Jump to content

User talk:EventHorizon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Break the orthodoxy[edit]

It is through those who think outside the box, those who do not obey the system that we come to greater truth. It is by those who question authority that we come to freedom.

You have enemies? Good. That means you stood up for something in your life - Winston Churchill

CheeseDreams 15:09, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

P.s. there is an edit war going on at Historicity of Jesus caused by the admin who unprotected the page immediately reverting it. The same admin has just violated the blocking policy by threatening me with a block, despite being part of the edit war.

Hm, I don't know what to say. I don't know much at all on this topic, so I'm not getting into it. It seems that your versions of the article are radically different, though. Maybe it would be best to try for a two-sided discussion. You may not get it, but if you take the high road, maybe you can make everyone else look bad.
I think a big problem on Wikipedia is that people are unwilling to discuss things; they get it in their minds that one way of doing things is the only way. It's cult-like, really. EventHorizon 16:35, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know too much about the subject, but I took a look at the article and did some tweaking. Incidentally, somewhere I remember hearing or seeing that someone had actually calculated an exchange rate between U.S. dollars and the currency of a virtual world, based on what people had been paying. My connection sucks so I can't go hunting it down, but something like that would make a good addition to the article if you could verify it. Isomorphic 08:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason you left last time[edit]

If an active arbitrator admitted that they are a right wing POV warrier who has, in real life, even acted in such a way as to have been suspended from practicing law, are they fit to continue in their post and meet out judgements on others.

Wikipedia:Current surveys/FrBaArbQuality

The power of the ArbCom is a new thing; they weren't so powerful in 2003. I have opinions on the matter, but I haven't read enough of the details to have an informed opinion. I'm going to abstain from answering.
Though I can't say I'm too fond of right-wing POV warriors, or anything right-wing. EventHorizon 06:59, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cheers mate[edit]

Thanks for your vote - I am planning to write an open letter to wikipedia when I get the time. There is *nothing* more discouraging for a new poster than having their articles instantly deleted. All the best --Dan|(talk) 01:04, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm a relative inclusionist. Don't get me wrong: there's stuff that needs to be deleted, like vandalism, vanity pages, patent nonsense, and material that will never be NPOV. On the other hand, the concept of scientific celebrity is not original research, it's a real and established concept. I agree though that the article shouldn't be "scilebrity"; we needn't an article on every trendy B-list neologism.
There are plenty of mathematical/scientific celebrities: John Conway, John Nash, Noam Chomsky (well, maybe more of a social scientist), Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, the Huxleys, etc. This is a very different kind of celebrity than that discussed in celebrity. Maybe it could be tied in to an article on the star system in education.
Anyway, I agree that the article shouldn't be deleted. I get kind of pissed off by the radical deletionists who just have no sense. Like, if I were to write a page about myself, it would deserve to be deleted, but when people delete these pages on real but local-circuit bands, it just riles me. Who the hell are they to say the band is "not notable"? The "Google test" is also a load of horseshit-- if we keep relying on Google to verify notability, Wikipedia will never contain anything that can't be found with some basic Google work, and what will be the point of it, then?
Anyway, don't lose hope yet. If the Wikipedia community continues in its current direction, eventually there will be no new users and WP will just be a bunch of flame wars. If the reasonable people get discouraged and leave, that will happen even more surely.
EventHorizon 05:21, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: Accused of Being Mike Church[edit]

We should start a support group.

Lol! Good idea. Tagishsimon accused me of being Mike Church back in August because of the discussion that Mike and I had about MathCounts. Why were you accused of being Mike? --Lst27 (talk) 22:23, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Because I...
  • contributed to articles about poker, and MC was a known card game buff, and
  • expressed opinions with regard to the Mike Church controversy, never mind that I have strong opinions about everything here.
Yep. Slam dunk case.
Alternatively, we could make a game of starting sock puppet accounts and seeing who can most quickly get "Churched". I'm surely not the first to think of this idea. EventHorizon 22:29, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mike Church is a self-promoter who doens't really understand how Wikipedia works. Also, this is how he handles disagreements. --Lst27 (talk) 19:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also this. --Lst27 (talk) 19:49, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I saw that you wrote January thaw. I'm wondering if you could clean up the article(s) on the 1993 northeastern blizzard: the article is in many pieces (The 1993 Superstorm, Great Blizzard of 1993) and could use some clarification/organization work. Waxor 20:18, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Gin rummy and game design[edit]

I liked your article on Gin Rummy overall, but it's missing... something. You give the rules of the game, but not the strategy. I understand you're mostly a poker buff, but do you think you know enough about Gin strategy to write that part? My observation is that the rules themselves don't really explain a game.

I read your "Ambition findings". I know you're not a game designer and this stuff's probably foreign to you, and I commend your boldness in so confidently researching something outside of your background. I question your decision to define "Sat rate" as the proportion to rate a game at 6 or better, instead of 5. Usually, when I study games, we use 5 as the cutoff.

You're mostly right about C-Mean and Sat Rate. What C-Mean is to us is the likelihood that a game will develop its own community, and it normally has to be at least 7.0 — a low C-Mean like 6.3 means that even people in the game's "core" of players don't like it that much, and the fad will probably pass unless a company continues to pump money into promoting it. Sat Rate is the proportion of social players who will enjoy it in a social setting — you don't have to love Monopoly, nor analyze the game every waking moment, to enjoy it at a social gathering. It serves a different function from that of Bridge. Since you define "5", on your ludometric, as "a game that one would play with friends, but not for its own sake", I think "5" rather than "6" is the right cutoff for Sat Rate.

Also, Sat Rate and C-Mean aren't the only important variables. Consider Magic: the Gathering. If you took a survey of all the people who have ever played it, you'd probably find a Sat Rate sub-60 and a C-Mean below 7. This is because most people introduced to the game, and most ex-players, bitterly dislike it (in part because they regret paying lots of money for cardboard.) These numbers would suggest a totally mediocre game. Yet, Magic was what many consider the blockbuster of the 1990s decade, and the ingenuity on the part of Mr. Garfield is certainly not mediocre (though he didn't really "invent" the CCG genre; that's another story.) Ludocrat 20:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


To answer: On Gin Rummy, I don't know enough strategy. I know my strategy (and I'm not a very good Gin player) but personal strategy can be POV, and I don't know enough of the different strategy applied to the game to make that bit NPOV. I agree, there's something missing from a game article if you only include the rules.
On Sat Rate, and 6 vs 5, while this isn't my scale, I think the reason for setting the bar at 6 is that a rating of "5" indicates that the person does not like the game; 5 is the lower bound for a game that a person will play socially. So, at a "5" level people aren't really satisfied with the game, they play it for social reasons but would rather play something else. You're a game designer: would you consider someone "satisfied" with your game if he or she candidly said that s/he "would play with friends, but not for its own sake"? EventHorizon talk 22:27, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reply to reply[edit]

With the "social gamer" contingent, and especially non-gamers, a "5" level of satisfaction is about as much as you're going to get, on the scale you provided. Most people don't initate ("7") or make economic sacrifies ("9") for any game. Also, some people just don't like card games, or board games, or strategic games. If you can get an honest "5" rating from them, on that scale, you're doing very well.
Where did you draw these 21 people from? Were they gamers, or random people off the street? I have a hard time believing that 86% of people from the general population would positively rate a game as complicated/heavy as Ambition, but among gamers, I'd expect that if not 90s. My problem with your "findings" is that there are denominator issues; you're picking from a very small population.
You may observe an elevation in Ambition's C-Mean as it develops the "snob factor" of purportedly separating "serious" from "nonserious" gamers. Still, I concur with "K" that a half-point drop as it becomes well-known is probably pretty accurate. Ludocrat 04:55, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Re: Your two questions[edit]

I don't think you should trust Mike Church. Although he has done some great work to Wikipedia, he is considered by many to be a troll. He doesn't handle disagreements well, and should not be trusted.

As for the adminship question, I would suggest that you have at least 1,200 edits before requesting. You can view some other people's standards at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards. I would also suggest that you save your work very often, in case there's a computer problem or something, and you might lose your work if you don't save it. Thanks, --Lst27 (talk) 23:32, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Okay. I seem pretty shy of the bar, then. I think I should wait for quite a while.
I don't see how "he doesn't handle disagreements well" (which seems evident by his contributions) necessarily implies "should not be trusted". Hotheadedness doesn't always imply untrustworthy.
The reason I'd want to email him is that I'm researching this "Ambition" thing, for my own benefit and to resolve the issue for WP. (It's an obscure card game Mike invented, posted about on WP, creating controversy.) His position on the matter could be potentially interesting. On the other hand, if he just blew up on me, or trolled me, I don't think I would get anything useful. EventHorizon talk 23:42, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More Ambition[edit]

Reading over your research more thoroughly, I do believe you've done more extensive neutral research on this game than anyone else, so I commend that.

You recommend not including an article until August 2005. I'm going to disagree with you. It's a real game with some prominence in the world. It's quite obscure, but it's very "sticky". People who play it a few times will often teach it to their friends, and that's a rare quality for games. I think it should be included. However, neutrality is an issue, regardless of whether or not Mr. Church is still (in some way) with us on WP. People are very ideological about this game (on both sides) and not just on Wikipedia.

There's a lot we can say about Ambition that benefits both WP and the pro-Ambition crowd: (1) why the game was created (minimize hand-luck), (2) the inspirations for the game (Hearts and Euro-style board games), (3) how it works. We just need to keep people (on both sides) from adding ego-puffing or political crap.

This isn't the most important game in the world, but if WP's going to be complete with regard to gaming, I think we should include it. Are you with me on that? Logistical issues shouldn't prevent us from including an article. We don't take out George W. Bush, and I guarantee more people have strong opinions about him than some card game. We just need to keep the ego-puffers and haters at bay.

I can write the article if you want. I know a little bit about this game from a design perspective. Ludocrat 03:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


I've got to warn you: if you do this, people will suspect you of being party to the controversy, especially with your rather constricted edit history. I have some suspicions myself. I would advise against re-creation of the article. Chances are I've read more Ambition controversy than you have, so let me put it straight: Wikipedia is not ready for the article, and I don't know that the game is, either. It only has a couple thousand players, and hasn't been around long enough for anyone to know how much staying power it has. Once it gets to be a major thing, I think you should include it. Writing this article prematurely would be a bad decision. Besides, deletion votes normally last 6 months. This gives you the go in February at the earliest.
I can't stop you, and I probably won't vote against your article when it gets put up for deletion (as it will) but I'd strongly advise against it. EventHorizon talk 08:28, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Reply to reply[edit]

Okay. I see what your argument is. However, aren't you, in effect, doing the same thing? There's more than enough in your research page to create a full, neutral, article. If you want so badly for there not to be this controversial page, then why do you keep all the information in your user subpage? Please respond on my Talk. Ludocrat 05:00, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bilderberg Group[edit]

Hi. I left a message for you on the Bilderberg Group talk page. -- Scott e 23:08, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


You probably don't know who I am 'cause I don't post much, but I'm going to nominate you for admin. status. (I'm assuming you don't already have it.) I think you do a lot for Wikipedia. Crocogator 07:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am thinking about it, but will probably turn down your nomination.
Anyway, 650 edits is pretty short an edit history. I don't expect to get it.
Thank you. EventHorizon talk 19:38, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Usenet thread[edit]

I suppose Llor and spirit_of_night could just be people who know Mike Church and share his fascination with Mike Church. Carleton is a small school, after all, which could explain how three people from it happened to show up in that thread around the same time. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:15, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The rumor at Carleton (according to a friend who goes there and knows Mike) is that "spirit of night" is Mike's attempt to give a political backdrop to the "Ambition war" (which extends beyond Wikipedia) so it could be understood, but without miring himself further in political controversy. "Llor" is thought to be a student at Carleton with a personal grudge. EventHorizon talk 04:49, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

His grudge must be serious indeed: he managed to find a most obscure page about Church eight days after its creation, despite the fact that the page is not in any search engines (see the results for "mike church" ambition "card game") and is only linked from five equally obscure pages—only three on January 27. This smacks of stalking; perhaps Mike should be warned. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:16, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you have access to thefacebook? There was apparently brief discussion of my subpage, by some Carleton students, in that forum, which may have sent the troll over to find it. Trust that I didn't create the research page for it to be used against Mike by some troll; I intended it as neutral research. EventHorizon talk 05:25, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nope, never felt the need. Not that it would matter: as I understand it, one needs an e-mail address from a certain school in order to access that school's section of the site? So I couldn't check it out anyway. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not from a certain school; from any participating school, of which there are about 100, maybe more. A staff or alum account also works, which is how I got mine. I "friended" Mike Church so I had access to his profile and all the groups of which he was a member. EventHorizon talk 06:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vanity and obscurity[edit]

Hello there. If you have a few moments, you might like to look at Wikipedia talk:Vanity page, in which I question -- I hope politely -- something that you added to Wikipedia:Vanity page back in December and that has remained more or less intact through numerous edits since. I disagree with it and in normal circumstances I'd just go ahead and edit it, but the page starts This Wikipedia page is considered semi-policy so I'm not sure if that's a good idea. Thanks for your time -- Hoary 04:08, 2005 Apr 17 (UTC)

PS: Sorry, you didn't create it; rather, you moved it. -- Hoary 10:58, 2005 Apr 18 (UTC)

game theory?[edit]

Hi there - We interacted a while ago regarding split dollar game. Hello again! I have recently been entertaining the idea of a wikiproject in game theory. I think there are some standarization issues that need to be resolved, which would be helped by a wikiproject. Would you be interested in participating? --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 05:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I hope that you're still around. If you are, and you're interested, I have started Wikipedia:WikiProject Game theory. --best, kevin ···Kzollman | Talk··· 00:00, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Pressure system[edit]

In case you're still around, an article you created called pressure system was recently upgraded and overhauled, now that many of its subarticles are now GA and FA class. FYI. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Human extinction[edit]

The article Human extinction has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia does not predict the future. WP:BALL

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. A8v (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]