Talk:Four glasses puzzle

"Unremarkable game. Only reference is a blog" - "Unremarkable game" is very much a subjective view - are you qualified to make such a judgement? Why not try finding an 'authoritative' reference rather than tagging the article for deletion? Androstachys (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Hiding the solution
has hidden the solution to the puzzle in this article. This is not our usual practice at Wikipedia as it impedes the reading of the article by a general reader. I can't find any other logic puzzles where the solution has been hidden. And I believe this practice goes against the spirit of the WP:SPOILER content guideline. Unless someone comes up with a convincing argument why the solution to this particular logic puzzle needs to be hidden, I shall revert this. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is nothing in the content of WP:SPOILER which relates to hiding the solution to a problem - a solution which can be revealed by a simple mouse click. The reading of the article is certainly NOT impeded by so doing. That it is not the usual practice is NOT a compelling reason for not doing so. Paul venter (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Paul - I see you haven't given your own arguments for hiding the solution; you have only countered my arguments for *not* hiding it (and then only by contradiction, rather than providing any solid reasoning). I will raise this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics to see if we can get some third party opinions on this and so determine consensus. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you examine the revision history for 3 December, you'll find I wrote "To stop any reader from inadvertently looking at the solution......" Paul venter (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * My impression is that the "simple mouse trick" can be a major impediment to inexperienced readers, who may not think of reading the small print on the side of the page. Tkuvho (talk) 09:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think even inexperienced readers will read the wording under "Solution" carefully if the solution is not where they expect to find it. Paul venter (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would think any reader would expect to simply see a solution under “Solution”, and wouldn’t be reading an encyclopedia if one wasn’t desired. Just my 2¢. —Frungi (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What? and clicking on "show" would forever put him off consulting WP? I don't think so....Paul venter (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, but it is far from expected behavior for an encyclopedia. How did you infer anything so extreme from my comment? —Frungi (talk) 08:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh come!Who around here is an authority on "expected behavior for an encyclopedia"? Paul venter (talk) 11:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul - there is a solid consensus both here and in the parallel discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics that solutions should *not* be hidden. In fact, I think you are currently the only editor in these discussions who thinks they should be hidden. So I am going to revert your changes again. Please accept consensus and stop edit warring over this. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gandalf61 - consensus here and at the mathematics forum mean nothing if not underpinned by WP policy as expressed by the MoS or by the WP:SPOILER, which you cited initially as your reason. Get support for your point of view by changing the wording of WP:SPOILER. Until then my interpretation is as valid as yours and supported by BE BOLD. So please stop this reverting until you have WP policy backing. Paul venter (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary to get Wikipedia-wide consensus for every change. The local consensus here and at WT:WPM is that these changes are not improvements.  If you think a wider consensus is likely to change the prevailing opinion, then by all means start an WP:RFC.  But for now, this issue seems to be settled.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to change anything - the template already exists and was created to be used. I'm not acting in contravention of any WP guideline and you have failed to provide any such evidence. So the matter is far from settled and will require the intervention of wiser heads than yours or mine. Paul venter (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CONSENSUS is policy. I suggest you read it.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * "Get support for your point of view by changing the wording of WP:SPOILER." - It just happened. See Spoiler and talk page discussion there. But even if this wasn't the case, your interpretation is not "as valid as yours" when you have all other editors disagreeing with you. Your changes are clearly not consensus, and yes, local consensus is perfectly valid when it doesn't disagree with the global consensus of policies/guidelines. You, Paul, are the one who must stop reverting. -- Cycl o pia talk  18:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul—you’re insisting on doing something to an article that everyone is telling you not to do. That violates policy; most specifically, the one that Sławomir cited. Being bold is great, but please read WP:BRD. —Frungi (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * And I will remind Paul, that he can be blocked for editing against consensus. Paul August &#9742; 20:45, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Paul please read WP:Consensus, and please be warned that if you repeatedly edit against consensus, your editing privileges can be revoked. Paul August &#9742; 20:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul kindly note that not all consensual decisions are enforceable, and willfully misinterpreting policy probably falls in this category. A close examination of edit history will show that I have certainly not repeatedly edited against consensus, such as it is, but at each step have justified my edits, whereas the same cannot be said of the edit-warring editors. Please keep this discussion on the talk page where it started and desist from issuing threats. Paul venter (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Justifying your edits doesn't make it much less disruptive if it goes against consensus of multiple editors. Really, you can't have what you want if you're the only one who wants it. -- Cycl o pia talk  16:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I get the feeling you haven’t actually read that section beyond the title… It’s obviously entirely irrelevant to this matter. Anyway, it’s completely unreasonable to insist on changing an article unless a policy explicitly says not to. You were the one who wanted a change, so the onus was on you to make a case for that change, which you did not. Or if you did, it was overshadowed by your wikilawyering tactics. —Frungi (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Never argue with a fool - onlookers may not be able to tell the difference." — Mark Twain Paul venter (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I venture to say it’s pretty clear in this case. But this wasn’t about “arguing” with you; it was about helping you understand the importance of consensus. You were the only one advocating your position, and everyone else was telling you no. That means, don’t do it. Also, absence of evidence (“the policy doesn’t include this restriction”) is not evidence of absence (“the policy endorses this”). There’s probably a better description of that logical fallacy, but you get my point. Edit: It was an argument from ignorance. (Funny, I actually linked to a subsection of that.) —Frungi (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)