User talk:WOT

Here are some tips to help you get started:

If you haven't already, please add your name to the new user log to let others know a little about yourself.
Read the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the Sandbox.
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk or ask me on my talk page.
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!
Jrdioko

P.S. One last helpful hint. To sign your posts like I did above (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).

European Union at the 2004 Summer Olympics

Hey, WOT, that was a really helpful and useful comment you made on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/European Union at the 2004 Summer Olympics. It's sort of what I've been thinking myself, but I haven't been able to formulate it. I say so here rather than on VfD, because Geogre asked us not to argue in this re-vote, and especially because I don't want to be responsible for encouraging Pgreenfinch to swing into a full repeat performance of his "Man Who Needs a Year at Charm School" routine. Anyway, thanks for your neat input. --Bishonen 22:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the positive feedback. -- WOT 18:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Didn't turn out to make any difference whether I encouraged him or not, of course. :-( Cheers. --Bishonen 19:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Delete, Redirect, Keep

I, of course, have no way of knowing what everyone thinks, but from reading associated comments it is clear that while some people mean "redirect but dump the content" others mean "redirect and move the content to the other article." One view is closer to deletion the other closer to retention. Most people who want the content to be merged vote specifically to "merge and redirect" and thus I assume most pure "redirect" votes are for getting rid of the content; however, not all of them are. Because of this I am uncomfortable in reading every redirect vote as equivalent to one for deletion when the rules explicitly state "when in doubt keep." - SimonP 04:24, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that those in favour of deletion would automatically prefer a merge and redirect to an article being kept. For instance on fifth grade many of those in favour of deletion felt the article was inaccurate and biased, the last thing these voters would want is to have such content merged into the more prominent, and more frequently visited, primary education page. - SimonP 18:14, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

By definition a delete vote means there is no "accurate and useful content" so if "merge and redirect" means only merging the good content then a delete vote certainly should not count as being close to a delete vote. Fifth grade is also not a good example for this discussion. If I had just considered the votes I would have redirected the article. However, by the time the VfD vote had ended that article had greatly increased in size and accuracy making the early votes suspect. Votes in the period after the improvement saw no consensus to redirect. - SimonP 21:13, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

A couple points. I told Postdlf that "redirect votes do not count as delete votes", not that "redirect votes count as keep votes." Also "merge and delete" is absolutely not a valid option and any such votes are automatically ignored. If content is moved to another article and the original is deleted this erases the history and violates the GFDL. All "merge and delete" votes are, and always must be, ignored.

As to articles that are modified and then kept, I don't see where you think there is a precedent to delete these. In the majority of cases people do not come back and change their votes after an article has been rewritten and a far safer option with an article that has been substantially changes is to keep the article and then if someone still objects it can be relisted on VfD for a second round. Remember "when in doubt don't delete" is the cardinal rule of the deletion process.

Personally I don't think more policies are needed, VfD is better if it does not operate by hard and fast rules. Good arguments matter, not just numbers of votes. Who casts a vote makes some difference, as does the pattern of how votes are cast. If any one disagrees with the decisions of the person clearing out VfD/Old these can be reviewed. Articles I have deleted have been listed on Votes for Undeletion, and ones I have preserved have been relisted on VfD, and I have no objection to my decisions being reviewed. - SimonP 23:10, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

personally; I agree that Simon is keeping articles where there seems to be a rough consensus to delete. However, since he's kept my comments to that effect on his talk page and doesn't seem to be hiding what he's doing, I wouldn't object to this until he fails to delete something I care about. If I cared about a deletion he didn't do then I would put a speedy delete tag on the page and then support the VFD (with a reference to the old discussion) if it didn't get immediately deleted. Wikipedia seems to be more of an "activocracy" than a "democracy", so be bold. Mozzerati 20:13, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC)

Maximize Affirmed Majorities vs. Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping

Many supporters of Condorcet methods consider the Simpson-Kramer MinMax method to be the best Condorcet method when strategic nomination is not an issue. However, the MinMax method is a very lousy method when strategic nomination is an issue, since this method violates independence of clones and doesn't guarantee that the winner is always chosen from the Smith set.

On the other side, Maximize Affirmed Majorities (MAM) and Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping (CSSD) satisfy independence of clones and guarantee that the winner is always chosen from the Smith set. Random simulations demonstrated that in those cases where the MAM winner differs from the CSSD winner the worst pairwise defeat of the MAM winner is almost always worse that the worst pairwise defeat of the CSSD winner. Therefore, many supporters of Condorcet methods consider CSSD to be the ideal method. Markus Schulze

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) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]