User talk:JohnWilmerding

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome!

Hello, JohnWilmerding, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Buzz Feiten
Hey,

I've noticed your making good contributions to the Buzz Feiten article, and want to encourage you to keep working! One thing I suggest you do is to spend some time looking for reliable sources, because the article is lacking in that regard. It is particularly important because the article is about a living person, although I haven't yet seen much controversial content about Buzz Feiten. Typically I look for interviews in well-known guitar magazines, or for instance details in reviews of instruments or when interviewing other people (e.g., a review would describe the BFTS in more detail). Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation
 Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia&.
 * To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the help desk, via real time chat with helpers, or on the [ reviewer's talk page]
 * Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia!  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  02:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 21
Hi. When you recently edited Peacemaking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mediator (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) 11:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jennie Hair concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jennie Hair, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Musicians' musician
Hello, JohnWilmerding. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Musicians' musician, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. TheLongTone (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Buzz Feiten (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Nut


 * Musicians' musician (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Art Porter

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission Jennie Hair


Hello JohnWilmerding. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled Jennie Hair.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the  or  code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code:, paste it in the edit box at this link , click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brattleboro, Vermont, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Swanton. 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) 09:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Meetup in Brattleboro at the end of May
Hi JohnWilmerding! I saw that you say that you are living in Brattleboro. I am going to be visiting the Brattleboro in May, before I move there in August and I wanted to see if anyone would be interested in doing a Wikimedia meetup there during my May visit. If you are interested, it would be great if you responding at the event page at Meetup/Brattleboro to help me schedule such a meetup! Sadads (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Art and Feminism Event in Bennington March 5
Hey! I wanted to let you know about an upcoming Art+Feminism event, at Bennington College on March 5: from 2-6 in the afternoon. It would be great to see some more Wikipedia editors at the event! Sign up here to let us know you will be attending! Sadads (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

March 2017
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Vacancy (film) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 10:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kenneth Branagh, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas Carter. 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) 09:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Plurality
Per Plurality (voting), "if 100 votes were cast, including 45 for Candidate A, 30 for Candidate B and 25 for Candidate C, then Candidate A received a plurality of votes but not a majority." Candidate B got less than a plurality, right?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:48, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for editing, and for caring about the truth. A plurality voting system allows a candidate to win with less than a majority of the popular vote. But so does our electoral college system. Your example (above) gives vote totals for three candidates. With no electoral college system, but under a plurality voting formula, Candidate A would win. But if a majority vote were required to win, then there would be run-off election between candidates A and B, both of whom could be said to have garnered pluralities of the total vote. So no, Candidate B did not receive less than a plurality ... they merely received less than Candidate A.

After 50 years' activity in politics, with an MBA and good mathematical abilities, I would offer this approximate definition of 'plurality': "A percentage of total votes received which, while large, is less than a majority." Depending on the type of system in which the votes are cast, a plurality of votes cast may or may not result in a victory. Please reconsider. That would mean that if 99 people are running for a particular office, then there will be one winner and 98 people will each get a plurality? That cannot be right. Here is a dictionary definition:

"a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast"

According to this definition (and putting aside the possibility of a tie), only one person can win a plurality. In the 2016 election, the person who won a plurality (according to this dictionary definition) was Hillary Clinton. Right? So, I would appreciate if you would please undo this edit of yours, and put it back the way it was. Your edit summary said, "it is not correct that Trump didn't obtain a plurality of the popular vote. He did." Not according to the dictionary definition provided above, because he did not get a greater number than the number cast for Clinton.&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. I stand by my edit, and my definition, which I believe is a practical one. Please know that there is 'plurality voting', and there is a definition of 'plurality' which has nothing to do with voting, but usually refers to human beings. What I have offered is a mathematical definition. In any case, as regards the article, the point, I believe, is moot, as the last edit of the passage now reads: "...and the fifth to have won a presidential election while receiving a smaller share of the popular vote than his opponent." [which is also correct.] By my definition, both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump received pluralities of the popular vote, as neither received an absolute majority. In an hypothetical race where there were five candidates, let's say Candidates A and B received 35% and 34% of the votes, and the remaining three candidates received much lower numbers for each, say 11%, 12%, and 8%. In this case an accurate description might refer to A and B as having received numerical pluralities. In a 'plurality voting' system, Candidate A wins, as they received the largest number of votes, which is all that is required to win under that system. In a majority voting system, there will be a runoff. If this were, hypothetically, a US Federal election for president or vice president, Candidate A will be recorded as having won the popular vote, though not by a majority. If no candidate received a majority of *electoral* votes, the Electoral College would not declare a winner, and the House of Representatives would make a choice between candidates A and B. Thank you again for your thoughts! -- John Wilmerding, Brattleboro, Vermont USA
 * Regarding what you say is "my definition", it may be a better definition than the standard applicable dictionary definition, but we must assume that readers will be using the latter, because they will be unaware of your definition. See what I mean?&#32;Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Cloud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lakota ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Red_Cloud check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Red_Cloud?client=notify 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) 09:18, 25 January 2018 (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) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)