User talk:Filingpro

Welcome
 Hello Filingpro, and Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:


 * Table of contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.
 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations


 * Article wizard — a Wizard to help you create articles
 * The simplified ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.
 * Guide to Wikipedia — A thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[File:Button sig.png]] or [[File:Insert-signature.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Filingpro, good luck, and have fun. --Aboutmovies (talk) 06:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Schulze method
Dear Filingpro, if your edits are supposed to be a requests for comment, then you should follow these guidelines. Markus Schulze 11:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Later-no-help criterion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pairwise. 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) 09:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Page move
There is a requested move discussion open at Talk:Voting system, which may be of interest to you. Homunq (࿓) 15:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Homunq (࿓) 11:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Watch voting method?
You made a comment there a while back, but haven't participated in various discussions since then relating to your comment. Cheers, Homunq (࿓) 19:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)


 * You wrote something and then deleted it. Your participation would still be welcome. Homunq (࿓) 17:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Answer
I answered on Rob page.

Hi Filingpro, I'm taking a break so I am not answering anyones answer to my posts, I'm just clarifying some stuff I previously wrote before leaving for few weeks.

Reason I brought game theory was because it is a direct consequences of what you were pointing. So I thought that the only way to show that the claim that there was noreal effect wasn't appropriate was to show the uses of what you have reported. Since he was merely using the initial formula providing some other mathematical models which would directly include neutral was important. In the beginning you were giving one case, but you ended up with your example of the 5 voters and by the same token you settled it. In short, you were right, I was wrong... the initial wording as it was was misleading and take only in account cases per cases,... directly by the formula... it is only from models which take into consideration the different scenarios we should be wording this, because it's a poll, election, etc... so we can not merely relying on the initial formula. I should have looked at it more closely before claiming that the wording could have been considered as accurate. My apologies. Yaḥyā ‎ (talk) 18:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Enjoy your leave. Filingpro (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted (also not needed because a inquisitive debate I think ok and it seems you kept an open mind). I think this question is like the Monty Hall problem because many people (including PhDs) get the answer wrong at first and are sure they are correct!
 * Yes I think game theory a good point to show the real effect.
 * I'm glad the 5 voters (3 candidates) case was more clear. That is helpful feedback.
 * Yes I think well said re formula vs election. Helpful summary-->? The formula receives as input the final tally of support and oppose for just one candidate, and outputs a single score . The election receives as input ballots from N voters each with 3C possible combinations of markings, and outputs an ordered list of winners. When we speak of the outcome of the election to the individual voter we must adhere to the correct mathematical model to make true statements.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Comparison of preferential voting systems
Template:Comparison of preferential voting systems has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 10:59, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

This edit inserts a false claim.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2009_Burlington_mayoral_election&diff=prev&oldid=944147610 "In IRV, there is no tactical incentive for a voter withhold or falsify their second choice." 69.5.112.154 (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The statement is true for the Burlington election and any three candidate election, but I revised it to be true for any election. Thank you. Filingpro (talk)

No, the statement is clearly a false statement for any RCV election which does not elect the Condorcet winner. So it is not true for Burlington 2009, nor is it true for the Alaska election in August 2022, nor is it true for Minneapolis Ward 2 in 2021 (but the last case was a cycle, so no method would have removed tactical incentive to vote insincerely). Do you research this or just make it up? 69.5.112.154 (talk) 02:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello and see you are passionate about this topic. I believe there may be a misunderstanding.
 * Can you give a counterexample to the statement below, which you reverted, for any election?
 * In IRV, a voter never helps their preferred candidate win by withholding or falsifying their second choice.
 * As I'm sure you are aware, IRV satisfies the Later-no-harm criterion and Later-no-help criterion so it is mathematically impossible for a second choice candidate to help or harm the voter's preferred candidate chances of winning. The sentence above is merely a rephrasing of IRV's compliance with those criterion.
 * Regarding Burlington ballots as cast, can you show how the following statement is not true, as you claim?
 * Under IRV [in Burlington election], there is no tactical incentive for a voter withhold or falsify their second choice.
 * I think the problem you will find is that in any final round of three candidates, considered as a sub-election, the statement is always true, because you cannot have a strategic voting failure in the ultimate runoff consisting of only two candidates. Meanwhile, when there are more than three candidates, i.e. in Burlington's first round, the voters who might prefer Montroll third cannot promote him to second to change the order of elimination in subsequent rounds, because they do not command sufficient plurality in the aggregate. Specifically, even if all of the +343 votes that Wright gains in the second round are taken from him and given to Montroll, Montroll still falls behind Wright and Kiss.
 * I am open to correcting any errors with the article if you can point them out. I will wait several days before restoring the edits you reverted, to allow time for your reply. Regards Filingpro (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted my last revert. Yes IRV satisfies Later-No-Harm.  I didn't read it closely, I just thought you re-inserted the same false claim.
 * Whenever the Condorcet winner is not elected, then there is always a spoiler. If there is a spoiler, then some voters learn that if they had voted tactically, they could have gotten a better outcome in the election according to the political interest expressed on their ranked ballot.  If there is a spoiler, most voters voting for the spoiler would have done better for themselves by voting tactically. 69.5.112.154 (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes good point I think you make, whenever the Condorcet winner is lost, there is some majority of voters who could have done better for themselves by voting the Condorcet winner at the top of their ballot. Burlington I think is a pertinent real world example of IRV's failure of the Condorcet winner criterion.
 * Thank you for improving the article by calling attention to the fact that the prior claim does not generalize, and it was not clearly stated to be limited to the Burlington election.
 * In addition to IRV's failure of the Condorcet winner criterion, another reason I agree the prior claim does not generalize is due to IRV's failure of the Participation criterion. For that reason, in an election with four candidates, it is possible for a voter to harm themselves by voting for a second choice. Even though the second choice does not cause the first choice candidate to lose, it could prevent their third choice from defeating their fourth choice.
 * As I'm sure you also know, IRV fails the Monotonicity criterion, so if the opinion of the voters shift in one direction, e.g. say to build infrastructure, IRV might elect a candidate opposed to infrastructure, i.e. in the opposite direction. Filingpro (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)