User talk:MarkusSchulze

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hey Markus, just wanted to let you know that I'm planning to report you for bogus edits per

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.. You've failed to provide anything resembling a convincing rationale why you're relying on an unpublished source that is in its text "biased against" the topic of STAR Voting.

Reply
Hi Marcus, I'd appreciate a reply to my response here. To avoid an edit war, I will leave your last page edit unchanged until you reply. 66.131.184.130 (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure
You are invited to participate in the Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)

AfD about Democracy 2.1
Greetings. When you nominate an article for deletion, it is assumed that your opinion is to Delete. Repeating the word "Delete" in your nomination is useless, pedantic, and confusing the tally. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Sequential proportional approval voting
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Sequential proportional approval voting&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Dhalsim2 (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at STAR voting. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I just reported you to the 3rr noticeboard
Now that your AfD nomination directly references the dispute for which you got the 3RR ban, I believe that it's proper to report you for it, so:

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Homunq (࿓) 12:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, MarkusSchulze. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Schulze method, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the COI guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"Condorcet method/wiki/Schulze method" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Condorcet method/wiki/Schulze method. Since you had some involvement with the Condorcet method/wiki/Schulze method redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  02:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"Ranked-Choice voting" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ranked-Choice voting. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Cite for minlemax?
Hi, Markus! Re your revert of my edit at Schulze method: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia, the cited article doesn't use the unusual term minlemax. Do you have a cite that supports the language you prefer in the article? Thanks. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The term "minlexmax" has been inserted by SEppley, not by me. See this diff. If you know a better term for "lexicographic minimum", then feel free to insert it. I reverted your edit because "lexicographic minimum" is not the same as "minimum". Markus Schulze 17:59, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

References for the table on Schulze method
Dear Markus Schulze,

I am currently working on voting methods, I'm interested in comparing these methods on their characteristics, and the comparison table you introduced corresponds to what I'm looking for. However, there are not references attached to it. Could you please tell me how you built it and where you found the information please?

BR. Cedric Buron (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Dear Cedric Buron, the table is my own collection. It contains own thoughts and information from other publications. Do you have questions about special entries of this table? Markus Schulze 08:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Markus,
 * I just wanted to know if the table had been published in an journal or a conference, so that I can make a citation but I just saw that it is in your article: Schulze, M. "A new monotonic, clone-independent, reversal symmetric, and condorcet-consistent single-winner election method." Soc Choice Welf 36, 267–303 (2011). My apologies for the inconvenience and thank you much for your answer! Cedric Buron (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 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 2022 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) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schulze STV
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schulze STV. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Owen&times; &#9742;  14:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)