User talk:Omegatron/Archive/February, 2018

Arrow's theorem
Thanks for reminding me about the refimprove template, but please don't remove it. If I don't work on it my hope is that another editor will. If it's stale for a very long time then I would understand removal, but it hasn't even been a year. It's an important article and there is currently a lot of unsourced content, some sections are entirely unreferenced and some there is some essaylike language in certain sections (use of "we"). For just one example, "The axioms of monotonicity, non-imposition, and IIA together imply Pareto efficiency, whereas Pareto efficiency (itself implying non-imposition) and IIA together do not imply monotonicity." - What is the source for this? It definitely needs one. There are enough examples like this in the article that I thought the template would be better than individual citation needed tags. Someone with competence in the subject area should also go over it for WP:OR but I think the process of refimproving will likely address the other issues also. It needs some significant work, which hopefully one of us will get around to doing. Seraphim System ( talk ) 05:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Asking for references is fine, but a blanket template at the top of the page isn't helping. Add citation needed where appropriate, or tag sections if necessary. — Omegatron (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not only a couple of sections, it runs throughout the entire article. Here are some examples:


 * We are searching for a ranked voting electoral system, called a social welfare function (preference aggregation rule), which transforms the set of preferences (profile of preferences) into a single global societal preference order.
 * All the conditions
 * For example, the introduction of a third candidate to a two-candidate election should not affect the outcome of the election unless the third candidate wins. (See Remarks below.)
 * Remarks: Arrow's death-of-a-candidate example (1963, page 26)[7] suggests that the agenda (the set of feasible alternatives) shrinks from, say, X = {a, b, c} to S = {a, b} because of the death of candidate c. This example is misleading since it can give the reader an impression that IIA is a condition involving two agenda and one profile. The fact is that IIA involves just one agendum ({x, y} in case of pairwise independence) but two profiles. If the condition is applied to this confusing example, it requires this: Suppose an aggregation rule satisfying IIA chooses b from the agenda {a, b} when the profile is given by (cab, cba), that is, individual 1 prefers c to a to b, 2 prefers c to b to a. Then, it must still choose b from {a, b} if the profile were, say: (abc, bac); (acb, bca); (acb, cba); or (abc, cba).
 * For simplicity we have presented all rankings as if ties are impossible.
 * We will prove that any social choice system respecting unrestricted domain, unanimity, and independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) is a dictatorship. The key idea is to identify a pivotal voter whose ballot swings the societal outcome. We then prove that this voter is a partial dictator (in a specific technical sense, described below). Finally we conclude by showing that all of the partial dictators are the same person, hence this voter is a dictator.
 * Is this all sourced to something or is it WP:OR? There are multiple blanket templates that could have been added - tone, essay, OR, rewrite, technical etc. but refimproving the article, if its done well, will probably resolve these issues also. Looking at it again, I think stubifying it and starting over is probably a better option than templating. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 07:55, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

BRD
See WP:AGF and WP:BRD; you characterized some of my thought out edits as "blanking" (typically reserved for vandalism) and you restored text I removed without discussion. That's edit warring. Instead, try discussion next time please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * So in your view, destroying other people's work without discussion is fine, but when they restore the deleted content they're committing a crime? — Omegatron (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

DS alert American politics
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Why are you posting this on my talk page? Do you want me to impose sanctions on someone? — Omegatron (talk) 13:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If you read the links in the template, they will answer your question, but the specific part is here. Note the bit about these alerts being purely informational.   The information itself is important, however, so please read the rest too, if you plan to continue work on post 1932 US politics (for reasons that are explained in the links in the template). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


 * But why are you posting this on my talk page? I'm not "working on post 1932 US politics". — Omegatron (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Your edits about the Burlington Vermont election would appear to fall under that topic. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Seriously? So because I wouldn't let you bias an article by blanking criticism of a voting system you like, you're trying to intimidate me with ArbCom sanctions from an unrelated decision?
 * Voting systems are social choice theory, which is a branch of economics/math, not politics. The parties and identities of the candidates are irrelevant.  My edits have nothing to do with partisan politics.  I don't know anything about the candidates other than the number of votes they received. — Omegatron (talk) 14:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * One element of the DS alert case referenced above is to WP:Assume good faith. My objections with the disputed article text are laid out, with reference to Wikipedia core polices, at the article talk page. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)