User talk:Hermitage

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Assistance with independence of clones[edit]

I feel really bad that I ever sided with F451 about anything, considering that he's making another swath of edits where he won't listen to anyone else's opinion. Thanks for helping to prevent him from removing the entire concept of F451 from Wikipedia. RSpeer 06:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

I want to see verifiable facts, not accepted opinion. You have falsely accused me of trying to "removing the entire concept of F451 from Wikipedia". I have no problem with the article, just that "clone candidates" have no evidence for real existence, and are nothing but POV until proven otherwise.--Fahrenheit451 18:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This topic (F451's objections to ICC) is being addressed elsewhere. Talk:Voting system Talk:Borda count Talk:Strategic nomination. I think that it is better for the discussion to be focused on a small number of talk pages (preferably just one), so I'd prefer not to engage with it here. For the purposes of this page, I'll just say that I currently agree that references to ICC should remain in the Wikipedia, and that I will edit accordingly. Hermitage 23:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Smith set[edit]

Hermitage, I suggest you take a look at what methods to evaluate with the Smith set. I think you will find it applies to Condorcet methods and not to other methods. Thus, if a method is not a Condorcet method, evaluating it against the Smith criterion would be absurd. The very definition of Smith set has to do with pairwise comparison, e.i. Condorcet, so it only applies to such methods. Please stop arbitrarily editing with it.--Fahrenheit451 00:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This isn't something to start an argument over. It could be seen as more consistent to mention all criteria, regardless if one depends on another; or it could be seen as more informative to only mention sub-criteria when the main criterion is satisfied. I suppose I slightly prefer the second, but wouldn't accuse anyone of editing in bad faith to do either one.

F451, you're being a bit imprecise - a method can satisfy Condorcet without doing any explicit pairwise comparisons. Look at Nanson's method for that. It's plausible that such a method could also satisfy Smith, though I don't know of any examples.

If the Smith criterion is to be included, I'd like for it to be proposed and discussed at Talk:Voting system/Included methods and criteria. My hope is that that page will build consensus, and quell accusations of "arbitrary edits" or ulterior motives.

RSpeer 04:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

If a method passes Condorcet, it doesn't necessarily pass Smith.

If a method fails Smith, it doesn't necessarily fail Condorcet.

If a method passes Smith, it passes Condorcet, majority, mutual majority, and Condorcet loser.

If a method fails Condorcet, majority, mutual majority, or Condorcet loser, it fails Smith.

To say that a method passes Smith implies that the method passes all of these other criteria. However, not everyone knows this, so it makes sense for the wikipedia to state it explicitly.

To say that a method fails any of these other criteria implies that the method fails Smith, so in a sense it is redundant to say that it fails Smith. However, not everyone knows this, so it makes sense for the wikipedia to state it explicitly.

Smith is a very important criterion. To call my adding the Smith criterion to ranked ballot method pages "arbitrary" is needlessly insulting.

I will visit the page that Rspeer mentions. My opinion is that the "satisfied criteria" section of the Schulze method page provides an interesting model for similar sections within other pages about ranked ballot voting methods, although I realize that some of the "satisfied criteria" there are not satisfied if the method uses margins as the defeat stength definition, and I admit that I am somewhat ambivalent about mentioning Mike Ossipoff's criteria on wikipedia.

Hermitage 00:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Instant runoff voting[edit]

The reason I said that Nashville would win under Schulze method was that in this example, it would. See the writeup for Schulze method for the same example. You are right though; under a different example, it would be possible for the last choice of a minority of the population (say, 42%) to win; it's just that in this example it doesn't make any sense for Knoxville to win. It's on the eastern edge of the state - nowhere near a geographic or popular compromise. Thanks for editing this article though; I'm glad that discussion is finally occurring about these voting systems. It's the only way we're going to reach an agreement. - McCart42 (talk) 00:11, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Single Transferable Vote article in Featured Article Candidates[edit]

Hey, over the past month I've been putting quite a bit of work into the article on Single Transferable Vote as part of the WikiProject:Voting Systems effort to get a good example page. After having gone through peer review and vetting by other editors, it's now waiting in Featured Article Candidates for comment - I'd appreciate it if you'd give the article a final read through and voice support or whatever concerns you have at this link or after reviewing other Featured article candidates here, since after quite some time no one's mentioned anything on the STV article at FAC ;). Thanks! Scott Ritchie 22:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Help me find the Tideman source[edit]

A statement you made in a discussion long ago stuck in my mind:

The truth is that most interesting work on voting methods is happening online, rather than in the published journals. According to whom? Nic Tideman, i.e. one of the most widely-published authors on alternative voting methods.

I'd like to find a source for this, because I think it would be a great way to wrap up the "History of Voting Theory" section I'm working on. Where are you quoting him from? RSpeer 19:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, sorry, I can't give you a quotable source for that, because it comes from a spoken conversation (over lunch), rather than a written work. --Hermitage 04:01, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, so you've met the guy. Neat. And darn.

I really would like to mention that most voting theory happens in discussions on the Internet now, rather than in published articles, but that's the kind of claim that really needs a source to stay in a Wikipedia article. It would sound self-aggrandizing and myopic to those who don't know that it really is the case. Any ideas for a source? RSpeer 06:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help you, but nothing is coming to mind. I'll let you know if it does. --Hermitage 20:47, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting system is featured[edit]

Finally, voting system has become a featured article!

I want to thank you for the work you've done on the article. The article wouldn't be what it is without your contributions. So it's your featured article too. Nice work! rspeer 20:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that. Will it be featured on a certain day? --Hermitage 00:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not scheduled to be on the main page yet. I've put it in the queue at Wikipedia talk:Tomorrow's featured article. rspeer 01:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq War[edit]

I just want a second opinion on things going on with that article right now. Do you think I'm being too rash in insisting that the article intro state that the casus belli of the Iraq War was WMD? -- Mr. Tibbs 07:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not sure that I've really read enough of that discussion page to understand your question. Perhaps if you gave a link to a particular topic on the discussion page, I could reply. --Hermitage 04:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just skip all the way to the bottom of this long talkpage segment: [1] Zero also requested mediation about this: [2]. Also some talk going on in two other talkpage segments: [3] [4] -- Mr. Tibbs 04:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment - not in the wikispeak sense of the term :)[edit]

Hi! I wanted to ask you if you would be willing to take a look and possibly comment on a comment I wrote on the Talk:Sainte-Laguë_method. It would argue using two examples that Hare + Sainte-Lague would give better proportionality. (And I guess by implication, would make QPQ-variants the best prefferential ballot, no-party list proportional method, adding to it computational cheapness in comparison with Meek or Warren STV). --Aryah 10:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link to your personal website[edit]

James, could you please stop putting this link [5] in various voting method articles? I realize you like it, but it violates WP:RS. We have literally had this dispute for a couple years now. Do we have to keep battling this point or shall we take it to mediation?--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply is here: User_talk:Fahrenheit451#reply

James, the other sites you mentioned also violate WP:RS. The "vote if I like it" stuff is irrelevant as the site violates an established guideline. That you are a PhD student is irrelevant. I am a broadcasting professional and a highly skilled professional in manufacturing microsurgical instruments, but that does not make my opinions in that area somehow more worthy of attention than anyone else's without peer-review. If you want to mediate it, I will mediate. If an ArbCom finds the links should stay, that's fine. For your information, until things are settled in mediation or arbitration, I will remove such links.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, well documented survey in my opinion. I say you should get it published either as a dissertation or a paper. You do that and I will ensure your links stay in the articles. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James, I got your opinions on the matter of the links to your personal website. No, voting by editors is not the same as peer review, not even roughly. Thanks for your advice, but I know how to utilize my time here. Again, I advise you to get your research published and peer-reviewed. We have had this discussion many times before, but you have disregarded it. If you wish to contest my deletion of the links to your personal website, you are free to call a mediation, which I consent to. Until then, I am applying the advice in WP:EL, which actually does relate toWP:RS on one point.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 03:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, reply is at User_talk:Fahrenheit451#reply

James, please stop putting your false accusatory remarks on my talk page. If you cannot refrain from that practice, then just stay off my talk page completely. Your personal website link adds nothing to the content of the respective Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, I was unaware of any discussion but read your long-winded sales job on your personal website. Frankly, after reading that I am convinced that your links should go. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delegable proxy[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I have proposed a delegable proxy system at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy. If you would like to participate in this experiment, you may nominate a proxy at Wikipedia:Delegable proxy/Table. Sarsaparilla (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting System FAR[edit]

I have nominated Voting system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 21:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bucklin[edit]

You may be interested to know that there is a dispute about the Bucklin voting page ongoing. The issues are:

Can the term "Bucklin voting" comprehend systems which allow equal and/or skipped rankings?
If so, do such systems meet the IIA and Clone independence criteria?

(One possible answer to either question is that we can't say either way because we don't have relevant citations to reliable sources. In that case, we must choose what we can say.)

Your participation in the discussion might help us attain consensus.

Cheers, Homunq (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution. The discussion continues... Homunq (talk) 18:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flash mob[edit]

Very well, I will agree to mediation. Mkdw ^talk 05:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Flash mob. Mkdw ^talk 05:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The Request for mediation concerning Flash mob, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 11:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Flash mob article - I need your help.[edit]

Thank you very much for all your contributions to Wikipedia. It is very much appreciated. I would like your help resolving an issue on the Flash mob article. Please see Talk:Flash_mob#In_Popular_Culture.3F. - 64.40.62.120 (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As above76.175.193.153 (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copeland's method[edit]

Hi! :) I had a couple of questions regarding something you wrote in the article.[6] I realise it was about 5 years ago, but I was wondering if you could help regardless.

When there is no Condorcet winner (i.e. when there are multiple members of the Smith set), this method often leads to ties. For example, if there is a three-candidate majority rule cycle, each candidate will have exactly one loss, and there will be an unresolved tie between the three.^{[citation needed]}

I don't understand this at all. What is a three candidate-majority rule cycle? Surely with thousands or millions of voters a tie is highly unlikely, in this or any other voting system? Why is it more likely than say, a real-world tie in a FPTP election?

Critics argue that it also puts too much emphasis on the quantity of pairwise victories and defeats rather than their magnitudes. ^{[citation needed]}

I understand this to mean the system ignores how much people prefer one candidate over another. Wouldn't this criticism apply to any system which does not employ range voting? Most voting systems do not account for the intensity of support for a candidate, only its extent.

Thanks for helping me out!

BillMasen (talk) 16:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Majority rule cycle' is defined in the Condorcet method article. Yes, it should be quite a lot more likely than a tie in plurality, though the exact likelihood depends on the data generating process that one assumes, which is controversial. As for your second question, there is a difference between taking into account cardinal ratings, and taking into account the number of voters who oppose a given candidate in a pairwise contest. Hermitage (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice[edit]

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 21:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mr. Roboto, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arrested Development (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) 08:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Mr. Roboto!!! Hermitage (talk) 14:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Hermitage. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Deltopia for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deltopia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deltopia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Quidster4040 (talk) 15:48, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Hermitage. 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 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Hermitage. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of The Commish episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Charlie Don't Surf (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]