support for nurse Lucy Letby. I am sorry for the errors I made in the past and I promise not to commit them again. I suggest you put me on probation for a year. Let me show that I can behave myself by letting me do a bare minimum of work on-wiki. There is lots to be done on the articles on quantum information, Bell's theorem, statistics, probability, forensic science, judicial reform ...
You have put me in a catch 22 situation. I cannot write on-wiki (on Talk pages) about factual errors in articles about myself. If I ask friends if they can do something about it, I am guilty of WP:CANVASS.
Context: Lucy Letby has appealed against her whole-life conviction. There are currently reporting restrictions in the UK, nobody may publish anything critical of her trial. However the tabloid media continues publishing lurid articles about her cushy life in jail and about the psychology of a baby killer - serial murder sells newspapers. Those newspaper articles form the "reliable sources" for Wikipedia articles. It is curious that the newspapers are not in "contempt of court". But what I write on social media, might be.
One in 8 convictions in the UK for serious crimes and with a defendant who claims to be innocent are later reversed. Many people are calling for judicial reform, the system has become more and more unfair over past decades. The public wanted law and order, wanted more convictions. They now do get more convictions. At the cost of more unsafe convictions.
People outside the UK are astounded that one does not have an automatic right to appeal in the UK. It is decided behind closed doors by a panel of three judges who will also take account of "public interest". It might not be in the public interest to find out that a high profile police investigation and high profile trial reached a false conclusion? Anyway, it is a clunky, antediluvial system, and it is making many mistakes, but many do not want to admit that. Richard Gill ( talk) 14:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Decline. Regardless of the merits of your arguments in defense of a convicted serial killer, Wikipedia is not for advocacy. Even if we ignored that rule, you have a clear conflict of interest and won't be allowed anywhere near the topic. – bradv 21:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I just found out that I am not banned on Dutch language wikipedia. It also seems that I can still freely edit my User page on English wikipedia.
Editors on Dutch wikipedia are presently busy restoring the vandalized article about myself there. I don't know them, I had nothing to do with that. Te vandalism was perpetrated as a vicious personal attack on myself by someone who called themselves @29InstituteRoad. That's the address of the house where my mother lived for many years before moving to a nursing home in the same town, Marlow, Bucks. She was recently in the news.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/03/pauline-gill-obituary
Some idiot (I suspect the same one) even started an internet petition to have Buckinghamshire police interview my mother.
It is very interesting from a sociological viewpoint how so many people are so obsessed with horrific murder, especially, a woman murdering babies. On Twitter and on Facebook I am constantly attacked in a vicious hateful way because I campaign there for a fair retrial for Lucy Letby. The police investigation into her case made all the mistakes in the book (the booklet, published by the Royal Statistical Society, of which I am a co-author):
I find it very disturbing how Wikipedia articles on alleged serial killer nurses are currently dominated by editors who, in my opinion, do not give proper weight to the fact that some of those convictions are contested. This is what led to my ban, because I tried to explain on the Lucy Letby talk page that the UK justice system makes many mistakes and that serious scientists in the UK are being suppressed by the establishment from raising doubts about the safety of Lucy Letby's conviction.
There are strong movements campaigning for retrials of British nurses Colin Norris and of Ben Geen. I find it disturbing that Wikipedia joins the UK establishment in calling these persons serial murderers. They are convicted, yes, but there are very good grounds to believe that the convictions are unsafe. Call them convicted serial murderers. Report that they claim innocence and that they are engaged in legal procedures to legally establish their innocence. Anybody who tries to discuss this is painted as a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Wikipedia of course only reflects what is currently thought to be true. OK. But it should do that fairly. There is not consensus "out there" that Lucy Letby is guilty, even though the Daily Mail would have you think so. There is not even consensus out there that I am a crackpot conspiracy theorist, in fact more and more people nowadays dare to say out loud that they are not sure that Lucy Letby is guilty. I predict that in about a year from now the dam will have broken. Reporting restrictions will have been lifted and various reliable sources will be publishing the findings of investigative journalists.
The parallels between the cases of Lucy Letby and Lucia de Berk are discussed in this recent article in a Dutch newspaper. I believe that some English language newspapers will be following soon. UK based newspapers will be last of all.
Somebody cites this article in the English Wikipedia article about myself. Apparently they can't read Dutch because they misquote what is said there. They also clearly did not read the intimidating letter which I (and several others) got from Cheshire Constabulary. I was not told that I *had* committed contempt of court and that I *could* be arrested when I re-entered the UK. (I have since entered the UK twice with no problems). I was told that whether or not that crime had been committed depended on my personal motivation and the judge (who was consulted by Cheshire Constabulary about this) would have to ascertain my motivations before he could give any judgement on the matter. The judge never saw the confidential letter I had sent him because it was intercepted by a clerk of the court and given to police inspectors, who had no jurisdiction in that location. They were witnesses at the ongoing trial.
I should like to be able to give the correct quotations and references on the Talk page belonging to the article about myself. This is a very serious matter.
I refer Wikipedia editors to:
A site wide indefinite block violates these Wikipedia principles. I must be able to politely suggest corrections to the articles about myself, on the talk pages of those articles. Especially if they allege criminal accusations against me.
Richard Gill ( talk) 20:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Gill110951 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
A site wide indefinite block of myself prevents me from pointing out errors in the article about myself and thereby violates the following Wikipedia principles. WP:BLPEDIT WP:BLPSTYLE WP:BLPCRIME I humbly request the block to be replaced by some kind of selective block which does not prevent me from informing fellow editors of serious errors when they write about myself. Presently the article contains libellous material. I am not asking for the block to be completely rescinded. I am asking it to be made less severe. The article about me contains libellous and untrue material. I must be able to report that on the accompanying talk page. What editors do about it, is up to them. Obviously, if my complaints are not dealt with fairly, I might wish to resort to legal action. Richard Gill ( talk) 21:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are welcome to seek a remedy in the courts, or you are welcome work with the community here on your talk page to highlight the parts you feel to be libellous. These are mutually exclusive options - we will not entertain anything from you while you are threatening legal action. If you choose to go the legal route, you can find Legal's contact details at https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/ . In either case, you should not be editing the article yourself due to your inherent conflict of interests. stwalkerster ( talk) 12:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Presently the article contains libellous material.Please elucidate and I'll do what I can to help. – bradv 23:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Richard Gill ( talk) 10:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
In the article about myself, you can find the following remarks: "Gill also said in a 2021 lecture that he suspects Beverley Allitt is innocent, and in a 2020 paper said the case 'deserves fresh study'.
There is no reference to the published paper in which I am supposed to have said that the Bev Allitt case deserves fresh study. However, it is still true that I believe that a careful academic study of the case should be done, probably after Allitt's death (so perhaps only decades from now), because there are plenty of facts about the case which are not generally known, and some of them are somewhat disquieting. I will look in my published papers to see if such a statement exists in the academic record.
It is true that at the moment in 2021 that I gave that lecture, I did suspect that Beverley Allitt might be innocent. My suspicion was based on what I knew about the case at that moment, and in particular, based on recent discussions with journalists who had followed the case closely, and who told me some facts about the case which are not generally known and certainly cannot be found on Wikipedia.
As a scientist, I continually update my beliefs as I obtain new information, on any topic at all. During 2023, I discussed the Allitt case intensively with prof. Vincent Marks (RIP), and he told me things which are not widely known which *strengthen* the case against Allitt. By the way, they *weaken* the case against Lucy Letby.
For the record, my present opinions are: Bev Allitt, I am not certain she is guilty, though she might well be; further academic research is needed; Lucy Letby, very likely completely innocent. I will try to remember to put these statements on the public record next time I give a video'd lecture about serial killer nurses, or write an academic paper about them; or maybe just write them on my Leiden University personal home page. (Several talks are coming soon and several papers are in the pipeline).
Incidentally, Ben Geen's legal team has submitted a third application to the CCRC based on new statistical research which shows that events supposed to be very unusual, are actually very common. In my opinion he is completely innocent.
Happy New Year, everybody! Richard Gill ( talk) 09:29, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
[Gill] and other statisticians wrote letters of support in 2015 when Geen asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission to look into his case. The request was denied; Geen remains in prison.I think that sufficiently supports the statement in the article which reads,
Benjamin Geen's applications for a retrial have been rejected and in 2013 and 2015 Gill and other statisticians asked the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) to look into his case. The appeals were unsuccessful.It sounds like your qualm may be with the publication Science and not with the Wikipedia article. EducatedRedneck ( talk) 15:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Meanwhile the Dutch Wikipedia article about me has been completely emptied. I think people are going to start all over again and will be translating material from the English language article. (Or maybe delete it entirely, then it will also not be libellous any more). We will see. I am going to try and keep my mouth shut. Richard Gill ( talk) 15:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: Empty citation (
help): Cite journal requires |journal= (help).Gill110951 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I wish to be able to edit the talk page of the English Wikipedia article about myself, in order (in future) to be able to point out what might seem to me to be a factual error in a future version of the article, if such is drawn to my attention. WP:BLP says that I should be allowed that possibility. The present site-wide and indefinite block prevents it. I do not have any complaints about the article in its present state. I do not presently wish to do any other English Wikipedia editing. I have already apologized for past transgressions; I completely understand and accept the rules; and I promise to take care not to break them in future. Richard Gill ( talk) 09:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As you are still focused on libel, I see no reason you cannot continue to suggest edits here on your talk page in the manner you have above. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
It moreover violates WP:BLP.