User talk:Astrophobe/Archive notes

New Deal coalition
Hi, courtesy notice: the "e" from the link for some reason. Fixed it for you. Have a nice day! --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

sir, pls approved my account
sir, pls approved my account Pkschhonkar (talk) 18:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I approve of your account. It's beautiful. - Astrophobe  (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Crooked Media Article
You said to create a talk page. Relatively new to this. A11200 (talk) 03:20, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I was referring to a conversation I opened at Talk:Crooked_Media. It's time for us to discuss how to change the page for the better, so that we can build a consensus on what the page should contain and how it should be written. I completely agree with you that there is a lot of purely promotional content on the page that needs to be removed, but the challenge is to decide how to make it as fair as possible. - Astrophobe  (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I believe it’s important to assess the bias of the page just as I would say Fox News is conservative.

Also, loaded and subjective words/phrases need to be removed. It’s important to note that even numbers can act as promotional content since crooked media is trying to appeal to advertisers. That is one of the reasons that I added the source from media bias fact check. A11200 (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Stone Butch
Thank you for pointing out my mistake, you are right, it was discussed on an older talk page that I hadn't noticed. To be honest I wasn't aware of the meaning of saphhic and wlw didn't show up on my monitor as blue so I didn't think of clicking on it. I'll revert my revert, and as that vandalism warning isn't valid that has to go as well, should I remove the entire section including your response? I'm not sure what the policy is in this case. WesGeek (talk) 19:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, I totally understand. "wlw" even looks like a string of gibberish, so it's very easy to see how it appeared to be vandalism! I don't think that blanking the discussion on their talk page would be the right approach; I fully expect their edit will be replaced quite soon with what seems to be the current consensus version of the page, and my hope is that someone will then engage in some consensus-building, since I think there's a legitimate point here that deserves a talk page discussion. Regardless, thanks very much for your vandalism-fighting work, keep it up! - Astrophobe  (talk) 19:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Political parties in autocracies
I cannot think of any well regarded association which has ever labeled Saudi Arabia a democracy of any kind. They do not even have an elected national legislatures for there to be elections that can involve a party, not even an indirect one like the Chinese National People´s Congress. I cannot think of reasonable people who would not label Saudi Arabia an autocracy. It is not unfair or undue to label it as such.
 * Of course Saudi Arabia is an autocracy. I never said otherwise. - Astrophobe  (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How can it make sense then to use the undue label then?
 * The lead section of an encyclopedia article covers only the most important points, in a high-level and very broad way. Unless an example is really essential to communicating some broad property of the subject of the page, it shouldn't be singled out for discussion in the first few sentences of the page. That's why I referred to the idea of WP:UNDUE weight. The guideline for how to write the introductory section of a Wikipedia is MOS:LEAD. Talking about the contemporary politics of Saudia Arabia is neither here nor there when you are trying to explain to people the fundamental idea of what a political party is. It's true that elephants have legs, but we don't discuss the legs of elephants in the lead of the page on legs, because it's not helpful for explaining what a leg is. Just as there is no reason to go into detail about the contemporary politics of any one specific country in the second paragraph of an article that is meant to explain what the idea of a political party is. - Astrophobe  (talk) 05:45, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RFA
A writer like Fuller needs to be taken with a certain grain of salt. This is a fellow who once gave a lecture mentioning that he'd previous given a lecture years before from the same podium and asserting the only part of him that was the same was his pair of eyeglasses. Fuller's work tries to teach us to pull our focus back from our familiar attention to detail. His understanding of meta-culture may be unorthodox, but I find him a serious optimist yet very pragmatic. I appreciate your nice General Comment edit especially. BusterD (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixing a sidebar
On the International political economy page, there is a sidebar on the right which contains a "Scholars" tab under "International Relations Theory". I'm trying to figure out where this sidebar comes from and how to alter it. The listing of the "scholars" seems rather random (shouldn't it list the most influential or prominent IR scholars) and biased (the only woman is Susan Strange even though surveys of IR scholars point to many influential women in the discipline, e.g. ). Do you know how to fix it? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's an interesting question! I absolutely agree with you. This is one of the best examples I've seen yet of the biases in Wikipedia's coverage of social scientists (and sadly I've seen a lot ...). I believe the list comes from Template:International relations theory. If you edit that template, you'll see the list specified as the "list8" parameter, so I assume you can edit it there. It looks like the Template is not under template protection so I think users without the template editor right can change it. While I absolutely think you should boldly go ahead and edit the list, if you do start a discussion on the talk page of that template about inclusion criteria I will be more than happy to contribute. - Astrophobe  (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Games in Satisfaction Form
Dear Astrophobe, Thank you very much for your work as an Editor of the wikipedia! I really appreciate your work.

I have recently modified the game theory page for adding a subsection on games in satisfaction form and I have a page under review for satisfaction equilibrium, which is the solution concept associated with this game formulation. I would also like to create a page with more details on games in satisfaction form. Note for instance that games in normal-form (and other representations) have such individual pages. Nonetheless, I was a bit discouraged by seeing that my comments were undo under the light of self-citation. I have indeed introduced these ideas during my phd thesis 10 years ago. Today, I find more than 93 scientific articles using this game representation but there is no wikipedia page about this. I started this page because I am happy to see that this has become another game representation used in applications in wireless communications. By typing satisfaction equilibrium in Google you will realise about the numerous contributions about this. What would be your suggestion for including this new knowledge on wikipedia ? For a non negligible set of user of Wikipedia, these new editions I am trying to include will be beneficial.

Thank you once again for the time you dedicate to wikipedia. I really would like to contribute in the best way possible and I would like to hear from you before continuing my contributions.

Best wishes.




 * Salut ! Looking at the available sources online I do think you have a case that a page on satisfaction equilibrium could be beneficial and notable. There were two other reasons that I reverted your addition to game theory. The first was that the citation appeared to be to a paper you wrote. Though this can be appropriate, the community tends to view self-citation as a type of WP:PROMOTION, which is not an appropriate use of Wikipedia. Even if everyone is working in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, as I am sure you are, our judgment can easily get clouded about what is a notable contribution and what isn't when our own work is concerned, right? This is the reason that peer review is important for science! So what I recommend is the following: when you are writing about satisfaction equilibrium on Wikipedia, it would be best to always cite other people. Since your work is so central to this idea, you can make sure that everything is fully above board by sitting back and knowing that other people will add references to your work. The second point is that, in writing Wikipedia articles, we need to make sure that we are giving the correct weight to different parts of a topic, and not lending WP:UNDUE weight to a comparatively minor topic. Where you added satisfaction equilibrium, it was right alongside things like the bedrock idea of a Symmetric game. We can't have a list of every equilibrium concept that people use there, as if they're all equally prevalent -- I wrote the page Berge equilibrium and never even mentioned it on the game theory page because it's such a niche topic. Having said that, the list right now looks like a total mess -- we have Mean field games right next to Zero-sum game and Evolutionary game theory, which is such a silly mishmash of topics, so clearly a lot of work has to be done there. Probably then it's not so bad if you add a mention of satisfaction equilibrium to that list, but I would expect it to get refactored out to a different part of the page as it is improved -- and I would highly recommend citing someone else's work :) I hope this helps. - Astrophobe  (talk) 20:59, 1 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Salut ! I am very happy to read your comments and suggestions. This feedback is really helpful.


 * Hi, I hope you are enjoying the holidays. Finally, I have completed the draft for Satisfaction Equilibrium and I was wondering whether you would like to have a look at it (when you come back from vacations, of course :P). While it has been waiting for review, I have been editing it from time to time. In my opinion it is ready to go online for hopefully being edited by other Wikipedians. Please let me know your thoughts. Cheers. Sperlaza (talk) 13:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry for the very slow response, my life has been really hectic lately. I just got around to looking at the draft you wrote and was very pleased to see that it was accepted through AfC. Congratulations! This is an informative article that will help people learn about a very interesting topic. - Astrophobe  (talk) 00:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry -- . -  Astrophobe  (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello ! Thank you very much for this. Let us see how this evolves with time how other Wikipedians contribute. Cheers Sperlaza (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Poly Sci
I think this recent edit to Political science (disambiguation) is misplaced, Poly Sci is unrelated to "political science". I believe my original hatnote works best, or perhaps make Poli sci a disambiguation page? 162 etc. (talk) 04:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, the problem was just that if we have a hat note for every alternative meaning, we'll end up with dozens of lines of hatnotes at the top of that page. It looks reasonable now because page watchers keep moving hatnotes to disambiguation pages, but before people started doing that, the hatnotes on this page were ridiculously beyond WP:ONEOTHER. If you loaded the page early last year in a mobile browser you would have had to scroll down to see anything other than hatnotes! But a disambiguation page for "poli sci" or "poly sci" is a good idea. I've started Poli sci (disambiguation). - Astrophobe  (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I've linked Poli sci (disambiguation) from the main article with a hatnote. 162 etc. (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Instant-runoff voting is a category. Ranked Voting is a sub-category. Right? See below.
Doesn't it make sense that this is the larger category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Instant-runoff_voting. Why else is it called a "category?"

There are multiple types of Instant-Runoffs, and Ranked Voting is one of them.

Instant-Runoffs makes sense as a broader category. It is any system that you do a run-off, without having to do a second vote. It happens in an instance.
 * 1) Ranking the candidates is one way of doing an instant runoff. Ranking is more specific.
 * 2) You could also grade them Score voting, or
 * 3) mark all the ones that are acceptable Approval voting.

There are many ways of doing an instant runoff.

I know this page says that instant runoff is a type of ranking, but that doesn't make any sense: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting.

As you can see, I came up with 3 types of instant runoff. One of them is Ranked Voting, so Ranked Voting MUST be a type of Instant-runoff voting.

Myclob (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've responded at Talk:Ranked_voting. - Astrophobe  (talk) 02:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)