Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:51, 27 May 2018

If you need me for something, contact me by e-mail.

Archives

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any sections older than 30 days will be automatically moved to this month's archive. Other months can be accessed from my list of archives.

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Omegatron. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Crest factor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to AES

Phase plug (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to AES

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Arrow's theorem

Thanks for reminding me about the refimprove template, but please don't remove it. If I don't work on it my hope is that another editor will. If it's stale for a very long time then I would understand removal, but it hasn't even been a year. It's an important article and there is currently a lot of unsourced content, some sections are entirely unreferenced and some there is some essaylike language in certain sections (use of "we"). For just one example, "The axioms of monotonicity, non-imposition, and IIA together imply Pareto efficiency, whereas Pareto efficiency (itself implying non-imposition) and IIA together do not imply monotonicity." - What is the source for this? It definitely needs one. There are enough examples like this in the article that I thought the template would be better than individual citation needed tags. Someone with competence in the subject area should also go over it for WP:OR but I think the process of refimproving will likely address the other issues also. It needs some significant work, which hopefully one of us will get around to doing. Seraphim System 05:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Asking for references is fine, but a blanket template at the top of the page isn't helping. Add citation needed where appropriate, or tag sections if necessary. — Omegatron (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

It is not only a couple of sections, it runs throughout the entire article. Here are some examples:

• We are searching for a ranked voting electoral system, called a social welfare function (preference aggregation rule), which transforms the set of preferences (profile of preferences) into a single global societal preference order.
• All the conditions
• For example, the introduction of a third candidate to a two-candidate election should not affect the outcome of the election unless the third candidate wins. (See Remarks below.)
• Remarks: Arrow's death-of-a-candidate example (1963, page 26) suggests that the agenda (the set of feasible alternatives) shrinks from, say, X = {a, b, c} to S = {a, b} because of the death of candidate c. This example is misleading since it can give the reader an impression that IIA is a condition involving two agenda and one profile. The fact is that IIA involves just one agendum ({x, y} in case of pairwise independence) but two profiles. If the condition is applied to this confusing example, it requires this: Suppose an aggregation rule satisfying IIA chooses b from the agenda {a, b} when the profile is given by (cab, cba), that is, individual 1 prefers c to a to b, 2 prefers c to b to a. Then, it must still choose b from {a, b} if the profile were, say: (abc, bac); (acb, bca); (acb, cba); or (abc, cba).
• For simplicity we have presented all rankings as if ties are impossible.
• We will prove that any social choice system respecting unrestricted domain, unanimity, and independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) is a dictatorship. The key idea is to identify a pivotal voter whose ballot swings the societal outcome. We then prove that this voter is a partial dictator (in a specific technical sense, described below). Finally we conclude by showing that all of the partial dictators are the same person, hence this voter is a dictator.

Is this all sourced to something or is it WP:OR? There are multiple blanket templates that could have been added - tone, essay, OR, rewrite, technical etc. but refimproving the article, if its done well, will probably resolve these issues also. Looking at it again, I think stubifying it and starting over is probably a better option than templating. Seraphim System 07:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

BRD

See WP:AGF and WP:BRD; you characterized some of my thought out edits as "blanking" (typically reserved for vandalism) and you restored text I removed without discussion. That's edit warring. Instead, try discussion next time please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

So in your view, destroying other people's work without discussion is fine, but when they restore the deleted content they're committing a crime? — Omegatron (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

DS alert American politics

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Why are you posting this on my talk page? Do you want me to impose sanctions on someone? — Omegatron (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If you read the links in the template, they will answer your question, but the specific part is here. Note the bit about these alerts being purely informational. The information itself is important, however, so please read the rest too, if you plan to continue work on post 1932 US politics (for reasons that are explained in the links in the template). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

But why are you posting this on my talk page? I'm not "working on post 1932 US politics". — Omegatron (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Your edits about the Burlington Vermont election would appear to fall under that topic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Seriously? So because I wouldn't let you bias an article by blanking criticism of a voting system you like, you're trying to intimidate me with ArbCom sanctions from an unrelated decision?

Voting systems are social choice theory, which is a branch of economics/math, not politics. The parties and identities of the candidates are irrelevant. My edits have nothing to do with partisan politics. I don't know anything about the candidates other than the number of votes they received. — Omegatron (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

One element of the DS alert case referenced above is to WP:Assume good faith. My objections with the disputed article text are laid out, with reference to Misplaced Pages core polices, at the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Template notice

Your recent editing history at Burlington mayoral election, 2009 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

My Added comments

• Bold edit .... I don't know when two blogs were added to the arcticle
• Revert 1 ..... I reverted them as self-published non-RS blogs
• Non-discussed re-Revert (Non-AGF Edit summary "revert blanking of references")... The first un-discussed re-revert of this sort is always the first salvo in and edit war

For reference sources at issue include

• leastevil blot
• bolson blog

However let's not discuss these here. Article talk of the WP:RSN would be better venues. It's dangerous, by the way, to edit war on an American politics article after recieving the DS alert notice (see prior thread on your talk page) NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

So the thing to do, would be to self revert, and discuss these blogs either at article talk or the noticeboard. Meanwhile, thank you for the addition of real RSs.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Uh, you're the one in the wrong here. I'm reverting destructive edits to the status quo. Stop removing sources just because you disagree with them. — Omegatron (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2018 (UTC)