Jump to content

User talk:Fahrenheit451

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Fahrenheit451 (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 28 December 2005 (→Scientology stuff - good work). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

Hi, Fahrenheit451, Welcome to Wikipedia!


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Fix spelling and grammar
None

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.


I hope you like this place--I sure do--and want to stay. If you need help on how to title new articles check out Wikipedia:Naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. If you need help look at Wikipedia:Help and The FAQ , plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or The Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. And if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on My User talk Page.

Additional Tips:

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

  • If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
  • If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
  • You can sign your name using three tildes, like &#126&#126~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.
  • You may want to add yourself to the New User Log
  • If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Happy Wiki-ing. -- John Fader 18:43, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nicholas Cusanus

You discovered after creating Nicholas Cusanus that Nicholas of Cusa already existed. The thought behind your blanking the new article is appreciated, but it's not the right way to handle the problem.

The recommended thing to do in this situation is to create a redirect to that title. By redirecting from the other title, you help ensure that other people searching for that title find the article they want. After all, if you looked for it under that title, it's fairly likely that someone else will.

See Help:Redirect and Wikipedia:Redirect for information on how to create redirects. The short version is that you replace the article's content with #REDIRECT [[page title]]. -- Cyrius|✎ 08:57, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment on Borda count

I've found out that before requesting mediation I'm supposed to make a request for comment, so I've done that instead. RSpeer 14:37, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

editing Hermitage's user page

Why would you revert a sentence on Hermitage's user page, put there by Hermitage, that describes him the way he wants to be described? That's just spiteful. I think you might be getting too carried away in debating with Hermitage. RSpeer 18:44, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Let's not be hypocritical Rob. I reverted it to what you wrote. I think spiteful describes yourself in the hack job you did on the Borda count page that I had to revert.--Fahrenheit451 03:20, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption of the voting system article

Your recent edits to the voting system page have been crossing the line on Wikiquette:

  • You kept deleting a link to Electowiki while giving no reason for it.

False accusation. I did give reason for it on the discussion page. I finally modified the comment and left it as it is.--Fahrenheit451 19:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Then, you deleted a column from a table, mixed in with other edits so it was hard to restore. These seem to be part of your quest to remove Internet sources from the voting system pages, which I believe is a misguided goal, especially for Wikipedia.

False accusation again. I removed the "independence of clones" column as it is nothing more than a theoretical notion with no real world existence. Using it is a misguided goal, especially for wikipedia. I have, in fact, added many internet sources to almost all the voting method pages I have edited. You need only check Borda count, Approval voting, and voting methods articles for evidence of that.--Fahrenheit451 19:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) As a user of Wikipedia, you must realize that knowledge doesn't have to be printed on dead trees to be useful. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.

You keep falsely accusing. I edited boldly and removed unverifiable criteria.--Fahrenheit451 19:55, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • When you make your large changes to a page, you do so in several small edits, with an edit summary of "m", making it very difficult to find what you changed and how to restore it. "m" is not an informative edit summary. The Wikipedia:Edit summary guideline says that you should always use a proper edit summary, especially on disputed material. Also note that the "Show preview" button will let you see your changes, and continue to make more, without saving them.

RSpeer 05:14, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Intensity of Binary Independence

I'm not sure that I understand the IBI criterion that you recently added. I think that it would help if you made a more complete list of methods that pass it and fail it. At present, only one method (Borda) is listed. Thank you --Hermitage 2 July 2005 02:37 (UTC)

If I listed all the methods I believe pass and fail it, it would be original research. So, before I or we embark on that road, we should get consensus from the voting method consensus page. Sound reasonable?--Fahrenheit451 2 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

I don't even know what the criterion means yet. I was hoping that you could explain it to me. I suspect that if nobody currently knows which methods pass or fail the criterion, it isn't yet notable enough to be on wikipedia. Yes, the talk:voting system/included methods and criteria page would be a good place to discuss this. --Hermitage 2 July 2005 21:30 (UTC)

I took the wording from the book and I think it is very clear. There is no evidence that nobody knows which methods pass and fail it. I have not looked for any tables or articles using it. It is published and peer-reviewed so it is notable enough for an article, but not as an evaluative criteria. --Fahrenheit451 2 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)

I've taken another look at the criterion. I still don't really understand it, but I can already find one major point of disagreement: I don't agree that the number of candidates whom I rank between X and Y is a valid measurement of the intensity of my preference between X and Y. (If it was, I would agree that Borda count is a good voting method.) For example, imagine 10 candidates A through J, whom I rank A>B>C>D>E>F>G>H>I>J. Imagine that I strongly approve of candidates A though G, and that I despise candidates H through J. This information is not conveyed by my ranking, and by your definition of intensity, my A>G preference is 6 times more intense than my G>H preference. In short, intensity of preference cannot be inferred from ordinal ballots, only direction of preference.

Ah, Hermitage, I never created that definition of intensity. It is obvious from the context that this was from Saari's book. You don't have to agree with the criteria, just as I think that independence of clones is a half-baked criteria not ready for use in evaluation, but there it is. --Fahrenheit451 2 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)

So, it seems that the criterion is just another way of saying "the method is Borda count, or some variation thereof." So far, I don't understand the relationship to IIAC. --Hermitage 2 July 2005 21:43 (UTC)

I believe the IBI was inspired by IIA. No, it is a criteria and not another way of saying Borda count, although, I understand your point of view: Local IIA only applies to condorcet methods as it was devised to make condorcet methods look more criteria compliant. --Fahrenheit451 2 July 2005 23:07 (UTC)

tactical section in Borda article

Please see my comments on the discussion page of the Borda article before making any more reverts to the tactical voting section. Thank you. --Hermitage 07:12, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Friedrich Wolf

Just thought I would tell you that I made a quick translation of the article for Markus Wolf's father from the de Wiki. Tfine80 23:46, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Farenheit451

What images of German did I upload with no tags? Thanks, Scott 22:48:10, 2005-09-12 (UTC)

IBI

I'd encourage you to userfy IBI from VfU, so others can see the content. Agriculture 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest mediation

Since experience has shown that this conflict isn't going away, I'd like to try mediation so that we can continue working on voting system articles without spending half the time working against each other. I suggested mediation once before, but the mediation committee was defunct. It's back now. Do you agree? RSpeer 19:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine.--Fahrenheit451 15:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Case Accepted, waiting for mediator

See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Rspeer and Fahrenheit451. Redwolf24 (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

reply to comment on my page

Sneaking? Not at all. I assumed that the VfD on the IBI page would show up on your watchlist. --Hermitage 03:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that you should not have assumed that.--Fahrenheit451 14:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know this at first either, but there's no way to see what pages are on another user's watchlist. So it's up to each user to watch the pages they're interested in. In your preferences, you can automatically add articles you edit to your watchlist. I think that would have avoided this whole situation. RSpeer 19:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, look, seriously: nothing personal or vindictive was intended. I'm genuinely sorry if the delete hurt your feelings. I just thought that it was a misleading article with highly questionable encyclopedic value, so I put it up for a vote. I really am surprised that you didn't have the page on your watchlist. That was unfortunate, clearly. But I didn't follow the VfD much after I initiated it, so I didn't realize that you never got a chance to comment. --Hermitage 05:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

O.K.--Fahrenheit451 21:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology Justice

I saw you created the article. I'm wondering if we could work together on a suggestion: a section comparing it to excomunication in other religions?--HistoricalPisces 17:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC) That's true. The Catholic Church doesn't believe in divorce. (PS. I'm not POV in my edits, but I think divorce is bad.)--HistoricalPisces 17:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, voting system has become a featured article!

I want to thank you for the work you've done on the article. The article wouldn't be what it is without your contributions. So it's your featured article too. Nice work! rspeer 20:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! We, and others who helped, share that credit for a job well done. Thanks, Rspeer!--Fahrenheit451 22:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology stuff - good work

Nice additions on Scientology. The one thing I'd love to see is more referencing - as per WP:SCN, the average reader tends to find this stuff utterly unbelievable, so references are really important! - David Gerard 14:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Scientology Justice article has cited references, but the other articles do need these added. That is the next project.--Fahrenheit451 17:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fahrenheit451, I noticed your reply to me on another user's page and would establish communication with you. I'm a Scientologist of long standing. My position re: Wiki is, let's keep Wiki's 1 policy in first (NPOV) and its balancing 2 policys (verifiability & no original research) in second. Again, have a nice day. I too have a talk page. Terryeo 15:04, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I never replied to you, I originated to Nuview. You are free to communicate with me.--Fahrenheit451 16:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fahrenheit451&oldid=33011402"