User talk:HopsonRoad/Archive 4

Problem IP editor at Plurality (voting)

I need help with a problem at Plurality (voting). An IP editor keeps placing inchoate text in topics, related to plurality, apparently using several IP addresses. See this edit, in particular, which is similar to a previous one. I don't feel that I can tackle this on my own, so I'm hoping that you can help.

Hello HopsonRoad,

User:BalCoder is vandalizing the Electoral Systems Template again. Sometimes this user edits while logged out in order to avoid getting blocked due to edit-warring. Please help me police this article. I have challenged BalCoder to provide sourced on the talk page, but this user refuses to do so. Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:HopsonRoad 20:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverted. --Cornellier (talk) 21:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted also. From reading the IP's edits, they seem to be particularly unhappy with the fact that elected candidates need not have an absolute majority. I will drop them a warning about NPOV. BTW, changes in IP adress do happen. Unfortunately, it makes it hard to communicate with them. Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:58, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:HopsonRoad, Happy Squirrel, and Cornellier,

Similar disruptive edits/reversions have been made by User:BalCoder on the Proportional Representation article. These IP edits may be BalCoder's sockpuppets.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Help me!

An editor from Great Britain has taken interest in the Senate party affiliation of Bernie Sanders at the Vermont article with this edit that included some abusive language. Fortunately, I was able to encourage him to engage in the topic at Talk:Vermont#Sanders party affiliation. I invited some editors, who have shown past interest in the article, to join in but only one other has checked in and did not point the discussion towards a consensus. I've tried to avoid an edit war, which could easily have been a result with the speed and ferocity of the reverts to my edits that occurred. At this point it's just editor vs. editor. As a resident of Vermont, I feel that I have a better insight on this matter, but the other editor is perhaps a bellwether for whether the topic makes sense to the average reader. Your help in resolving this would be greatly appreciated. User:HopsonRoad 22:05, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

You may want to try WP:3O, a venue for requesting a third opinion in a dispute between two editors. Contacting a relevant WikiProject may also help get more community input. Huon (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Your question at the Help desk

	Hello HopsonRoad. Replies have been posted to your question at the Help desk. If the problem is solved, please place {{Resolved|1=~~~~}} at the top of the section. Thank you!
	Message added on 23:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{helpdeskreply}} template.

— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ski wax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paraffin. 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) 09:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You can read several arguments on my changes where were done, I did not see yours, you want discuss on talk page of Proportional Representation also I welcome you arguments. If not keep your good advice for yourseflf. Regards

Reference errors on 23 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ski wax page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ski wax, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sublimation. 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) 09:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

RE: Suggested reading

Hi, New Speech Killer. Welcome. I suggest reading: Wikipedia:Consensus to help you inform others of your concerns about articles and guide them on a path, which achieves consensus. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 00:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I will not thank you for you suggestions, as you are the person who undo my changes disregarding my notes/arguments. You never use arguments instead supported you step by Wikipedia JARGON. Consensus is not a good think, the good thinks is objectivity and honesty. I believe you know that the best consensus is between mafia like members. If you have an logical argument or con-arguments give it, explain and support. You do something else like -SUGGESTING- to others an activity/education etc. you do wrong. That is all. I leasing to you arguments! --New Speech Killer (talk) 00:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

So what is you understanding of word plurality, and what is your understanding of a word majority. Why you say the name should be used instead the preliminary "Single district member system" or adequate one. You appealed me to discussion. I appealed for you arguments. If you will not discuss I can easily say you do not look for a CONSENSUS. Right?

--New Speech Killer (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for writing, New Speech Killer. The correct place for building consensus on an article is at its Talk page, not on the pages of other editors. So, I recommend that you start that conversation at the pages of interest to you. However, I regret to say that i have a difficult time understanding what you are trying to convey in your writing. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 22:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You must be joking. In fact you are offending me. You proposed discussion - I think. If not you just attempt to push other user to talk page and ignore their opinion. What of the two is the truth? I think the second. I ask you for providing arguments answering to two questions, and you say you have difficulties to understand what I am saying. OK thou, the questions are:

1) What is your definition of world "plurality"?

2) What is your definition of word "majority"?

Simplifying for you what the words means for you in simple English?

If you will not answer to this question I will have all rights to assume you are pushing me out and attempt to ignore. Gave you my understanding of the words and proving false. The system which correctly was name on beginning Single District Member is switching to Plurality/Majority. Plural means many, plurality = large number, multitude, battalion, pack. The same as from able is created word ability. Majority means no more no less but more than half. The Single District Member system cut number of parties at district level reducing multitude in parliament and providing majority for parties with support 30-39% i.e. less than half. I say it should be call LESS plurality/ False Majority.

Let me know how you argue the term Plurality/Majority is correct? You do not answer I have the right to name you pusher and insolent.

--New Speech Killer (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, the term "not on the page of other editors". Well, start answering me on the talk page, open the talk chapter there. Saying false "Thank you", answering nothing is typical to American imperialistic/colonial attitude. This the reason why US has more and more enemies.--New Speech Killer (talk) 22:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

New Speech Killer, you seem to be resistant both to receiving politeness and to offering it. I don't know or wish to know your national/ethnic background, but if I did, I wouldn't address you with epithets, such as "typical to American imperialistic/colonial attitude" or "pusher and insolent"—terms that I don't even understand how they apply to this discussion. An important facet of Wikipedia is to assume good faith in others. Such language does not exemplify that.

As to word definitions, we agree on "majority." According to Encyclopedia Britannica: "Plurality system, electoral process in which the candidate who polls more votes than any other candidate is elected. It is distinguished from the majority system, in which, to win, a candidate must receive more votes than all other candidates combined. Election by a plurality is the most common method of selecting candidates for public office". This is not an opinion, but a trusted source of information.

As to my request that you discuss your ideas on the pertinent Talk pages of the articles where you disagree with other editors, please read WP:TALK#USE. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:42, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

OK. That is enough! For me you are pusher and bouncer. You do not respond to request to explain reverts. You assume you know the best what I have to do - i.e. write on talk page and wait until somebody kindly respond, if nobody will respond I am forbidden to make changes of OTHER EDITORS - maybe particularly with YOU SIR? :) That is you philosophy? :D YOU HAVE NO ARGUMENTS - DO NOT REVERT MY CHANGES. If you will do I will report you behavior. --New Speech Killer (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, "accidently"? you answer to may repeated question above my indignation, but I am happy since the indignations seems to provided a result. Not necessarily fruitful result - I assume you will stay with you button - NO CHANGRES :). Let me know, however, why the word "majority" should be continued in the name of the Single winner/single district voting system? It is fact the system practically always provides Majoritarian Governments, but without Majoritarian voters support. So it is illusionary (I call it false) majority. My proposal is to remove in first step the word Majority (Majoritarian). The correctness of the word Plurality we can discuss later. I hope you will be constructive. --New Speech Killer (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi New Speech Killer, please stop calling me names. I don't call you names. I have a hard time understanding your issue with the words in question. As I have mentioned, before. the appropriate place to discuss issues regarding articles is at the Talk pages of those articles. Discussing those issues with individual editors at their Talk pages does not build consensus. Likewise, my unwillingness to discuss those matters on my Talk page does not constitute my tacit assent to your assertions. User:HopsonRoad 14:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, what kind of name I call you? You a ridiculous! You use all possible tricks to do not discuss a question, are not you? START DISCUSS. Do not tell me where I can write or not. START DISCUSS or STOP REVERTING!--New Speech Killer (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2016 (UTC)