User talk:Rspeer/Archive 1

Part I (July 2004 -- July 2005) In which I get a really heart-warming reply from a newbie I helped, manage to not mess up too many things in my first year editing Wikipedia, and end up in a content dispute

VFD gotem(speech)
I just wanted to let you know that i think the way you acted on the Gotem(speech) vfd page was much appreciated. You are one of the first users that i have come across that has been helpful and welcoming to new users. I thank you for all the work you have done on wikipedia. bakuzjw (aka 578) 23:38, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Remove personal attacks
Remove personal attacks isn't policy, and there isn't agreement on whether to implement it or not. You'll want to be very careful when removing things that they are in fact clearly personal attacks. --fvw *  04:21, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the warning. But I feel like I need to do this, because there's a whole lot of newbie-biting going on on VfD. I try to do it in fairly clear cases. RSpeer 04:33, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Round numbers
You're probably aware that there are at least two mathematical meanings to round number, one of them being "A positive integer m is said to be n-round if it is divisible by all primes p satisfying p^(n+1) < m, or equivalently if all positive integers t < m satisfying hcf(t,m)=1 are divisible by at most n primes (counting multiplicities). Using the fact that p_(t+1)<2*p_t (p_t the (t)th prime) it is easy to prove that there are only finitely many n-round numbers for each n. 1-round numbers are usually called very round" (Sloane's A089016).

I noticed that at 138 (number) you reverted Ductapareil's change of "multiple of 10" back to "round number". I agree with you that saying round number is most usually understood in its lay (i.e., non-mathematical) meaning, and that by round number in this context what is most likely meant is that other shows would've had a 100th or 200th episode spectacular rather than 138th or even 220th.

My opinion at this point is that the 138 article should still say "round number" for clarity of communication, but that the article on round number needs to be expanded to cover the mathematical meanings. PrimeFan 02:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Majority Choice Approval VfD
It looks like this VfD entry still isn't correctly handled; its edit link goes to the day's VfD "(section)" page. I can't access the VfD to post a vote. Can you help? Thanks. Barno 02:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm confused - I went to VfD, and the edit link for Majority Choice Approval is in the same format as any other link. What's the problem? RSpeer 03:25, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's okay now. When I tried to vote, the link was wrong; someone must have fixed it.  Barno 16:36, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I still get a link from the VfD page to the day's section (while the links to the previous and following nominations are okay); but from the article's VfD-notice box, I get the correct link. Strange, but at least I was able to get to the voting through that indirect method.  Barno 16:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote on WP:TS
Seeing as there seems to be some contention about it, I've gone through and tallied all the votes properly (using the correct method of calculating approval voting). It's at Wikipedia talk:Template_standardisation. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Deletion in MoS style-usage survey
I think you probably accidentally deleted a big block in the style-usage survey discussion. Your comments on "gaming the system" are clear and helpful. But it looks like the same edit deleted all or most of the earlier discussion of Debian's use of CCSD. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 18:16, 2005 May 8 (UTC)


 * Crap. Sorry. I'm fixing it now. RSpeer 18:35, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

How to hold a consensus vote
Hi,

thanks for setting up this page. It's a very useful overview. I'd prefer Condorcet to be avoided entirely -- I have yet to see a convincing use case for it -- though your summary of it is the best I've seen so far. One problem I have is with your implicit statement that voting only for one choice in a Condorcet vote is dishonest; I would contend that in most cases, it reflects an unwillingness to make any statement about the other options other than "I don't want any of them", i.e. the voters don't want to go through the thought processes required to make a statement to the effect that A>B>C>D>E, they only want to say that A>*.

One could contend that it's a feature of Condorcet that it effectively gives you an advantage if you go to the effort of thinking through the options, but I think those thought processes should be encouraged by the presentation of the different options, rather than by the voting method itself. In any case, it's the statements about the motive of the voter, which you cannot know, that bug me a little (your "or something" indicates that you yourself are unsure what exactly makes these people vote the way they do).--Eloquence* 18:07, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments, and I've included a response at Wikipedia talk:How to hold a consensus vote. I recognize that I'll have to rewrite that section somewhat, and I shouldn't presume to know what voters are thinking so much.

Arrow's Theorem
I'm the author of the recent change to Arrow's Impossibility Theorem page. You called it weasel words and bias. How could I have written in so that you wouldn't have called it weasel words and bias? Here is the content of what I posted:

''The theorem is criticized by many vote theorists, however, for depending on flawed requirements. [...] It is the final (IIAC) criterion that is most controversial. Some vote theorists believe there are scenarios of voting behavior where "failing" the IIAC is considered rational behavior by a voting society. One such example is where one candidate's supporters are far more loyal than another's, and the introduction of a third candidate would split the support of the third candidate. If failing IIAC is not always a "flaw", then the voting methods that fail only this criterion would not necessarily be considered flawed. In other words, some vote theorists believe Arrow's theorem improperly asserts that passing the IIAC is a requirement to be considered a satisfactory voting method. This would render follow-up theorems, such as the Gibbard-Satterthwaite theorem, flawed as well.''

It's true that I subscribe to the view, but I'm not the only one - it's also held by some people on the electoral methods mailing list. There are plenty of examples where dissenting views are described in wikipedia pages, without attributing them to actual people. So how is that section weasel words? I attempted to back it up with reason. Simply deleting someone's effort without a real explanation doesn't seem like the wiki way.


 * That was quick. I posted a response on the talk page while you were writing this.
 * The weasel words are "criticized by many vote theorists". You could make these non-weasel by naming some of them instead of saying "many", preferably by referencing published sources.
 * But I really don't think this section belongs on the Arrow's theorem article. The Wikipedia article does not talk about "flaws" in voting methods, which is what you're responding to. The only statements of the sort are to call the criteria "reasonable" and "fair", and those are already in scare quotes.


 * If those words are misleading even with the quotes, a possible modification would be to change "obey every 'reasonable' criterion required by society" to "obey certain seemingly reasonable criteria", and remove the word "fair". Then it's purely about the criteria and not about whether certain voting methods are good or bad.


 * The flaw is not in Arrow's theorem. You can use Arrow's theorem to conclude that IIA is too strong of a condition for ranked voting methods - that's different from rejecting Arrow's theorem itself.


 * RSpeer 00:49, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I will respond over on the discussion page. We must have crossed paths; I didn't see your discussion when I looked at the talk page initially.

Queen Elizabeth II
Please note that I have disputed the neutrality of this article. Jguk reverted my NPOV template, claiming that the NPOV dispute is just a personal campaign of one person. Whig 09:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Borda count page entry removal
Looks to me like you retaliated for my posting a borda count entry on the consensus page. Your edit bordered on vandalism, but it was promptly reverted.--Fahrenheit451 02:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It had nothing to do with that, so don't make random accusations. I think it's perfectly okay to have the borda count entry there, especially as it makes the page less centered on my opinions.

The problem is with the Borda count article itself. You seem to have linked to every article that happens to portray the Borda count in a positive light, without any negative ones.

Not true. Then you have really not looked, there are several con articles there. And I welcome more.--Fahrenheit451 15:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Wikipedia
re: your Highlighted comment  at Talk:Wikipedia. Here are a couple of reminders from the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines: One of the key policies for the Wikipedia is civility. Two companion guidelines are Please do not bite the newcomers and No personal attacks. I suggest that you remove the comment, or other Wikipedia editors may do it for you (per Remove personal attacks). Blank Verse  &empty;  06:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay - that was me deciding that the only way to respond to such an absurd comment was with more absurdity. But since it comes across in poor taste, I've removed it. RSpeer 04:30, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thank you! The person who made the comment was a fairly new user (~500 edits if I remember correctly). It is also a point that has been brought up numerous times, both by new users and experience users. So the comment wasn't really that absurd, but your response came across as very snotty. There has been talk, for example, of adding disclaimer templates to some of the medically-related articles, and although there is no consensus for the idea, there is a strong (and sometimes rather vehement) minority that does support the idea. Blank Verse  &empty;  11:04, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This is off the topic, I guess, but 500 edits is "fairly new"? I'm nearly as much a "newcomer" as he is, in that case. RSpeer 21:19, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

The Game
You're doing a great job of keeping The Game free of junk. I've created a place on Talk:The Game (game) for people to add their own serious/weird/funny variations. Instead of just deleting any you see from the main page, consider moving them to this list. Keep up the good work! Bkkbrad 16:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Criticism of Fahrenheit451's edits
RSpeer has repeatedly falsely accused and captiously criticized my editing. He has done nothing but create friction and has been very difficult to work with. He has a double standard: It was alright with him to chop edit the Borda count article, but when I removed a theoretical, unproven criteria from the voting methods article and edited the independence of clones section of the strategic nomination article, he goes on a false accusation rampage. This keeps happening.--Fahrenheit451 20:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I apologized for that edit, you restored it, and we moved on. People make mistakes. So do you. You do some things right, of course, but not everything, because you are human. But it does not look like you will ever acknowledge that you are wrong about some point. Instead, you attack any editor who dares to criticize your edits, treating it as a criticism of yourself, which is not a healthy Wikipedia attitude.


 * I have to wonder what your reason is for attacking this particular criterion, and then attacking me for restoring it. Is it revenge for one badly-thought-out edit I made to "your" article? Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. RSpeer 06:09, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

All editing I do here is common property, same terms as for you. I think your comment on Hermitage's talk page is interesting: "I feel really bad that I ever sided with F451 about anything," Clearly you are biased and I will keep this in mind in the future.--Fahrenheit451 18:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The term "unproven criteria" doesn't seem to make sense. As for "theoretical", note that the overarching category in question is named "voting theory". Hermitage 07:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you look it up in a dictionary. There is proven theory and unproven theory. ICC fits into the category of unproven theory for candidates.--Fahrenheit451 18:54, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you wish to keep discussing this topic, I'd suggest you do so on the appropriate talk page. Since this section started not even as a message for me but as a personal attack against me, there's no reason for any of this to be here. RSpeer 04:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)