User talk:Gill110951

Earlier postings moved to Archive 1, 2, ..
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)

Essay on Probability Notation
I wrote, at the suggestion of a fellow editor, during the Monty Hall Problem wars, a little essay on notation in probability theory:. This could be useful for Two Envelope Problem editors, too. Richard Gill (talk) 11:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

TEP: The heart of the matter
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


 * (1) Under symmetry, E(A)=E(B).
 * (2) Under symmetry, if E(A) is finite, then it is impossible that E(B|A=a) > a for all a.
 * (3) Under symmetry, it is impossible that P(A < B|A=a)=1/2 for all a.

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


 * (4) The probability distributions of A|A < B, of A, and of A|A > B are strictly stochastically ordered (from small to large).

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,  Richard Gill (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You say in the introduction that it doesn't matter if the distribution has infinite expectation or not, but in your theorem you explicitly exclude that case. So it does indeed matter. This is the first lie. Then in the end you say that the only way to escape your solution is to assume improper distributions. But hey, do you really think that all distributions having infinite (or undefined) expectations are improper distributions? I know you know better than that. This is the second lie. Also, you have forgotten to make all your assumption explicit, like stating that all values can be mapped onto the (infinite) real line. This assumption is not true in practice why your theorem (2) breaks down in reality. And you don't take account here for the fact that you believe that utility is bounded above at some arbitrary level (as long as it is finite). And where is your opinion represented that you say that we have to truncate the support for some proper distributions to escape the paradox? Here nothing is bounded and nothing is truncated. I guess you are in your math Nirvana now that has nothing to do with reality, right? In that case this is about as interesting as theology. iNic (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Random variables are by convention real valued. The theorem gives information about all cases with proper distributions and real valued random variables, whether or not expectations are finite. Of course the theorem gives a glimpse into a mathematical Nirvana. Application to TEP and other exchange paradoxes has to be worked out, case by case. This is not difficult to do. I am revising my work-in-progress paper on TEP so as to incorporate the results of the theorem. However, I am writing in first instance for mathematicians, not for philosophers and not for lay persons, so I doubt you will be pleased with the results. Still I am very greatful for the discussions with you because they triggered the new result about stochastic ordering. With some colleagues we are looking for further new results. This has opened up a fascinating new avenue of TEP investigations. 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)


 * OK so (2) requires finite expectation but (4) does not? 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)
 * So you chose to use real values to solve this problem haunted by infinity related issues just by convention? Nothing in the original TEP formulation requires any infinities, only two numbers, and you throw in a continuum of infinities just like that? (Maybe that's because how you mathematicians count: one, two, infinity...) It is however possible to formulate the paradox in a finite setting and then the real numbers can't be utilized in the solution. iNic (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look there
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)

Re:Please undelete Two envelopes problem/sources

 * [#Please_undelete_Two_envelopes_problem.2Fsources Re:Please undelete Two envelopes problem/sources]

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)


 * Fastily has helped us out now! Richard Gill (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Content vs the messenger
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)
 * Thank you for your wise advice. In my defense, in my own opinion I have focussed all the time on content and on Wikipedia policies. Diether and Christian themselves raised the issue of academic qualifications and resorted to personal abuse. Concerning academic credentials: an internet search of University of Oxford web pages fails to find any evidence whatever of any academic affiliation of any kind of the author J. Christian in the University of Oxford, despite the fact that his 12 or so arxiv.org "publications" on his Bell refutation give the University of Oxford as his academic address. Personal communication with leading members of the likely departments concerned confirms this. Similarly he has had no affiliation of any kind with the Perimeter Institute for many years. Nobody would have made these enquiries (I was not the one who initiated them) if Christian had not resorted to pretty obscene personal insults to anyone who dared suggest his work was flawed, on the much read blog of Scott Aaronson (a leading expert on quantum computation). It is difficult to imagine Galileo, Kepler, or Einstein behaving like this. Aaronson started a blog entry on Christian's work (not person) in reaction to a personal challenge to Aaronson by Christian. Coinciding in time with the appearance of Christian's book. This certainly gave the book publication a great deal of publicity. Now this little Wikipedia quarrel is generating yet more publicity. Richard Gill (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest you stop trying to convince the other editors of the argument: User_talk:Thomas_h_ray, you are unlikely to convince someone who has extreme beliefs, instead on wikipedia we solely focus on arguments based on policies and guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As a mathematician I also have a deeply felt conviction that mathematical truth decides arguments about mathematics, just as physicts believe Nature is the ultimate arbiter of physics. But I know it is not a criterion on Wikipedia. (I was struck by User:Count_Iblis's statements about Wikipedia policy and editing scientific topics on his Talk page.) 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)

Bell's theorem
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
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)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC
Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Your MHP article
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)


 * There are many game theoretic formulations of MHP. What are the restrictions on the two parties? (Host, contestant). I like to see MHP as having four steps:


 * 1) host hides car


 * 2) player picks door


 * 3) host opens another door revealing goat


 * 4) player reconsiders pick


 * If these are the rules for the two parties, and the parties are allowed randomized strategies, then the host's strategy has two components: probability distribution of the initial location of the car; probability distribution of the door to open given door hiding car and door picked by contestant. I don't give the host the option not to open a door! (Otherwise it's not the MHP any more ...)


 * The contestant's strategy has similarly two components: probability distribution of initial door to pick; probability distribution of renewed pick given initial choice and door opened by host.


 * I hope you are aware of Sasha (A. V. ) Gnedin's recent publications on the decision theoretic view of MHP in which he shows how no probability whatever is needed to determine the optimal strategy for the player. He shows that any player strategy (initial door picked and rule for switching or not depending on that and on the host's opened door) is dominated by an "always switch" strategy (possibly with a different initial pick). That is to say, given any particular strategy we can easily find another strategy, but now an always-switch strategy, such that whereever the car is hidden and whatever door is opened by the host the second strategy does as well or better than the first.


 * A smart contestant thinks about the game before going to the show. He knows he's going to be asked whether or not he wants to switch. The above remark shows that of course he will switch, whatever... His only interesting choice is which door to choose initially. Since he's going to switch anyway it would be foolish to make this initial choice his favourite number or something like that. He's going to chuck it away, anyway. If he's smart he'll fix his initial pick completely at random, so that he won't feel uneasy about changing it later. He knows he'll get the car with probability 2/3, whatever the host does. He's not interested in the conditional probability of this or that... since it depends on things he doesn't know, and anyway, 2/3 overall win-chance can't be improved. Richard Gill (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you are assuming that Monty must open a door and offer you a choice, is that correct? But that is nowhere in the statement of the problem (and it is not what happened on the show, either, if I recall correctly). --Trovatore (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. It is part of the the Monty Hall problem as defined by Marilyn vos Savant (and earlier by other writers). The problem is only loosely related to the actual show. Richard Gill (talk) 05:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that it is not part of the problem as defined by vos Savant, at least in the passage quoted at the top of the article. There is not a word about the host being required to open a door.  All you know is that he did open a door.
 * If earlier writers were more explicit on this point, then perhaps they should be quoted at the top instead of vos Savant. The problem as stated does not have any hint of this requirement. --Trovatore (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not responsible for the confusion which is introduced at the top of the article by not immediately adding the so important "small print"! Vos Savant went on immediately to make explicit this key assumption. As a statistical brain teaser the problem starts with an article by Steve Selvin in 1975. He makes it clear, too. It's a key ingredient in the standard MHP. Richard Gill (talk) 03:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice, but be careful
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)


 * Oops! I had better remove them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gill110951 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 13 September 2012‎ (UTC)


 * Removing them was good, but now you have exceeded the 500 word limit, which is not fair to everybody who stayed within the limit. See the top of Talk:Monty Hall problem. The obvious solution is to stop trying to have a threaded discussion in the middle of an RfC comment, but rather to have it elsewhere on the talk page. Remember, an uninvolved administrator is going to have to go through the entire RfC and make a determination as to what the consensus is. ---Guy Macon (talk) 22:17, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'll count and trim. Incidentally I think the brst thing for the page would be to ban all long time editors of the page for a year. Let fresh blood come in. Richard Gill (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for you at talk:MHP
Hi - Just so you're sure not to miss it, Martin has addressed a question to you. Please respond there. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

MHP: Assuming a good opponent
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)


 * Short answer: read my Statistica Neerlandica paper. Long answer: maybe later this weekend. Personallly I'm more comfortable with frequentist that subjective probability. By choosing my door initially at random I introduce a "hard" probability ingredient. A Bayesian would want to condition on the outcome of my randomuzation. But I'm lazy, I don't want to think. I prefer to keep my eyes shut and switch.


 * There is no place for randomization in Bayesian statistics. But a big place for it in Science. Richard Gill (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I see now. Your claim is not that "pick randomly, then switch" is objectively the best strategy, or that 2/3 is objectively the best result (which requires "given a good opponent" qualification). It's only that without extra information, overall objective 2/3 is the best hard guarantee you can get. That way, the objective conditional probability remains unknown. It's word choices like the paper's "2/3 [is] the best you can hope for" that give the impression that optimality is claimed – unless the opponent's strategy is known, surely you can always hope! You might like to gamble and trust your best guess of the goat door, and then switch. The objective overall probability of winning that way is unknown, but might be better than 2/3, who knows?


 * I think a subjectivist with a uniform prior should randomize, though, to ensure you get what you believe. Or even randomize the door numbers, to ensure the uniform priors are calibrated – why not ensure that what you already believe is correct! (at least when modeled using door numbers, even if not using door locations; if you want to make side bets, you'll have a problem unless you can convince others to use the same secret random labels)


 * Maybe this is the most that can be said: If the opponent (host/producer) doesn't want to give you the car and plays well (K&W or Morgan), picking randomly and always switching is guaranteed to be an optimal strategy, and it wins 2/3 of the time overall. The strategy cannot be exploited even if the opponent knows it. In any particular situation, it wins 2/3 (or ≥1/2) of the time. If the opponent's strategy is unknown, then although better strategies might exist for you, overall 2/3 is the best hard guarantee you can know of, and the same strategy gives you that. In any particular situation, the (natural) epistemic probability that switching wins is 2/3, and the objective probability is unknown. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You say that I'm not claiming "pick at random then switch" is objectively the best strategy. Well, this depends on what you or I mean by "best". I claim it is best, in a very strong objective sense. It will give you the car with probability 2/3, whatever the host does. No other strategy has this guarantee, no other strategy has a better guarantee.


 * I don't have any objective information on the basis of which I can say what is the probability of winning by switching, given my initial choice, and given the door opened by the host. But I don't need to know this probability, I'm not interested in it. Richard Gill (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * What I meant by objectively best/optimal strategy is the literal meaning: a strategy that has the highest objective overall probability of winning. If the producer deterministically places the car behind door 1, then picking that and staying is one objectively best strategy. If the producer randomizes, then picking randomly and switching is one objectively best strategy. The latter one is also unexploitable by any opponent, and best as you define it (i.e. an equilibrium strategy). Anyhow, I think I understood your position now, and that's what I wanted to know. -- Coffee2theorems (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Good, that's clear. For a given specification of the quizmaster's strategy there is a best strategy of the player. But we don't know it, are not told about it. Even if we observed the game many times in the past, how do we know that the host will behave the same way, tonight? All we know are the rules: the host will certainly show us a goat behind another door. "Randomize and switch" is the unique minimax strategy: gives us the best chance of winning, whatever the host does. Assuming the host doesn't want us to win, his minimax strategy is: hide the car completely at random and open a different goat door completely at random. Symmetry is at work here, too. The problem is symmetric in the door numbers. A minimax solution exists, by von Neumann's theorem. By symmetry, there exists a symmetric minimax solution. All this known since Nalebuff popularized MHP in the decision theory literature soon after Selvin did in statistics, long before Vos Savant made it famous in popular literature. Richard Gill (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yet another solution to MHP
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.

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)


 * In fact my conditional solution table is as follows with undistinguishable goats. It is an expansion of vos Savant's solution table modelling the host's alternatives to open door 2 resp. door 3, if he has a choice, completely:

--TotalClearance (talk) 13:42, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, so there are initially only three possibilities but the two where the host has no choice are split in two (as if he toses a coin anyway, even if he has no choice) to preserve "equally likely outcomes". The table needs quite a bit of explaining. Fine for me, fine by me e.g. In a probability class, not so convenient when discussing MHP at a party. I'm personally more interested in solutions based on a few intuitive ideas only; not solutions which need algebra or arithmetic or tabulation. Richard Gill (talk) 14:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
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)

My comments on the MHP talk page
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)


 * No problem! I am agressively pushing the insights which (I believe) Bayes' rule can give to MHP. For a given specific problem one can generally find a "once off" simple solution. But if you want to understand why similar but not identical problems have different solutions, it doesn't help very much to have two rather different "once off" simple solutions which each work for one problem only. And then along comes another variant and we are back to square one. I strongly believe that Bayes' rule gives the "deep insight" to really understand what is going on, but since I am probably incapable of expressing it myself in the kind of words which everyone could easily understand, I first need to convince a wise non-mathematician expert on MHP like yourself.
 * Now it is true that the typical Bayes rule argument is easiest to run through when we label the doors in advance eg 1, 2, 3 and thereafter specify the labels of the doors chosen, opened.... One can afterwards "drop" the specific labels by the standard symmetry argument. Alternatively one can try to apply Bayes rule with doors only identified by their role in the problem (door chosen, door opened, etc). But it is trickier.
 * So I certainly am learning more about MHP myself from all these exchanges. Richard Gill (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Combining doors and Bayes' rule
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?


 * I don't see how we can apply a combined doors argument when the host reveals a goat by chance. The (verbal) combined doors argument explicitly uses the host's knowledge and deliberate decision to open a goat door. Richard Gill (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on whose argument you use. Devlin does say, ' I'll help you by using my knowledge of where the prize is to open one of those two doors to show you that it does not hide the prize. You can now take advantage of this additional information'.  Even so I doubt that many people realise the significance of, 'using my knowledge of where the prize is'.
 * if Monty opens one of the other two doors at random and allows you to switch we can also imagine that he's offering you the opportunity to exchange your first door for the two other. By always switching (to the car door if Monty reveals a car, to the closed door if Monty reveals a goat) you'll get the car with probability 2/3. In fact you get it whenever your first door hides a goat. Now that unconditional 2/3 is the weighted average of the conditional chance of getting the car when Monty shows you the car (1) and the conditional chance of getting the car when Monty shows you a goat (p). The weights are, obviously, 1/3 and 2/3. So 1/3 + 2/3 p = 2/3 from which I deduce p = 1/2.
 * So we can use a "combining doors argument" too, but it doesnt't tell us directly the chance of getting the car given*what* Monty showed us. We want to know the conditional probability! And we still didn't take account of *which* door was opener. Similarly in standard MHP, the combining doors argument doesn't take account of *which* door was opened. But of course, in neither problem is this information useful. By symmetry the "information" is actually non-informative. Richard Gill (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what you are getting at here. There is commonly discussed scenario where the host reveals a car and the player can switch to that door.
 * I'm saying that you *can* use the combined doors argument in the scenario where Monty opens one of the two doors at random, and it *does* give the right answer: 2/3 unconditional. (Unconditional on whether in a particular case he happens to reveal a car or a goat, and unconditional on which door it happened to be that he opened, 2 or 3). You have to do more work to get to the conditional result: conditional on that he happened to reveal a goat behind door 3, the chance of winning by switching is 1/2. Richard Gill (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Adams just says, ' "Monty is saying in effect: you can keep your one door or you can have the other two doors.' This argument would appear to work if host reveals a goat by chance.

Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This is the important part of what I said. Based on what Adams says you would expect the 'combining doors' solution to work, but it does not (if the player must choose an unopened door). Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It does work, if the host truly offers the player the choice of either of the two other doors. Richard Gill (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it works if the host truly offers the player the choice of either of the two other doors - but he doesn't.


 * There are many possible variants of this problem but you will see from the comments we have had on the talk pages and from the points made by many sources that have discussed the problem that the one thing that puzzles most people is why it matters that the host knows where the car is (and therefore always reveals a goat). You may find it interesting to consider the variant where the player can switch to either of the two doors that he did not originally choose, including door opened by the host but I do not think anyone else does.  There may be many ambiguities in vos Savant's problem statement but there is no doubt that the player is never offered the option of having the prize behind the door that the host has just opened.  This option would indeed make a bizarre game show.


 * Under the standard rules, except that the host reveals a goat by chance (which is considered by some people to be an ambiguity in the problem statement) a player who switches gains no advantage. This is true whether or not we specify the door opened by the host.  The best way, in my opinion, to explain why this difference from the standard problem exists is to use Bayes' rule. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. And here you are following Jef Rosenthal (article, popular book chapter). Richard Gill (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * So what do you think of my suggestions on the MHP talk page? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I shall take a look! Richard Gill (talk) 06:47, 20 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)


 * I agree. I have been saying so for a number of years and even published such a fix in several places (Citizendium and StatProb online encyclopedias; also in a kind of addendum note on my webpage). See http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/#MHP for links to everything else. Richard Gill (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Legalities
You probably have something interesting to say about the role of statistics in law. :) Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I could say an awful lot on this subject! Is it a wikipedia article? Richard Gill (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I should be happy to hear you talk on this subject. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  06:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Meaning of ignoring the door numbers
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)


 * Martin does not listen to me either. I thought that comparing three doors to three cups might illuminate this discussion. However, like Marilyn vos Savant, he does not see any difference. Richard Gill (talk) 08:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The thread was specifically focused on the meaning of "2/3 of what" (using a concrete, rather than abstract, sample space of 900 shows). Martin seems to misunderstand the meaning (vis a vis the relevant sample space) of ignoring door numbers, apparently thinking a conclusion based on ignoring door numbers applies to a sample selected in a way that does not ignore door numbers.  Is not the Bayesian's indifference (based on lack of knowledge) simply technical jargon for talking about things that are indistinguishable - in which case a representative sample space must also treat those things as indistinguishable?  In particular, a Bayesian concluding there's a 2/3 chance of winning by switching for a (single) player who has picked door 1 and has then seen the host open door 3 is NOT saying the conditional probabilities the car is behind door 1 and door 2 given the host opens door 3 are 1/3 and 2/3 (in the sense that these are the expected values that will be confirmed by the law of large numbers when observing shows where players indeed pick door 1 and the host indeed opens door 3).  Instead, isn't this 1/3:2/3 answer talking about a player who has picked a door (any door) and has then seen the host open a different door (either other door) - i.e. the entire sample space of 900 shows (not just those where the player picked door 1 and the host opened door 3)?  I think this confusion about "2/3 of what" is perhaps at the root of much of Martin's, let's say, peculiar notions about probability. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:53, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see your point. But Martin never will. Regarding probability, he is a self-taught man and he is very smart. He does not have the patience to learn alternative (but conventional) ways of seeing things when he thinks he sees them perfectly well in his own way. Just like Marilyn vos Savant. Richard Gill (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Failed to parse
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?
 * Failed to parse (lexing error): \frac{\text{P(see gold | GG)}{\text{P(see gold | GG)+P(see gold | SS)+P(see gold | GS)}}=\frac{1}{1+0+1/2}= \frac{2}{3}

Note that the formatting error does not occur in earlier versions, starting with: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)


 * I see the error. Weird. Will try to rewrite formula. Richard Gill (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Steve Gull
FYI I stubbed Steve Gull. Glrx (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Steve tells me his office is in 18 boxes while he moves across the road in Cambridge but I have the idea he does know exactly where, in there, the two pages are which I mentioned on Bell's Theorem. Richard Gill (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The faster he moves, the less sure he is of the position. Glrx (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe the slower he moves, the less sure he becomes. Richard Gill (talk) 09:55, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Question about Gull proof
Professor Gill, thanks to you and Professor Gull for posting the sketch proof regarding Bell's theorem. 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)


 * Professor Gill, thanks very much for your explanation and comments. However, because it is part of the deterministic program, the random generator would necessarily be a pseudorandom number generator, and thus cyclic.  Is this OK?  Otherwise, if it must be truly random, of course the only source for this is QM... J-Wiki (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Good question. Indeed the computer program probably uses some deterministic rule to create so-called pseudo-random numbers. Eventually the cycle will repeat. The starting point of the simulations will be determined by the program from the computer time and date, or it will be chosen by the programmer by using his birthdate or lucky number to pick a point in the cycle. Let's think of the initial seed of the random generator as random. Then the first N numbers from the generator are jointly random though of course the second, third, .... up to the Nth are just some complicated function of the previous numbers. A good pseudo random generator is such that if we pick the seed at random and then look at the first N numbers, call them U1, ..., UN, these are close in joint distribution to N independent random uniform (0,1) numbers. In usual applications N is much much much smaller than the cycle length of the generator!
 * So I think that from a practical point of view this is OK. From a metaphysical point of view there are interesting questions about randomness. Of course when we only simulate a Bell-type experiment N times there is a chance that we will violate Bell inequalities "purely by chance". The usual proofs of Bell's theorem talk about expectation values ie averages after infinitely many runs of the experiment. In real experiments we only observe finitely any pairs of particles and we use sample averages as proxy for population means. I recently wrote some new proofs of Bell's theorem which take account of "finite statistics". The final conclusion is a probability statement ... the chance of such and such a large violation of Bell's inequality is smaller than something very tiny, if the number of runs so and so large. Richard Gill (talk) 09:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Professor, thank you for the analysis. J-Wiki (talk) 01:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Bell.svg
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 Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hear hear, even though we may not agree about absolutely everything. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be boring? Thanks! Richard Gill (talk) 11:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Practical experiments testing Bell's theorem
In this article, seems like you meant $$\cos(2\theta)$$ instead of $$\cos(\theta/2)$$. wolfRAMM 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mistake, indeed; thank you. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, both! Richard Gill (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (Monty Hall problem) in which you were involved has been modified by 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)

Two envelopes problem
✅ GiantSnowman 10:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you willing to consult with Wikiversity on Bell's inequalities?.


I would greatly appreciate your expertise in 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)


 * I love talking about Bell's theorem, you are also welcome to email me directly... Richard Gill (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I think I solved all my math problems. See:


 * Bell's theorem.


 * I included a genie to highlight the "trick" of using measurement at the remote photon to ascertain the local photon's polarization. Your comment about symmetries inspired that simplification in the algebra.  For more about the genie see:


 * Bell's theorem


 * Yours truly, original post Guy vandegrift (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC) --Guy vandegrift (talk) 23:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Peter Nijkamp
Hello mr Gill. Nijkamp's miss Kourtit is in my mailbox, asking for help with demanding action on VU_University_Amsterdam. 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)
 * I removed the mentioning on Nijkamp/Kourtit altogether, based on De Volkskrant. Not all investigations seem to be over, but under the circumstances I think Wikipedia should exercise restraint. Regards, Sander1453 (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Really (IMHO) the talk of (self)plagiarism was a red-herring all the time. The actual problem with Kourtit's thesis (and the many papers it consisted of ) were lack of quality. I also believe that an investigation of anomalies in the statistical data analysis in a number of papers is not finished yet. So the story is not over yet. But I agree that in the mean-time Wikipedia should exercise restraint. Richard Gill (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * See also http://www.advalvas.vu.nl/nieuws/mensenrechtencollege-berispt-vu-zaak-kourtit and https://wngig.amu.edu.pl/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/256108/Wykaz-uchwal-RW-2013-2014_64.pdf Richard Gill (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments, and the links. Unfortunately I don't read Polish (maar Nederlands dus wel). Sander1453 (talk) 07:18, 10 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)
 * Another dissertation and promotion? She's been busy. Anyway, they're out of the VU article and removed from List of plagiarism incidents, which is best for now. Thanks, Sander1453 (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that the Poznan PhD thesis is essentially the same as the thesis originally submitted at the VU and withdrawn a day or so before its scheduled defence. In the meantime, two papers have been retracted http://retractionwatch.com/2014/07/02/retractions-arrive-in-plagiarism-scandal-involving-economist-nijkamp and an investigation is still ongoing into data-anomalies in several other ones. I believe that Peter Nijkamp has an honorary doctorate at Poznan university which presumably gives him an opportunity to promote Kourtit there. Richard Gill (talk) 12:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate the LOWI cleared them so easily: mr Anonymous gave them enough to think about. However, that's my personal opinion and should not be in articles. Good luck with your translation. Sander1453 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Acknowledgment of your assistance in an article I am submitting
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)


 * No problem Richard Gill (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:RDG110951.jpg
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
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

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 Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See 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)


 * The photographer was my wife. She gives her permission to use the file in this way. I have emailed to permissions-en@wikimedia.org informing them of this. Richard Gill (talk) 16:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia page on Joy Christian
I think that Joy Christian’s work is very notable. I have started drafting a Wikipedia article on it. Comments, help, edits, are welcome.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Wikipedia page on Opposition to Bell’s Theorem
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)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gill110951/Bell_theorem_opposition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loopholes_in_Bell_test_experiments

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Dutch mathematicians, Dutch statisticians
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)

Speedy deletion of Niels Keiding


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 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 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, or if you have already done so, you may open a discussion at Deletion Review. — Diannaa (talk) 12:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Niels Keiding
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.
 * Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License (CC BY-SA 3.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Niels Keiding and send an email with confirmation of permission to "[mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org ]". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Niels Keiding, in their email. See Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
 * If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to [mailto:permissions-en@wikimedia.org ] or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Niels Keiding. See Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
 * If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Niels Keiding with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

See 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)

Richard D. Gill
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)


 * My birthdate is published in the statutes of my foundation “Science for justice - NL”, science4justice.nl, which I will be putting online in a few days. It’s a public and legal document. My own webpages explain why I use @gill1109 as handle. My Wikipedia editor’s name is Gill110951.
 * I’m a bit busy at the moment fighting off the mobs who want to burn their witch Lucy, and destroy anyone who stands in their way. Richard Gill (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at 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)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.MeltingDistrict (talk) 01:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Snugglewasp (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Partial blocks
 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. First, you are not permitted to edit the article about yourself so actively. I'm not sure why you think you should be exempt from a guideline that everyone else is expected to adhere to, but whatever the reasoning, it stops now. Likewise 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. Any further conflict of interest editing, and any further aggression towards others (though at least you apologized for the latest), are almost certain to end in a lengthy sitewide block, if not of an indefinite duration. Finally, if you have any questions about these blocks, please WP:PING me here or at the ANI thread (not my talk page). If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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)

Lucy Letby
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)

Indefinite block
 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. The canvassing pertains to the Twitter posting that reads: 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. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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)

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)
 * I have had no prior interaction with Richard Gill on or off wiki before my attention was drawn to a COI banner placed on the page. I took a look, and was immediately concerned by what I saw. One user, Structuralists, was summarily excising all of the content and repalcing it with content I believed (and a consensus later established) was not neutral. I also found that another user who was editing there had shown clear "bad blood" in an egregious personal attack on Gill's personal page. The non neutral editing continued on this and another page, and I took this to ANI and MeltingDistrict was topic banned from all pages associated with Richard Gill owing to a clear failure of neutrality.  had already said in an earlier ANI thread that Gill was over a barrel. MeltingDistrict escaped further sanction because they appeared to be a new user, but as they continued their attacks on everything to do with Richard Gill, they were given the topic ban under AE restrictions. Nevertheless, Structuarlists and SnuggleWasp continued in this vein right up to yesterday, when Structuralists attempted an RfC designed to introduce non neutral material into Gill's page. []. By this time it was clear these editors were sockpuppets of BarehamOliver. My evidence is here. I had filed the SPI at the weekend and the investigation concluded last night. It is thus clear that Richard Gill was under concerted attack by a false consensus caused by socking. He was topic banned from editing his own page, a restriction that may remain - but I note that the COI guidance does not say that editing your own page is always wrong, it is strongly advised against. He was given that topic ban when his edits were defending what clearly were highly POV attacks. It is much better, of course, not to edit your own page, and the topic ban is a fair solution, but that mitigation should be considered. So, on that score, his desire to request editor assistance when he could not edit his own page and when he was under attack from three sockpuppets is entirely understandable. I note, also, that it was the sockpuupet Structuralists who contacted  to point out the off-wiki canvassing.  El_C acted entirely reasonably and in good faith in enacting the above block, because blocks are preventitive but not punitive. However, in light of the clear manipulation of the situation by sockpuppetry, I would request that this block be reviewed in the light of that evidence.
 * I note that off-wiki canvassing is problematic, for good reason. I submit, however, that despite having over 7,000 edits, this editor had not edited much out of mainspace, and was probably unaware of on-wiki means of requesting editor assistance. Richard Gill is a respected statistician, editing under his own name. He edits on a range of pages on statistical subjects and subjects were statistical reasoning is deployed. These contributions are very valuable to the project. Because he has a professional reputation, and has been open about his identity, I believe that should he apologise for the off-wiki request and assure us that in future he will seek assistance using approved on-wiki methods, we would be able to take that promise at face value.  Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * First of all, it's not another user’s place to request that they are unblocked. But secondly, I oppose any unblock on multiple grounds: firstly, much of the policy violations and misconduct was years before those sockpuppets even started editing on Wikipedia, so it's not like this block is only because of the actions of the sockpuppets. The user's conduct was already lacking. you rightly blocked the user not just for canvassing recently, but for serious and numerous COI guideline infringements that were traced all the way back to 2006, such as writing a biography of himself(!) and creating other pages on cases he himself was legally involved in. As you rightly said, this is a longstanding issue that has gone back many years. That was why the user was given a partial block initially anyway, not because of the sockpuppets' actions. It's true that this block was then upgraded to indefinite after the socks brought further infringements to the attention of EL_C, but it was the users' choice to ignore the previous lenient warning and implications of the partial block to go on to canvass and commit further violations, not the socks. In any case, the user would not have known then that the users were socks, so that cannot be a valid excuse for continuing his pre-sock involvement conduct. 148.252.159.203 (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This IP range has been used by an SPA supporting BarehamOliver socks recently. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was asked by the user MeltingDistrict via Twitter (I believed at the time in good faith) to take a look at the Michael Stone Rfc that was going on at the time. I was unaware of any sockpuppetry on their part, and I’m not defending their actions, there has evidently been serious breaches of policies on their part. However, I can’t see how the block of this user should be removed just because it has materialised that an editor who played a role in bringing editor misconduct to the attention of admins has turned out to be a sockpuppet. The misconduct was still misconduct, whether it was reported by a sock or not. 148.252.159.203 (talk) 14:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * My recent misconduct was misconduct and I've admitted that and apologised for it. Deciding now that my behaviour in 2006. was serious Wikipedia crimes which proves that I have always been a bad editor, is not fair. Notice that some of the recent editing of the article about my real-life person was gross vandalism. I corrected it and reported it. The original complaints against my editing of the page on Lucy Letby were also grossly unfair. I corrected factual errors. My corrections were undone by a small group of editors (possibly one person and some sockpuppets) who considered themselves the owners of the page and who were treating recent articles in the Daily Mail and other UK tabloid journals as "reliable sources". They did not understand the difference between a legal fact and a true fact and did not apply the presumption of innocence, Lucy is appealing against her convictions, there are reporting restrictions in force in the UK. Richard Gill (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not start the Wikipedia article about myself. Someone else did. I was surprised but gratified. I assisted by taking some public material from my university website (basic biographical details, public domain, I think Leiden University is a reliable source. They do not allow their employees to lie about themselves on webpages of the university). The earlier editor had called me a physicist, I corrected that. Later I helped in the disambiguation of all the Richard Gill articles on Wikipedia. In those far-off days, that behaviour of myself was completely unremarkable and nobody thought there was anything wrong with it. It was dug up by those trolls who were attacking me personally because I was one of the (at that time) few persons who dared stand up and say that Lucy Letby might be innocent, and that her trial was grossly unfair. 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. Richard Gill (talk) 15:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * First, corrections to two small points:
 * 1. I did ask for assistance on-wiki.
 * 2. I am not just a statistician; for the last 20 years I have been working in physics, in the foundations of quantum mechanics (and have made very many contributions to Wikipedia pages on Bell's theorem, quantum entanglement, etc). Perhaps it is better to call me a mathematician.
 * Then some more general background. I have given a great deal to Wikipedia for very many years. I have an international reputation as a person of personal integrity and constant work to benefit science and society, not just to promote my own career. I gained that reputation by repeatedly and selflessly accepting positions of great responsibility -- not just by my production of numerous highly cited papers over a career of 50 years. I feel that the initial attacks against me exhibited gross violation of the "good faith" assumption by those editors who have since been banned themselves. And moreover, with all respect to editor El_C, I do not think he investigated the situation deeply enough, and did not work from the assumption that my own editing might have been done in good faith and without any intention of violating Wikipedia principles.
 * I am not saying that I should be treated differently from any other Wikipedia editor. I do think that the punishment I was given, was out of all proportion to the crime. If Wikipedia editors do not want me to support Wikipedia any longer, that would be very sad. But no matter. I won't be around for very many more years. To be honest, my professional aim in life at present is to support the ongoing fight for a fair re-trial of Lucy Letby, Wikipedia has low personal priority. I predict that Lucy Letby will be completely exonerated by the time I reach 80, though there is a big chance I won't be around there any more. If Wikipedia wants to do without my support in future, so be it. I am not going to waste yet more time by further defending my personal reputation here. Richard Gill (talk) 15:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Some of the comments above serve to further demonstrate why should not be unblocked. Gill110951 was blocked by  in part because of his real-world WP:ADVOCACY on Lucy Letby (his aim as stated above being to help get Letby freed), with El_C summarising on the block summaries above:


 * 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.


 * Yet despite these blocks, Gill110951 is apparently still trying to promote his real-world advocacy to this day, especially with the comments above:


 * 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.


 * Quite clearly, 's comment that It has become evident you will not cease from wilfully ignoring WP:NOTADVOCACY unless forced to desist is 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)
 * Also, users should be aware of some other suspicious behaviour by Gill110951 in the past that they may be unaware of. In a 2020 lecture/seminar which is still available online he complained (slide 3) that he had been "twice banned from editing Wikipedia". Well hold on, his block log  shows that -- at least on the Gill110951 account -- he had never been blocked by that point. So this raises a question - has he previously been editing on other accounts and had been blocked on them? This then also raises the possibility that there has been abusing of multiple accounts by Gill, which would explain why he claims to have been blocked twice before. That is clearly an additional concern any users should be aware of, and, again, is something from before the just-blocked socks even came onto the scene. 148.252.159.203 (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not use the word “block” in the sense of a total prohibition. I was blocked from editing a certain page. I recall I used some elementary arithmetic and logic on the Monty Hall (three door) problem. It was considered “own research”. I have never been editing using other accounts. I later published my own research in a now much cited paper. The simple argument I had used is now in Wikipedia. Richard Gill (talk) 04:20, 4 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Here from a ping by . I hadn't been watching this page; I had taken it that Gill110951 did not wish to return to Wikipedia. I try very hard to leave admin decisions to admins, and I am going to make a rare personal declaration here: I am not a statistician (sound of laughter from those who know me) but I found the case against Lucy Letby as reported in reputable news outlets to be persuasive, and that personal point of view is why I have stayed well away from editing her article. However, both of those things said, editors are not forbidden from expressing their personal points of view or what they are doing about them off-wiki, at least on their own talk pages. (They are not even forbidden from talking about Wikipedia on social media, canvassing excepted, and Gill11095 has indeed been unusually open about his identity; he shouldn't be punished for the fact his social media accounts are thus readily linkable with his account here.) He is also far from unique in having written an autobiography here, and it was some time ago. The attacks on him leading to the first AN/I were nasty. He's aware of the COI rules and he's now fully aware of how we interpret the rules against biased editing and canvassing, and appears to be willing to accept a topic ban and/or partial block. Setting aside my own personal dislike of his current endeavour, I respectfully disagree with the IP and endorse such an option for unblocking his account. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Yngvadottir, the case against Lucy Letby as reported in reputable news outlets was indeed persuasive. The reason was that her defence did nothing to defend her. The courtroom journalists reported the prosecution case and the jury accepted it. The trial lasted 10 months and there is no evidence that Lucy Letby ever harmed any baby. Plenty of evidence of medical errors by the doctors and an atrocious hygiene situation (leaking sewage). Lucy was a whistleblower. Four medical consultants who had been severely criticised by a report of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (which found no evidence of ill-doing by nurses) were out to destroy her. The case is so damaging to the NHS and to the UK’s criminal justice system that the the powers that be are doing everything they can to obstruct her appeal. Richard Gill (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am more than happy to accept a topic ban or partial block or time limited full block. I’m fully aware of how the rules are being interpreted. Richard Gill (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Continued advocacy
It's probably time that talk page access was revoked. Theroadislong (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * That would be an interesting development from a freedom of speech perspective. Cheshire Constabulary sent Dutch police to my door in the night to deliver a letter demanding I removed my blog on the Lucy Letby case from internet and purged my social media of links to certain websites. Three other independent scientists also received threatening and intimidating letters from Cheshire Constabulary. UK authorities have ordered Google UK to stop listing certain websites in search results. YouTube has removed videos telling some of the true story of the police investigation during the case. These events have been reported by reliable newspapers, though obviously not in the UK. Richard Gill (talk) 04:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thing is, Wikipedia has changed dramatically over the decennia. At the time of the Lucia de Berk case, social media were new, and Wikipedia was new. We actively used Wikipedia to campagne for a fair retrial of Lucia de Berk, acting within the rules as they then existed and were then interpreted. Netherlands law also allowed public discussion of scientific issues in an ongoing trial. We campaigned for Lucia with social media. Now, Wikipedia has become established. It is used by the authorities. Money is made for it and lawyers make sure that money can be made from it. The authorities have learnt to use social media. Cheshire Constabulary has a troll farm, and has recently made a contract with Netflix for exclusive access to their material. They put out a YouTube video about their great success. They had to remove it because of the Crown Prosecution Services’ own re-imposition of reporting restrictions in the UK in view of upcoming two further planned trials (both sides have appealed), two further criminal investigations, and a statutory enquiry. However, outside the UK, journalists can and do report on what is going on in the UK. Yes, we live in interesting times. Orwell saw it coming. Richard Gill (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You have no free speech rights on this privately operated forum, see WP:FREESPEECH. Just as you can determine what is said and done within the four walls of your residence, Wikipedia can determine what content appears on its computers. 331dot (talk) 08:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I know I have no free speech rights here. I follow my personal moral compass. Of course Wikipedia can determine what content appears here. I hope its operators are human beings with a sound moral compass themselves. I hope that all editors adhere to the “good faith” assumption. On the Lucy Letby page I tried to constructively make editorial suggestions towards making the page more balanced. On the article about myself I corrected errors and fought against vandalism. On my talk page I reveal my general opinions about matters which concern me and which I think will interest other editors. Richard Gill (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Moving on, goodbye and thanks for the fish
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)

RE: email
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)


 * I did not threaten external canvass pressure. Please apply the good faith assumption.
 * I want to inform people of what I believe are serious factual errors in a couple of Wikipedia articles. I would prefer to do that "on-wiki". But I presently have a site-wide indefinite block, so you have put me in a catch 22 situation.
 * Anyway, I will submit a new unblock request, but it is not clear to me how I can do that because I cannot edit any Wikipedia pages at all. The instructions told me to contact you if I couldn't follow the normal procedure. Richard Gill (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You wrote to me (in part): 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)
 * I had no intention to intimidate. The instructions said that I should email you in some circumstances, and they seemed to apply. Please apply WP:AGF. I emailed you because I found the instructions difficult to understand (they seemed ambiguous, self-contradictory). Maybe I'm just stupid? I'm 72. Maybe I'm getting senile? Richard Gill (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You were using this user talk page just fine, before and after the email. But instead of asking about difficult to understand instructions here, on-wiki, you send an email to me that contains the alternative. That speaks for itself. El_C 15:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand you. I think you are reading stuff into what I typed which I didn't mean at all. I'm a somewhat autistic mathematician. And I'm getting old. I experience what you write as being aggressive. Sorry. Richard Gill (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I think I finally did figure out how to submit an unblock request, so maybe we could now leave this topic and try to be ordinarily friendly next time we meet on Wikipedia? I'm not angry with anyone here. I think I've done a lot of good work on Wikipedia in the past and I'm sad that it was not respected and that my motives were misinterpreted. May I? Richard Gill (talk) 15:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * By the way, the instructions led me to understand that I could *not* continue any conversation here. I had to post something here but on the top of the page I'm told that I cannot write anything here. I was surprised that it was possible. I'm a bit autistic, had you noticed? Richard Gill (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Site-wide block is less than I thought
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):

https://rss.org.uk/news-publication/news-publications/2022/section-group-reports/rss-publishes-report-on-dealing-with-uncertainty-i/

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.

https://www.trouw.nl/buitenland/richard-gill-ziet-parallel-met-lucia-de-b-in-britse-babymoordzaak-geen-bewijs-dat-verpleegster-iets-heeft-misdaan~b6dbb039

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:

WP:BLPEDIT

WP:BLPSTYLE

WP:BLPCRIME

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)


 * @stwalkerster. I am not threatening anything. I am much too busy to start legal proceedings. I too know the rules and procedures and options. Let me reemphasize: I do not wish to edit the Wikipedia articles about myself! I do not wish to campaign on Wikipedia. I solely wish to be able to write on the accompanying talk pages of the articles about me, in English and Dutch Wikipedia, in order to point out what seem to me to be errors. Don't you think that is reasonable and completely in accord with Wikipedia principles? Richard Gill (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Please elucidate and I'll do what I can to help. – bradv  23:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! After the weekend (I need a break). Richard Gill (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Um, you mean on the article about yourself that you created against conflict of interest guidelines in the first place? Not sure how you have the cheek to add an autobiography of yourself on here and then complain when other people change it, threatening legal action against the site. You should have known when you made a page about yourself — totally against COI guidelines — that you were bound to get some pushback and other people editing and scrutinising your article. 148.252.158.205 (talk) 10:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You need to know the history. Another editor created an article about myself. He called me a physicist. I corrected that to mathematician or statistician or what ever and helped disambiguate myself from other Richard Gills (the composer, the economist, ...). I added public bio info about myself. Nobody complained. Later, someone asked for a reliable source for those bio details and I gave them the university web page where they always were, for all to see. The article was edited and scrutinized by numerous editors for many years. Do you think that my actions back then were evil and against all the rules? It wasn't thought to be evil and against all the rules at the time. Wikipedia used to be a friendly place where people used the "good faith" assumption a lot and helped one another out. But nowadays we have all those wannabe policemen checking the rule book all the time. Nowadays the correct way to do what I did would be to make those suggestions on the talk page. That's what I would do, now. My only request is to be able to continue to do what present Wikipedia rules about BLP say should be allowed. OK? And who are you, anyway? I don't think anonymous trolls are reliable guides to wikipedia rules of good behaviour, and you may be one of those anonymous trolls who have been vandalizing the articles about me because of their own conflict of interest, namely their irrational hatred of anyone who speaks out for Lucy Letby. As you know a lot of trolls are out to take me down because I do that on Twitter, Facebook and on my blog. And in invited scientific lectures all over the world, some are on YouTube. To legal audiences and to scientific audiences and to the public. May I? I have promised not to do it on Wikipedia any more. I agree I have a conflict of interest regarding the article on Lucy Letby. I do find it a bit steep that I may not make comments on the talk page of a completely factual and neutral nature, but OK. I understand the sensitivity. There are plenty of other Lucy Letby supporters out there, I don't need to fix everything everywhere.
 * I have apologised for my mistakes both long past and recent. I ask fellow editors to try using the "good faith assumption" a bit more often.
 * The Wikipedia rules explain exactly what one may do if they believe material on Wikipedia is libellous. I also mentioned the rules which I think are applicable here and which I believe have been violated. I plan to come back to all that on Monday. Time to take a break.
 * The Wikipedia rules explain exactly what one may do if they believe material on Wikipedia is libellous. I also mentioned the rules which I think are applicable here and which I believe have been violated. I plan to come back to all that on Monday. Time to take a break.
 * The Wikipedia rules explain exactly what one may do if they believe material on Wikipedia is libellous. I also mentioned the rules which I think are applicable here and which I believe have been violated. I plan to come back to all that on Monday. Time to take a break.

Richard Gill (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

A possible correction to the Wikipedia article about myself, and a missing reference
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)


 * The reference given for the statement about Beverley Allitt does, in fact, say "deserves fresh study". Is this the so-called libellous material you mentioned above? – bradv  13:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually there is nothing libellous now. The truly libellous material was on the Dutch Wikipedia article about me, but that has been completely cleaned up and the troll who had completely rewritten the page has been thrown out.


 * The reference you mention is to a preprint posted on my university home page, not the definitive published paper. I will look up to see if that sentence is also there, in the final (peer reviewed) published paper. But anyway, it is my opinion still.


 * So right now I have no complaints. Obviously I do have the desire to have Wikipedia editing rights restored. I think I still have a lot I can contribute to Wikipedia and, believe me, I do learn from mistakes, so I'll not commit the same crimes again.Richard Gill (talk) 13:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I believe this is the final paper, and it does have that sentence removed. Regardless, the statement in the article is accurate. – bradv  14:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes. Absolutely right. The published paper is based on half of the material of the farewell speech which I gave, on my retirement. The published paper has two co-authors and more new material contributed by them. The reference in the Wikipedia article is a reference to the text of a speech, and naturally I stand by everything I said on that occasion. Richard Gill
 * The sentence about the Ben Geen case in the Wikipedia article about me still needs revising. I had nothing whatever to do with Ben Geen's failed appeal. So why it is mentioned at all, I don't know. That first appeal failed. In the subsequent applications to the CCRC all of the prosecution arguments were addressed, not just the statistical aspect. I contributed to the first and second CCRC application. There is currently a third CCRC application being processed, with new statistical data collected by a new (US based) statistician or epidemiologist, of much better quality than what was available to me (I worked with data obtained by students' FOI requests in an innocence project). In the application, the relevance of statistics is underlined, and the other pieces of evidence also handled. Ben Geen's defence team is still fighting extremely hard and I am sure that they are going to be successful eventually. The CCRC is strongly criticised in the UK for being underfunded and far too cautious. A committee of the House of Lords has even said so. We will see. Richard Gill (talk) 14:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The reference linked to that sentence says [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)
 * That is the version after I edited it half an hour ago. It did have some stuff in there that was undue regarding a BLP about Richard Gill. I took it out. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it was! Whoops, my apologies, and thanks to you Sirfurboy for your work. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:49, 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)


 * There is one problematic reference,


 * Gill, Richard (14 January 2020). "From killer nurses to quantum entanglement, and back (Part 1)" (PDF). Leiden University: 7. : Cite journal requires |journal= (help).


 * The linked pdf (on my Leiden University home page) has a Part 1 and a Part 2. The killer nurses are discussed in Part 2; Part 1 is about quantum entanglement. Part 2, the part which is relevant in the article, contains statistical analyses, new at the time, on the Ben Geen case, and it later became part of a journal article with co-authors Norman Fenton and David Lagnado. However, the journal article does not contain the phrase about the Bev Allitt case, for the obvious reason - it gets people very worked up! Anyway, this means that there is no journal to be cited.


 * By the way, the Dutch wikipedia article about me is now completely rewritten and contains interesting new material. Richard Gill (talk) 07:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Block review requested

 * User:UtherSRG, I am not focussed on libel. I am focussed on regaining my normal rights as described in WP:BLP. There is presently nothing libellous in the article about myself, thanks to good work of serious editors. Hopefully that will not happen again. The site-wide indefinite ban was in my eyes disproportionate. It seemed to me to violate WP:BLP, I have explained in what way. See also BP: an indefinite block “is not a punishment. It is designed to prevent further disruption, and the desired outcome is a commitment to observe Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and to stop problematic conduct in the future.” I have given that commitment. What more must I do? Richard Gill (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It moreover violates WP:BLP.
 * As an uninvolved party, I'm going to offer some advice. Your block does not violate BLP, by any stretch of the imagination. This demonstrates that you do not actually understand BLP, as that policy does not give you the right to personally dictate what goes into the article about you. The argument that you should be able to edit the Talk page in case of future errors is not persuasive. Despite your promises, you've broken the community's trust that you'd actually abide by our policies and guidelines, hence multiple admins declining your unblock requests.
 * My suggestion? Take the standard offer: leave the site for 6 months, then come back and file a new appeal, explaining your understanding of why you were blocked & ask for the chance to prove you will abide by the guidelines then. That'll put this incident in the past, and admins will be more likely to grant leniency.
 * But you really need to stay away. I note that a few times on this page, you've claimed you were giving up and leaving Wikipedia, only to return shortly for another appeal or argument that the block is unfair. Repeating this behavior isn't going to help, and is more likely to convince admins you should have access to this very Talk page revoked, which would mean your appeals could only go through WP:UTRS. It'd be better for everyone if you just stepped away for a while, trust that people are going to monitor the article properly, and let the dust settle. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no wish to personally dictate what goes into an article about myself! Never did, never have done. In the past I have helped other editors who themselves started articles about me, and at the time that was normal and accepted behaviour. In the past I have fought against vandalism and libel and obviously if that happens again I will have to draw attention to it. I now know many ways to do that. So no problem.


 * I only wish to be able to comment on the talk page of the article about myself *if* in the future I happen to see some alleged fact which I believe (and can show through reliable sources) is incorrect. Exactly as WP:BLP explains.
 * I actually strongly desire to be able to keep away from Wikipedia for a good long time. Maybe for ever. I have quite enough on my plate. Life is short. I *only* want the block relaxed that tiny bit so that it satisfies the sensible advice in WP:BLP concerning possible actions of the subject of a BLP, in case they have reasonable concerns about the content of the article. Sure, this can wait half a year.
 * Actually it is wonderful how careful work of many editors has undone the vandalism of recent days on the English and the Dutch Wikipedia articles about myself. That is so gratifying.
 * Finally, thanks very much indeed, User:HandThatFeeds, for your very constructive advice. I was not aware of WP:SO. I am really greatful that someone at last gives me some friendly and useful advice. I will follow it up! Thanks again. Richard Gill (talk) 14:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * While BLP allows individuals to bring up concerns on the article's talk page, that is not a right. Nor does it grant a carve-out from being blocked. It's a courtesy for editors in good standing. Once you've followed the standard offer, hopefully you'll be able to return to productive editing. For the moment, I suggest patience & trusting editors who watch that page to catch any errors.
 * I'm glad my advice was helpful, and I look forward to seeing your unblock request in the future. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You will have to wait approx 6 months (and maybe longer, who knows!) Of course what I want is not a *right*. Wrong word. It is a policy advice. (BTW, I changed "patients" into "patience" in your remark). I will be patient, but not a patient. I hope. Richard Gill (talk) 17:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * FYI - your 6 month timer starts at the time of your most recent edit. So, even though you agreed the WP:SO is a good idea over 3 hours ago, your six month timer has been reset each time you made an edit since then. Not a good start to taking time off. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I plan to take a whole year off, starting now! Richard Gill (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)