
A hermitage is the retreat of a hermit. *Hermitage is the name of a number of settlements: ** Hermitage, Berkshire, is a town in England near Newbury, Berkshire. ** Hermitage, Dorset, is a hamlet in England, near Sherborne. ** Hermitage, Dumfries & Galloway, is a village in Scotland. ** Hermitage, Seychelles, is a town in the island nation of Seychelles. ** Hermitage, West Sussex, is a village in England. *The Hermitage Museum, is a museum in Saint Petersburg, Russia. *The Hermitage, is the former residence of Andrew Jackson near Nashville, Tennessee, United States. The area surrounding the mansion, although part of Nashville, is also known as Hermitage, Tennessee. *Hermitage AOC, is a wine growing Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée in the Rhône wine region in France.
==Vanity links== Hi, James. I should point out that it's bad form to link to your own web page all over Wikipedia. I left in one link (from voting system) because I think it's at least a better page than some of the other things that are linked to, but the links on other articles were excessive. In general, it's better for external links to be added by someone who is not the author of the page. User:Rspeer 16:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC) Actually, the references are supposed to be published and peer reviewed. Even an academic home page does not qualify whether James does it himself or has an agent do it for him.--User:Fahrenheit451 21:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC) Excuse me, but I only added links to wikipedia pages such that my web site provides relevant further information about precisely those topics. These are as follows: voting system borda count instant runoff voting single transferable vote approval voting first past the post ranked pairs In most cases my web site compares favorably with several other sites that are linked-to by the same page. There are several external links that are not "published and peer reviewed". Many are personal sites by voting methods enthusiasts, like my own. Here are a few links for each page that I think are of comparable merit and authority to my own, or a justification for why my link belongs at the page. condorcet method: http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Voting.html http://electionmethods.org/ http://accuratedemocracy.com/ http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~seppley/ http://cec.wustl.edu/~rhl1/rbvote/desc.html voting system: http://electionmethods.org/ http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/sing.html http://condorcet.org/emr/ http://theorem.ca/~mvcorks/code/voting_methods.html borda count: The article and the external links miss out on a lot of the relevant criticisms of the Borda count, which my site provides. instant runoff voting: http://anewprogressiveamerica.blogspot.com/2004/11/what-is-instant-runoff-voting.html http://electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.htm http://www.condorcet.org/rp/IRV.shtml http://www.mich.com/~donald/first.html single transferable vote: http://www.electionmethods.org/ My site does provide very detailed explanations and justifications of STV, carefully comparing it to SNTV and party list. approval voting: http://electionmethods.org/approved.htm http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/ first past the post: Not enough discussion about alternative election methods on the page. ranked pairs: http://electionmethods.org/ http://accuratedemocracy.com/voting_rules.htm http://cec.wustl.edu/~rhl1/rbvote/desc.html http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~seppley/ Having a one line link to my web site on these pages is not going to hurt anything, and it can quite possibly provide useful information to people interested in the topic covered by that page. How can I get you to stop deleting my links? Who has the right to decide that my web site is less relevant than the electionmethods.org web site, for example? Sincerely, James James, the Plurality voting page is not the place for discussing other methods as you desire. That is the place for discussing plurality voting. As Wikipedia editors, we have every right to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I object to linking to any personal homepages. I think the links you pointed out here need to be reviewed and removed if they are simply opinion pages. --User:Fahrenheit451 00:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC) If you like, I can forget about the linke from FPTP. As to the other links, the bottom line is that my site provides relevant and valuable information about each topic. If you don't believe me, read the site. One thing that I can do is provide links to more specific areas of my site that deal directly with the topic. But before I go to that trouble I need to know that you won't delete them. As to linking to "personal sites", why not? Yes, of course many of the links I pointed out are "personal sites" in the same sense that mine is, but that doesn't mean that they fail to provide valuable information about the topic. You seem to regard institutions as the only valid sources of information, and discount the possibility that persons can fulfill the same role. As to whether the sites are "simply opinion pages", none of them are, including my own. All web sites contain some opinion, but mine, and those others listed, also contain factual information. To sum up, you should read my site before you delete the links to it. (comment above by User:Hermitage) Your one-line links may not hurt much, but they certainly ''help'' your PageRank. The problem is that if everyone could link to their own page from any Wikipedia article that vaguely relates to the topic, then every article would end with a 100-item list of people's personal pages. Perhaps condorcet.org is linked to from too many voting pages given its notability. In that case, it should be removed, too. The whole voting systems WikiProject suffers from massive problems with bias, "two-centage", and original research. One of my future goals for the project - after cleaning up many more blatant problems - is to set standards of notability for external links and remove the ones that don't meet it. For the meantime, we can at least stem the problem by deleting ''new'' links to people's personal pages. You gave Steve Eppley's page as an example. I'm already working on getting Steve Eppley's spam out of Wikipedia. I only have so much time to do this. You got whacked when others may not have been, because you were so ''noticeable'' in the way you added your link to every voting page simultaneously. Though we haven't set a bar for notability yet. here's a comparison of notability, which is the number of external links Google finds to each site. * electionmethods.org: 247 links * condorcet.org: 16 links * your site: 2 links, both added by you to a Wiki See the difference? By the way, I hate to bite the newbies. Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry you're getting a feel for Wikipedia policies the hard way. Perhaps you should get some experience by first editing articles on a topic you're not so attached to. You'll find that Wikipedians really aren't evil and negative all the time, we just can seem that way to newcomers because of the "merciless editing" (see the bottom of an edit page to see what I'm referring to). User:Rspeer 04:22, May 14, 2005 (UTC) James, I added the link to your home page to the voting methods page. It would be appropriate there I guess, but no where else in Wikipedia.--User:Fahrenheit451 14:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC) Reply to Rob Speer: I've worked extremely hard to make my site a good informational resource, but it's not going to do anyone any good unless they find the site, and they're not going to find the site unless they link to it from somewhere else or find it on google. This is not vanity, but a need to do what I can to get useful information to the interested public. I know that there are other links to my site other than the ones that google finds, but "notability" isn't really the issue. The issue is quality. The point is that my site provides a comprehensive overview of alternative voting theory that is not available anywhere else. That's why I spent dozens and dozens of hours writing it. By the way, the condorcet.org site is very arguably of a higher quality than the electionmethods.org site, from the standpoint of seriousness and objectivity. So judging by "notability" is really not a good idea. Also, you seem to feel justified in picking on my site because the links are new. Well, they aren't. There has been a link to my page from "Condorcet method" since March 2004. There has also been a link from "voting system" since March 2004. And so on. I don't know who deleted the links and when, but I do know that they were wrong to do so. Look, the purpose of the wikipedia is to provide information. Adding the links to my site from selected pages is a clear furthering of that goal. If you don't believe me, read the site. Rob, I have gone after the EppleySpam (TM) as you pointed out. Got everything I could find. --User:Fahrenheit451 14:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC) Reply to Fahrenheit451: Thanks for relenting on at least one page. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to link from all of the separate pages to my index page. However, it does make sense to link from some wikipedia pages to particular sections of my site that deal with that topic. A good example is the Borda count page. Linking to my general page might be too broad, but there is a specific article on my site where I give a concentrated critique of Borda that I worked quite hard on, and that doesn't exist elsewhere. I should put that link on the wikipedia Borda page. Similarly, on the ranked pairs page I should provide a link to the area of my survey where I describe ranked pairs in detail and give multiple examples where it produces different results from beatpath/CSSD. This information is valuable to anyone interested in ranked pairs. Similarly, on the IRV page I should provide brief links to the areas of my site that discuss IRV (there are a few, but I can write them so that they only take up one character on the page, e.g. 1, 2, 3. Similarly, I can provide links from the approval voting page to particular pages on my site. I also have an ironclad case for having a link from "Condorcet method". In this case, the link should just be to my index page, because my site focuses primarily on Condorcet methods. My site arguably provides more in-depth information about Condorcet methods than any other site. If you don't believe me, read it. One more comment about "published, peer-reviewed" stuff. The truth is that most interesting work on voting methods is happening online, rather than in the published journals. According to whom? Nic Tideman, i.e. one of the most widely-published authors on alternative voting methods. So web sources, like mine, are often the best available sources at this time. Indeed there are some exciting developments online rather than in professional journals. However, the purpose of journals is to provide research that has been and will be scrutinized by one's peers. What is online does not get the same peer attention. I appreciate that you have worked hard on your voting methods article, but it will never have the same regard that a published, peer-reviewed article does. Even accomplished academics misstep and can come to faulty conclusions. I have no problem with your link on the voting methods page, but please do not be insulted if someone removes your link from other pages because they see some problems with your analysis that you have not. --User:Fahrenheit451 21:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC) I recognize that most of the interesting research with voting methods is happening online, on web pages and mailing lists. But there's a lot of crap there too, and it's difficult to sort them out. Wikipedia's policies are a bit too conservative to include most current voting research. I think this is not entirely bad, though, because it puts us in a good position to throw out random junk that people want to add. "Look," we can say, "there are people who are talking about similar things, and they're even ''comprehensible'', and they still don't get to add it to Wikipedia." Or something like that. But as a consequence, you can't get certain interesting parts of voting method research on Wikipedia. I think that this is the niche that [http://wiki.electorama.com Electowiki] fills. I think that's a great place for all the current, obscure research in voting methods. It's also a place where you could link to your site. User:Rspeer 23:00, May 14, 2005 (UTC) Could you please provide a link to wikipedia's policy on external resources? thanks, James Sure: it's at Wikipedia:External links. One relevant section: :''Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, and any such operation should be raised at the Village Pump or other such page and approved by the community before going ahead.'' User:Rspeer 03:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC) I've read the guidelines. My links are by no means "mass adding", as the context surrounding your quote makes abundantly clear. It's true that I add links to my own pages, but I doubt that I am alone in that, and anyway that alone does not give anyone the right to delete my links. I am not interesting in adding links from these articles to raise my "page rank" in general. I'm adding the link because I am convinced that my site contains pertinent information to the topics that is not covered in the site. I quote 4 and 5 of "what should be linked to": 4 On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is. 5 High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article at which point the link would remain as a reference. I feel that these quotes support my argument. I find nothing in the guidelines requiring that external links be peer reviewed (journal) articles. In short, I am convinced that my links meet these guidelines for various pages. However, I will take your intervention to heart in that I will be very careful about which pages I link from (erring on the side of caution). I will also be careful to link directly to the particular page of my site that is most relevant to the topic at hand. In answer to your concerns, I am most certainly not spamming wikipedia in order to raise the page rank of a personal vanity site. I am linking from wiki pages such that my site provides useful information to people interested in those topics. Rob, you wrote: "I recognize that most of the interesting research with voting methods is happening online, on web pages and mailing lists. But there's a lot of crap there too, and it's difficult to sort them out." I reply: Perhaps, but my voting pages aren't crap. If you don't believe me, read them. If you don't have time to read them, please leave the links alone. If you are assuming that everything is crap before you look at it, you aren't doing your job as an editor, so you shouldn't be editing. I will also work on the electowiki. That should be a fun project. But electowiki or no, some of my links are still appropriate here. Your BC article is, to use your own words, "crap". I read it and it a misch of your opinions and real BC information that is available from reputable, published and peer-reviewed sources. --User:Fahrenheit451 18:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC) F451, you wrote: "I appreciate that you have worked hard on your voting methods article, but it will never have the same regard that a published, peer-reviewed article does." I reply: No, it's not an article. It's a web site with 30 pages. One of the pages is 20,000 words long. This is no small amount of effort here, and as a result it is a rich information source. The site contains one article of mine that was peer reviewed and published in the most recent edition of Voting Matters. But that one page is neither as accessible or as comprehensive as many of the other pages on the site, hence I link to the index page. I disagree your site contains valuable information. Your BC article was not published and peer-reviewed so your mention of another article that was not under discussion is irrelevant. --User:Fahrenheit451 18:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC) F451,you wrote: "I have no problem with your link on the voting methods page, but please do not be insulted if someone removes your link from other pages because they see some problems with your analysis that you have not." I reply: I'll cross that bridge if and when I come to it. So far, no legitimate challenges to my analyses are being presented as reasons for link deletion. thanks, James Well, you just got one from me on your very POV, unpublished and not peer-reviewed article on the BC. I removed it and will continue to remove it from that page. --User:Fahrenheit451 17:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC) What flaw do you find in my analysis? If there is a flaw, I will correct it. Perhaps I can revise the paper (which is admittedly fairly old) and then re-establish the link. I have already made a small revision where the tone is more neutral/objective, and my thesis is stated as a thesis rather than a bare fact. I feel that the link to my Borda page is protected in part by the policy that pages should include links to multiple points of view. The Borda page seems to lack a link to any site or article that lays down a comprehensive critique of the method. If a group is deciding on whether to use the Borda count, it is in their interest to be aware of such a critique. Once again, I have not yet found anything in the wikipedia external link policy requiring that external links be peer reviewed. If there is such a policy statement, please point it out to me. thanks, James It's a good point that there are no critiques of the Borda Count in the external links. I still believe James shouldn't link to his own article, because the external link policy specifically says not to, but ''I'' may link to it unless F451 can provide a better critique. Several of the articles there have mathematical-based critiques on the limitations of the Borda count. All of them are published and peer-reviewed. If you find others that are as well, please add them. --User:Fahrenheit451 02:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC) I have also removed a few links arguing unsoundly that Borda is the "best" voting method. I appreciate your strict standards for inclusion, F451, but they should apply to your own contributions as well. User:Rspeer 01:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC) I reverted your edit. Your allegation about those articles stating it is the "best" method is [wrong]. * No personal attacks. * I apologize for editing rashly. Borda count has too many positive links, but those were probably not the right links to remove. User:Rspeer 06:17, May 16, 2005 (UTC) Hermitage, It looks like you have succeeded in precipitating a war between RSpeer and myself all over your vanity website. I am not going to argue with you about it. It is a vanity site and I am continuing to remove it where I find it. --User:Fahrenheit451 03:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC) I am not at all interested in precipitating a war between anybody. If you get into one, it's not my fault. My site is not a vanity site. Here is the definition of a vanity site: "The pejorative term vanity site refers to a website that is run by an individual or small group (such as a family) purely for its own amusement." My site does not fit this definition. It is seriously intended to serve as an informational resource. Many people have already found it useful. I feel strongly that there is not enough accessible information available on comparative voting methods, and much of my work (especially the voting methods survey and introduction) is intended to fill a well-defined gap. For example, my Borda article. In a google search for my own name, I find this page: http://www.isu.edu/~krilcath/links.html A PhD math professor at Idaho State University includes a link to my site as one of only six entries of "useful links" under the categoy of "voting methods". The link is labeled as follows: "Voting theory page by James Green Armytage (includes strong recommendations against Borda count)" I have never met or corresponded with this person. I don't know how she found my site (maybe it was via wikipedia!), but she found it useful for its critique of Borda. If you continue to erase my links without giving a reason, then your actions seem to amount to a grudge. I have never directed ill will against you or tried to disrupt your projects (whatever they might be). Hence I don't understand the grudge. If it continues, we might have to look into some sort of mediation process. I also don't understand this fetish for peer reviewed articles. Perhaps you might prefer them to individually created web sites, but if there is no specific wikipedia policy that requires external resources to be peer-reviewed, you have no right to remove my links on that basis. If you continue to delete the links out of some sort of grudge, without providing adequate reasoning, then your actions may amount to vandalism ("bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content"). In general, I don't think that your removing my links is doing any good. I think that it would be better for you to focus your efforts on more productive endeavors. I will take caution as a result of our interaction, and I will be careful not to abuse the wikipedia. However, when in doubt, it seems logical to err on the side of more rather than fewer external links, when it can be determined that the links provide sound content with a clear educational purpose. (The cost of adding an external link is virtually zero, and it creates the possibility of someone finding helpful information.) Why waste your time cutting other people down when they are trying to contribute? If you have a problem with a linked-to article of mine, why not just encourage me to improve the article, rather than deleting the link out of hand? -James I am not "cutting other people down" and you know that. I specifically find your BC article to be of unacceptable scholarship. There isn't any such Wikipedia policy obligating an editor to put both pro and con links when either are of unsound content. Factually, your conclusion in your BC article flies in the face of reality: The BC is and has been used in real elections successfully. Your statement is like saying that rain is bad because it can damage roofs and cause floods. The vulnerabilities of the BC are covered amply on the BC page and in the published, peer-reviewed links. I welcome any more such con - BC links added. What you need to see is that a theoretical drawback does not necessarily manifest itself in actual practice, and drawbacks can be greatly offset by the strengths of a method or process. I see you are still a student. When you get real world experience you will see that this is so. I recommend that you research the BC further and then rewrite your article citing that research. If you have an advisor, have them read it through critically and rewrite it if necessary. Both the BC and AV pages have been put on a high level of scholarship thanks to a number of Wikipedia editors. I want to maintain that trend. I hope you understand my point of view on this. --User:Fahrenheit451 14:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC) _______________ F451, here is my reply to your last message: You write: "Factually, your conclusion in your BC article flies in the face of reality: The BC is and has been used in real elections successfully." I reply: The current wording of my conclusion is this: "I advise that the Borda count should not be used for real elections, especially contentious elections." If my conclusion was that Borda has not been or cannot be used for real elections, it would fly in the face of reality. As is, it is a recommendation that Borda not be used, especially for contentious elections. The conclusion is supported by the body of the article. All voting methods produce quirky effects in contentious elections. I suggest you read Alexander Tabarrok's fine paper about the 1860 presidential election, which you can find in the BC links.--User:Fahrenheit451 00:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC) You write: "The vulnerabilities of the BC are covered amply on the BC page and in the published, peer-reviewed links. I welcome any more such con - BC links added." I reply: Some articles are critical of Borda, yes, but is there a single critique article that is as comprehensive and accessible as mine? I think you should do yourself a big favor and get your article published and peer-reviewed. If it is indeed meritorious, you will be recognized accordingly.--User:Fahrenheit451 00:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC) You write: "I see you are still a student." I reply: Yes, I'll be starting an economics PhD program at UC Santa Barbara in the fall. I still know very little about you, including your name. Are you a professor? What is your source of expertise on this issue? UCSB is a good school. I am a business owner, radio talk show host and producer, and am keenly interested in voting methods with application to corporate decision making. --User:Fahrenheit451 00:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC) You write: "What you need to see is that a theoretical drawback does not necessarily manifest itself in actual practice, and drawbacks can be greatly offset by the strengths of a method or process." I reply: By chance, Borda was used by my undergraduate college to choose student government. I wrote the original version of this article shortly after a controversial election where there was very little confidence in the validity of a close result. (Not that the counting process was suspect, but the meaningfulness of the candidate scores when that close was hotly debated.) I also know from interviewing student voters that tactical voting (truncation, especially) was commonly used in student Borda elections. I went to the University of Michigan where BC is used to elect two student assemblies and there were no problems with the method. Overall, we were quite satisfied with the results. Again, you need to do a scientific investigation to find the correct reason why the election went awry. Offhand opinions and speculations are Not scientific method. Truncation invalidated a ballot where I came from.--User:Fahrenheit451 00:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC) You write: "Both the BC and AV pages have been put on a high level of scholarship thanks to a number of Wikipedia editors. I want to maintain that trend. I hope you understand my point of view on this." I reply: I believe that I do, but I continue to disagree with it. I think that it is useful to have a comprehensive, accessible critique of Borda linked to the Borda page. It is clear that you disagree with the conclusion of my article, but I don't think that you have shown a logical or factual flaw in the article. Therefore, I continue to claim that you have no right/authority to remove the link. (If you do find a flaw, but I am able to correct it, then we will return again to this situation.) What gives one or a few people the right/authority to decide what "level of scholarship" an external link for a given page must meet? My disagreements is irrelevant. Your conclusion is false, implying stated or unstated premises are unsound. Please get your article published and peer-reviewed.--User:Fahrenheit451 00:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC) You write: "I specifically find your BC article to be of unacceptable scholarship. There isn't any such Wikipedia policy obligating an editor to put both pro and con links when either are of unsound content." I reply: I don't think that you have demonstrated my article to be unsound. Again, I would like to fix any flaws that you are able to find. Sincerely, James User:Hermitage 00:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC) I have a full-time career and no time to critique your article. Your best bet is to get it published and peer-reviewed. --User:Fahrenheit451 00:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC) If you don't have time to critique the article, then you lack sufficient grounds to remove the link. That is a falsehood. No Wikipedia editor needs to write a critique of any article or link before they remove it.--User:Fahrenheit451 23:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Not all articles that are useful to an online audience are attractive to academic journal editors. My article makes no new revelations, hence it is not interesting to journal editors. My article combines and concentrates existing arguments into a comprehensive and accessible critique. Hence it is useful to an online audience. User:Hermitage 05:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC) So what you are saying is that you do not think any journal editors would accept your article for publication. I cannot think of any that would either. It reads like a ranting propaganda diatribe. If you want to promote that stuff, you are on your own. --User:Fahrenheit451 23:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC) You have failed to answer my arguments. User:Hermitage 00:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC) I already have. I guess you want me to rehash those points and I will not. Incidentally, you have done some pretty good editing on several election method pages.--User:Fahrenheit451 13:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Thanks. I'm happy to end our argument here. But please do have a look at my web site when you have a chance. These pages make for a favorable sampling: http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/survey.htm http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/define.htm http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp13.htm User:Hermitage 06:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC) == Assistance with independence of clones == I feel really bad that I ever sided with F451 about anything, considering that he's making another swath of edits where he won't listen to anyone else's opinion. Thanks for helping to prevent him from removing the entire concept of F451 from Wikipedia. User:Rspeer 06:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) :I want to see verifiable facts, not accepted opinion. You have falsely accused me of trying to "removing the entire concept of F451 from Wikipedia". I have no problem with the article, just that "clone candidates" have no evidence for real existence, and are nothing but POV until proven otherwise.--User:Fahrenheit451 18:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::This topic (F451's objections to ICC) is being addressed elsewhere. Talk:Voting system Talk:Borda count Talk:Strategic nomination. I think that it is better for the discussion to be focused on a small number of talk pages (preferably just one), so I'd prefer not to engage with it here. For the purposes of this page, I'll just say that I currently agree that references to ICC should remain in the Wikipedia, and that I will edit accordingly. User:Hermitage 23:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Smith set == Hermitage, I suggest you take a look at what methods to evaluate with the Smith set. I think you will find it applies to Condorcet methods and not to other methods. Thus, if a method is not a Condorcet method, evaluating it against the Smith criterion would be absurd. The very definition of Smith set has to do with pairwise comparison, e.i. Condorcet, so it only applies to such methods. Please stop arbitrarily editing with it.--User:Fahrenheit451 00:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :This isn't something to start an argument over. It could be seen as more consistent to mention all criteria, regardless if one depends on another; or it could be seen as more informative to only mention sub-criteria when the main criterion is satisfied. I suppose I slightly prefer the second, but wouldn't accuse anyone of editing in bad faith to do either one. :F451, you're being a bit imprecise - a method can satisfy Condorcet without doing any explicit pairwise comparisons. Look at Nanson's method for that. It's plausible that such a method could also satisfy Smith, though I don't know of any examples. :If the Smith criterion is to be included, I'd like for it to be proposed and discussed at Talk:Voting system/Included methods and criteria. My hope is that that page will build consensus, and quell accusations of "arbitrary edits" or ulterior motives. :User:Rspeer 04:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ::If a method passes Condorcet, it doesn't necessarily pass Smith. ::If a method fails Smith, it doesn't necessarily fail Condorcet. ::If a method passes Smith, it passes Condorcet, majority, mutual majority, and Condorcet loser. ::If a method fails Condorcet, majority, mutual majority, or Condorcet loser, it fails Smith. ::To say that a method passes Smith implies that the method passes all of these other criteria. However, not everyone knows this, so it makes sense for the wikipedia to state it explicitly. ::To say that a method fails any of these other criteria implies that the method fails Smith, so in a sense it is redundant to say that it fails Smith. However, not everyone knows this, so it makes sense for the wikipedia to state it explicitly. ::Smith is a very important criterion. To call my adding the Smith criterion to ranked ballot method pages "arbitrary" is needlessly insulting. ::I will visit the page that Rspeer mentions. My opinion is that the "satisfied criteria" section of the Schulze method page provides an interesting model for similar sections within other pages about ranked ballot voting methods, although I realize that some of the "satisfied criteria" there are not satisfied if the method uses margins as the defeat stength definition, and I admit that I am somewhat ambivalent about mentioning Mike Ossipoff's criteria on wikipedia. ::User:Hermitage 00:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This user is the voting system enthusiast James Green-Armytage, and has been active on Wikipedia since 10 May 2005.
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Hermitage:
Hermitage
Hermitage
Hermitage
Hermitage,_AR
Hermitage,_Arkansas
Hermitage,_Arkansas
Hermitage,_Berkshire
Hermitage,_Dorset
Hermitage,_Missouri
Hermitage,_MO
Hermitage,_PA
Hermitage,_Pennsylvania
Hermitage,_Tennessee
Hermitage,_TN
Hermitage_AOC
Hermitage_AOC
Hermitage_Castle
Hermitage_grape
Hermitage_Green
Hermitage_Museum
Hermitage_Museum
Hermitage_Rooms
Hermitage_wine
Hermitage_wine
Hermitage
A hermitage is the retreat of a hermit. *Hermitage is the name of a number of settlements: ** Hermitage, Berkshire, is a town in England near Newbury, Berkshire. ** Hermitage, Dorset, is a hamlet in England, near Sherborne. ** Hermitage, Dumfries & Galloway, is a village in Scotland. ** Hermitage, Seychelles, is a town in the island nation of Seychelles. ** Hermitage, West Sussex, is a village in England. *The Hermitage Museum, is a museum in Saint Petersburg, Russia. *The Hermitage, is the former residence of Andrew Jackson near Nashville, Tennessee, United States. The area surrounding the mansion, although part of Nashville, is also known as Hermitage, Tennessee. *Hermitage AOC, is a wine growing Appellation d'Origine Contrôlée in the Rhône wine region in France.
Hermitage
==Vanity links== Hi, James. I should point out that it's bad form to link to your own web page all over Wikipedia. I left in one link (from voting system) because I think it's at least a better page than some of the other things that are linked to, but the links on other articles were excessive. In general, it's better for external links to be added by someone who is not the author of the page. User:Rspeer 16:56, May 13, 2005 (UTC) Actually, the references are supposed to be published and peer reviewed. Even an academic home page does not qualify whether James does it himself or has an agent do it for him.--User:Fahrenheit451 21:25, 13 May 2005 (UTC) Excuse me, but I only added links to wikipedia pages such that my web site provides relevant further information about precisely those topics. These are as follows: voting system borda count instant runoff voting single transferable vote approval voting first past the post ranked pairs In most cases my web site compares favorably with several other sites that are linked-to by the same page. There are several external links that are not "published and peer reviewed". Many are personal sites by voting methods enthusiasts, like my own. Here are a few links for each page that I think are of comparable merit and authority to my own, or a justification for why my link belongs at the page. condorcet method: http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Voting.html http://electionmethods.org/ http://accuratedemocracy.com/ http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~seppley/ http://cec.wustl.edu/~rhl1/rbvote/desc.html voting system: http://electionmethods.org/ http://www.barnsdle.demon.co.uk/vote/sing.html http://condorcet.org/emr/ http://theorem.ca/~mvcorks/code/voting_methods.html borda count: The article and the external links miss out on a lot of the relevant criticisms of the Borda count, which my site provides. instant runoff voting: http://anewprogressiveamerica.blogspot.com/2004/11/what-is-instant-runoff-voting.html http://electionmethods.org/IRVproblems.htm http://www.condorcet.org/rp/IRV.shtml http://www.mich.com/~donald/first.html single transferable vote: http://www.electionmethods.org/ My site does provide very detailed explanations and justifications of STV, carefully comparing it to SNTV and party list. approval voting: http://electionmethods.org/approved.htm http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/approvalvote/ first past the post: Not enough discussion about alternative election methods on the page. ranked pairs: http://electionmethods.org/ http://accuratedemocracy.com/voting_rules.htm http://cec.wustl.edu/~rhl1/rbvote/desc.html http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~seppley/ Having a one line link to my web site on these pages is not going to hurt anything, and it can quite possibly provide useful information to people interested in the topic covered by that page. How can I get you to stop deleting my links? Who has the right to decide that my web site is less relevant than the electionmethods.org web site, for example? Sincerely, James James, the Plurality voting page is not the place for discussing other methods as you desire. That is the place for discussing plurality voting. As Wikipedia editors, we have every right to edit in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I object to linking to any personal homepages. I think the links you pointed out here need to be reviewed and removed if they are simply opinion pages. --User:Fahrenheit451 00:43, 14 May 2005 (UTC) If you like, I can forget about the linke from FPTP. As to the other links, the bottom line is that my site provides relevant and valuable information about each topic. If you don't believe me, read the site. One thing that I can do is provide links to more specific areas of my site that deal directly with the topic. But before I go to that trouble I need to know that you won't delete them. As to linking to "personal sites", why not? Yes, of course many of the links I pointed out are "personal sites" in the same sense that mine is, but that doesn't mean that they fail to provide valuable information about the topic. You seem to regard institutions as the only valid sources of information, and discount the possibility that persons can fulfill the same role. As to whether the sites are "simply opinion pages", none of them are, including my own. All web sites contain some opinion, but mine, and those others listed, also contain factual information. To sum up, you should read my site before you delete the links to it. (comment above by User:Hermitage) Your one-line links may not hurt much, but they certainly ''help'' your PageRank. The problem is that if everyone could link to their own page from any Wikipedia article that vaguely relates to the topic, then every article would end with a 100-item list of people's personal pages. Perhaps condorcet.org is linked to from too many voting pages given its notability. In that case, it should be removed, too. The whole voting systems WikiProject suffers from massive problems with bias, "two-centage", and original research. One of my future goals for the project - after cleaning up many more blatant problems - is to set standards of notability for external links and remove the ones that don't meet it. For the meantime, we can at least stem the problem by deleting ''new'' links to people's personal pages. You gave Steve Eppley's page as an example. I'm already working on getting Steve Eppley's spam out of Wikipedia. I only have so much time to do this. You got whacked when others may not have been, because you were so ''noticeable'' in the way you added your link to every voting page simultaneously. Though we haven't set a bar for notability yet. here's a comparison of notability, which is the number of external links Google finds to each site. * electionmethods.org: 247 links * condorcet.org: 16 links * your site: 2 links, both added by you to a Wiki See the difference? By the way, I hate to bite the newbies. Welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry you're getting a feel for Wikipedia policies the hard way. Perhaps you should get some experience by first editing articles on a topic you're not so attached to. You'll find that Wikipedians really aren't evil and negative all the time, we just can seem that way to newcomers because of the "merciless editing" (see the bottom of an edit page to see what I'm referring to). User:Rspeer 04:22, May 14, 2005 (UTC) James, I added the link to your home page to the voting methods page. It would be appropriate there I guess, but no where else in Wikipedia.--User:Fahrenheit451 14:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC) Reply to Rob Speer: I've worked extremely hard to make my site a good informational resource, but it's not going to do anyone any good unless they find the site, and they're not going to find the site unless they link to it from somewhere else or find it on google. This is not vanity, but a need to do what I can to get useful information to the interested public. I know that there are other links to my site other than the ones that google finds, but "notability" isn't really the issue. The issue is quality. The point is that my site provides a comprehensive overview of alternative voting theory that is not available anywhere else. That's why I spent dozens and dozens of hours writing it. By the way, the condorcet.org site is very arguably of a higher quality than the electionmethods.org site, from the standpoint of seriousness and objectivity. So judging by "notability" is really not a good idea. Also, you seem to feel justified in picking on my site because the links are new. Well, they aren't. There has been a link to my page from "Condorcet method" since March 2004. There has also been a link from "voting system" since March 2004. And so on. I don't know who deleted the links and when, but I do know that they were wrong to do so. Look, the purpose of the wikipedia is to provide information. Adding the links to my site from selected pages is a clear furthering of that goal. If you don't believe me, read the site. Rob, I have gone after the EppleySpam (TM) as you pointed out. Got everything I could find. --User:Fahrenheit451 14:46, 14 May 2005 (UTC) Reply to Fahrenheit451: Thanks for relenting on at least one page. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to link from all of the separate pages to my index page. However, it does make sense to link from some wikipedia pages to particular sections of my site that deal with that topic. A good example is the Borda count page. Linking to my general page might be too broad, but there is a specific article on my site where I give a concentrated critique of Borda that I worked quite hard on, and that doesn't exist elsewhere. I should put that link on the wikipedia Borda page. Similarly, on the ranked pairs page I should provide a link to the area of my survey where I describe ranked pairs in detail and give multiple examples where it produces different results from beatpath/CSSD. This information is valuable to anyone interested in ranked pairs. Similarly, on the IRV page I should provide brief links to the areas of my site that discuss IRV (there are a few, but I can write them so that they only take up one character on the page, e.g. 1, 2, 3. Similarly, I can provide links from the approval voting page to particular pages on my site. I also have an ironclad case for having a link from "Condorcet method". In this case, the link should just be to my index page, because my site focuses primarily on Condorcet methods. My site arguably provides more in-depth information about Condorcet methods than any other site. If you don't believe me, read it. One more comment about "published, peer-reviewed" stuff. The truth is that most interesting work on voting methods is happening online, rather than in the published journals. According to whom? Nic Tideman, i.e. one of the most widely-published authors on alternative voting methods. So web sources, like mine, are often the best available sources at this time. Indeed there are some exciting developments online rather than in professional journals. However, the purpose of journals is to provide research that has been and will be scrutinized by one's peers. What is online does not get the same peer attention. I appreciate that you have worked hard on your voting methods article, but it will never have the same regard that a published, peer-reviewed article does. Even accomplished academics misstep and can come to faulty conclusions. I have no problem with your link on the voting methods page, but please do not be insulted if someone removes your link from other pages because they see some problems with your analysis that you have not. --User:Fahrenheit451 21:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC) I recognize that most of the interesting research with voting methods is happening online, on web pages and mailing lists. But there's a lot of crap there too, and it's difficult to sort them out. Wikipedia's policies are a bit too conservative to include most current voting research. I think this is not entirely bad, though, because it puts us in a good position to throw out random junk that people want to add. "Look," we can say, "there are people who are talking about similar things, and they're even ''comprehensible'', and they still don't get to add it to Wikipedia." Or something like that. But as a consequence, you can't get certain interesting parts of voting method research on Wikipedia. I think that this is the niche that [http://wiki.electorama.com Electowiki] fills. I think that's a great place for all the current, obscure research in voting methods. It's also a place where you could link to your site. User:Rspeer 23:00, May 14, 2005 (UTC) Could you please provide a link to wikipedia's policy on external resources? thanks, James Sure: it's at Wikipedia:External links. One relevant section: :''Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. The mass adding of links to any website is also strongly discouraged, and any such operation should be raised at the Village Pump or other such page and approved by the community before going ahead.'' User:Rspeer 03:19, May 15, 2005 (UTC) I've read the guidelines. My links are by no means "mass adding", as the context surrounding your quote makes abundantly clear. It's true that I add links to my own pages, but I doubt that I am alone in that, and anyway that alone does not give anyone the right to delete my links. I am not interesting in adding links from these articles to raise my "page rank" in general. I'm adding the link because I am convinced that my site contains pertinent information to the topics that is not covered in the site. I quote 4 and 5 of "what should be linked to": 4 On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is. 5 High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article at which point the link would remain as a reference. I feel that these quotes support my argument. I find nothing in the guidelines requiring that external links be peer reviewed (journal) articles. In short, I am convinced that my links meet these guidelines for various pages. However, I will take your intervention to heart in that I will be very careful about which pages I link from (erring on the side of caution). I will also be careful to link directly to the particular page of my site that is most relevant to the topic at hand. In answer to your concerns, I am most certainly not spamming wikipedia in order to raise the page rank of a personal vanity site. I am linking from wiki pages such that my site provides useful information to people interested in those topics. Rob, you wrote: "I recognize that most of the interesting research with voting methods is happening online, on web pages and mailing lists. But there's a lot of crap there too, and it's difficult to sort them out." I reply: Perhaps, but my voting pages aren't crap. If you don't believe me, read them. If you don't have time to read them, please leave the links alone. If you are assuming that everything is crap before you look at it, you aren't doing your job as an editor, so you shouldn't be editing. I will also work on the electowiki. That should be a fun project. But electowiki or no, some of my links are still appropriate here. Your BC article is, to use your own words, "crap". I read it and it a misch of your opinions and real BC information that is available from reputable, published and peer-reviewed sources. --User:Fahrenheit451 18:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC) F451, you wrote: "I appreciate that you have worked hard on your voting methods article, but it will never have the same regard that a published, peer-reviewed article does." I reply: No, it's not an article. It's a web site with 30 pages. One of the pages is 20,000 words long. This is no small amount of effort here, and as a result it is a rich information source. The site contains one article of mine that was peer reviewed and published in the most recent edition of Voting Matters. But that one page is neither as accessible or as comprehensive as many of the other pages on the site, hence I link to the index page. I disagree your site contains valuable information. Your BC article was not published and peer-reviewed so your mention of another article that was not under discussion is irrelevant. --User:Fahrenheit451 18:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC) F451,you wrote: "I have no problem with your link on the voting methods page, but please do not be insulted if someone removes your link from other pages because they see some problems with your analysis that you have not." I reply: I'll cross that bridge if and when I come to it. So far, no legitimate challenges to my analyses are being presented as reasons for link deletion. thanks, James Well, you just got one from me on your very POV, unpublished and not peer-reviewed article on the BC. I removed it and will continue to remove it from that page. --User:Fahrenheit451 17:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC) What flaw do you find in my analysis? If there is a flaw, I will correct it. Perhaps I can revise the paper (which is admittedly fairly old) and then re-establish the link. I have already made a small revision where the tone is more neutral/objective, and my thesis is stated as a thesis rather than a bare fact. I feel that the link to my Borda page is protected in part by the policy that pages should include links to multiple points of view. The Borda page seems to lack a link to any site or article that lays down a comprehensive critique of the method. If a group is deciding on whether to use the Borda count, it is in their interest to be aware of such a critique. Once again, I have not yet found anything in the wikipedia external link policy requiring that external links be peer reviewed. If there is such a policy statement, please point it out to me. thanks, James It's a good point that there are no critiques of the Borda Count in the external links. I still believe James shouldn't link to his own article, because the external link policy specifically says not to, but ''I'' may link to it unless F451 can provide a better critique. Several of the articles there have mathematical-based critiques on the limitations of the Borda count. All of them are published and peer-reviewed. If you find others that are as well, please add them. --User:Fahrenheit451 02:57, 16 May 2005 (UTC) I have also removed a few links arguing unsoundly that Borda is the "best" voting method. I appreciate your strict standards for inclusion, F451, but they should apply to your own contributions as well. User:Rspeer 01:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC) I reverted your edit. Your allegation about those articles stating it is the "best" method is [wrong]. * No personal attacks. * I apologize for editing rashly. Borda count has too many positive links, but those were probably not the right links to remove. User:Rspeer 06:17, May 16, 2005 (UTC) Hermitage, It looks like you have succeeded in precipitating a war between RSpeer and myself all over your vanity website. I am not going to argue with you about it. It is a vanity site and I am continuing to remove it where I find it. --User:Fahrenheit451 03:16, 16 May 2005 (UTC) I am not at all interested in precipitating a war between anybody. If you get into one, it's not my fault. My site is not a vanity site. Here is the definition of a vanity site: "The pejorative term vanity site refers to a website that is run by an individual or small group (such as a family) purely for its own amusement." My site does not fit this definition. It is seriously intended to serve as an informational resource. Many people have already found it useful. I feel strongly that there is not enough accessible information available on comparative voting methods, and much of my work (especially the voting methods survey and introduction) is intended to fill a well-defined gap. For example, my Borda article. In a google search for my own name, I find this page: http://www.isu.edu/~krilcath/links.html A PhD math professor at Idaho State University includes a link to my site as one of only six entries of "useful links" under the categoy of "voting methods". The link is labeled as follows: "Voting theory page by James Green Armytage (includes strong recommendations against Borda count)" I have never met or corresponded with this person. I don't know how she found my site (maybe it was via wikipedia!), but she found it useful for its critique of Borda. If you continue to erase my links without giving a reason, then your actions seem to amount to a grudge. I have never directed ill will against you or tried to disrupt your projects (whatever they might be). Hence I don't understand the grudge. If it continues, we might have to look into some sort of mediation process. I also don't understand this fetish for peer reviewed articles. Perhaps you might prefer them to individually created web sites, but if there is no specific wikipedia policy that requires external resources to be peer-reviewed, you have no right to remove my links on that basis. If you continue to delete the links out of some sort of grudge, without providing adequate reasoning, then your actions may amount to vandalism ("bad-faith addition, deletion, or change to content"). In general, I don't think that your removing my links is doing any good. I think that it would be better for you to focus your efforts on more productive endeavors. I will take caution as a result of our interaction, and I will be careful not to abuse the wikipedia. However, when in doubt, it seems logical to err on the side of more rather than fewer external links, when it can be determined that the links provide sound content with a clear educational purpose. (The cost of adding an external link is virtually zero, and it creates the possibility of someone finding helpful information.) Why waste your time cutting other people down when they are trying to contribute? If you have a problem with a linked-to article of mine, why not just encourage me to improve the article, rather than deleting the link out of hand? -James I am not "cutting other people down" and you know that. I specifically find your BC article to be of unacceptable scholarship. There isn't any such Wikipedia policy obligating an editor to put both pro and con links when either are of unsound content. Factually, your conclusion in your BC article flies in the face of reality: The BC is and has been used in real elections successfully. Your statement is like saying that rain is bad because it can damage roofs and cause floods. The vulnerabilities of the BC are covered amply on the BC page and in the published, peer-reviewed links. I welcome any more such con - BC links added. What you need to see is that a theoretical drawback does not necessarily manifest itself in actual practice, and drawbacks can be greatly offset by the strengths of a method or process. I see you are still a student. When you get real world experience you will see that this is so. I recommend that you research the BC further and then rewrite your article citing that research. If you have an advisor, have them read it through critically and rewrite it if necessary. Both the BC and AV pages have been put on a high level of scholarship thanks to a number of Wikipedia editors. I want to maintain that trend. I hope you understand my point of view on this. --User:Fahrenheit451 14:27, 16 May 2005 (UTC) _______________ F451, here is my reply to your last message: You write: "Factually, your conclusion in your BC article flies in the face of reality: The BC is and has been used in real elections successfully." I reply: The current wording of my conclusion is this: "I advise that the Borda count should not be used for real elections, especially contentious elections." If my conclusion was that Borda has not been or cannot be used for real elections, it would fly in the face of reality. As is, it is a recommendation that Borda not be used, especially for contentious elections. The conclusion is supported by the body of the article. All voting methods produce quirky effects in contentious elections. I suggest you read Alexander Tabarrok's fine paper about the 1860 presidential election, which you can find in the BC links.--User:Fahrenheit451 00:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC) You write: "The vulnerabilities of the BC are covered amply on the BC page and in the published, peer-reviewed links. I welcome any more such con - BC links added." I reply: Some articles are critical of Borda, yes, but is there a single critique article that is as comprehensive and accessible as mine? I think you should do yourself a big favor and get your article published and peer-reviewed. If it is indeed meritorious, you will be recognized accordingly.--User:Fahrenheit451 00:56, 17 May 2005 (UTC) You write: "I see you are still a student." I reply: Yes, I'll be starting an economics PhD program at UC Santa Barbara in the fall. I still know very little about you, including your name. Are you a professor? What is your source of expertise on this issue? UCSB is a good school. I am a business owner, radio talk show host and producer, and am keenly interested in voting methods with application to corporate decision making. --User:Fahrenheit451 00:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC) You write: "What you need to see is that a theoretical drawback does not necessarily manifest itself in actual practice, and drawbacks can be greatly offset by the strengths of a method or process." I reply: By chance, Borda was used by my undergraduate college to choose student government. I wrote the original version of this article shortly after a controversial election where there was very little confidence in the validity of a close result. (Not that the counting process was suspect, but the meaningfulness of the candidate scores when that close was hotly debated.) I also know from interviewing student voters that tactical voting (truncation, especially) was commonly used in student Borda elections. I went to the University of Michigan where BC is used to elect two student assemblies and there were no problems with the method. Overall, we were quite satisfied with the results. Again, you need to do a scientific investigation to find the correct reason why the election went awry. Offhand opinions and speculations are Not scientific method. Truncation invalidated a ballot where I came from.--User:Fahrenheit451 00:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC) You write: "Both the BC and AV pages have been put on a high level of scholarship thanks to a number of Wikipedia editors. I want to maintain that trend. I hope you understand my point of view on this." I reply: I believe that I do, but I continue to disagree with it. I think that it is useful to have a comprehensive, accessible critique of Borda linked to the Borda page. It is clear that you disagree with the conclusion of my article, but I don't think that you have shown a logical or factual flaw in the article. Therefore, I continue to claim that you have no right/authority to remove the link. (If you do find a flaw, but I am able to correct it, then we will return again to this situation.) What gives one or a few people the right/authority to decide what "level of scholarship" an external link for a given page must meet? My disagreements is irrelevant. Your conclusion is false, implying stated or unstated premises are unsound. Please get your article published and peer-reviewed.--User:Fahrenheit451 00:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC) You write: "I specifically find your BC article to be of unacceptable scholarship. There isn't any such Wikipedia policy obligating an editor to put both pro and con links when either are of unsound content." I reply: I don't think that you have demonstrated my article to be unsound. Again, I would like to fix any flaws that you are able to find. Sincerely, James User:Hermitage 00:24, 17 May 2005 (UTC) I have a full-time career and no time to critique your article. Your best bet is to get it published and peer-reviewed. --User:Fahrenheit451 00:44, 17 May 2005 (UTC) If you don't have time to critique the article, then you lack sufficient grounds to remove the link. That is a falsehood. No Wikipedia editor needs to write a critique of any article or link before they remove it.--User:Fahrenheit451 23:52, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Not all articles that are useful to an online audience are attractive to academic journal editors. My article makes no new revelations, hence it is not interesting to journal editors. My article combines and concentrates existing arguments into a comprehensive and accessible critique. Hence it is useful to an online audience. User:Hermitage 05:49, 17 May 2005 (UTC) So what you are saying is that you do not think any journal editors would accept your article for publication. I cannot think of any that would either. It reads like a ranting propaganda diatribe. If you want to promote that stuff, you are on your own. --User:Fahrenheit451 23:59, 17 May 2005 (UTC) You have failed to answer my arguments. User:Hermitage 00:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC) I already have. I guess you want me to rehash those points and I will not. Incidentally, you have done some pretty good editing on several election method pages.--User:Fahrenheit451 13:30, 18 May 2005 (UTC) Thanks. I'm happy to end our argument here. But please do have a look at my web site when you have a chance. These pages make for a favorable sampling: http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/survey.htm http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/vm/define.htm http://fc.antioch.edu/~james_green-armytage/cwp13.htm User:Hermitage 06:26, 19 May 2005 (UTC) == Assistance with independence of clones == I feel really bad that I ever sided with F451 about anything, considering that he's making another swath of edits where he won't listen to anyone else's opinion. Thanks for helping to prevent him from removing the entire concept of F451 from Wikipedia. User:Rspeer 06:21, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC) :I want to see verifiable facts, not accepted opinion. You have falsely accused me of trying to "removing the entire concept of F451 from Wikipedia". I have no problem with the article, just that "clone candidates" have no evidence for real existence, and are nothing but POV until proven otherwise.--User:Fahrenheit451 18:49, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC) ::This topic (F451's objections to ICC) is being addressed elsewhere. Talk:Voting system Talk:Borda count Talk:Strategic nomination. I think that it is better for the discussion to be focused on a small number of talk pages (preferably just one), so I'd prefer not to engage with it here. For the purposes of this page, I'll just say that I currently agree that references to ICC should remain in the Wikipedia, and that I will edit accordingly. User:Hermitage 23:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) == Smith set == Hermitage, I suggest you take a look at what methods to evaluate with the Smith set. I think you will find it applies to Condorcet methods and not to other methods. Thus, if a method is not a Condorcet method, evaluating it against the Smith criterion would be absurd. The very definition of Smith set has to do with pairwise comparison, e.i. Condorcet, so it only applies to such methods. Please stop arbitrarily editing with it.--User:Fahrenheit451 00:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC) :This isn't something to start an argument over. It could be seen as more consistent to mention all criteria, regardless if one depends on another; or it could be seen as more informative to only mention sub-criteria when the main criterion is satisfied. I suppose I slightly prefer the second, but wouldn't accuse anyone of editing in bad faith to do either one. :F451, you're being a bit imprecise - a method can satisfy Condorcet without doing any explicit pairwise comparisons. Look at Nanson's method for that. It's plausible that such a method could also satisfy Smith, though I don't know of any examples. :If the Smith criterion is to be included, I'd like for it to be proposed and discussed at Talk:Voting system/Included methods and criteria. My hope is that that page will build consensus, and quell accusations of "arbitrary edits" or ulterior motives. :User:Rspeer 04:32, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC) ::If a method passes Condorcet, it doesn't necessarily pass Smith. ::If a method fails Smith, it doesn't necessarily fail Condorcet. ::If a method passes Smith, it passes Condorcet, majority, mutual majority, and Condorcet loser. ::If a method fails Condorcet, majority, mutual majority, or Condorcet loser, it fails Smith. ::To say that a method passes Smith implies that the method passes all of these other criteria. However, not everyone knows this, so it makes sense for the wikipedia to state it explicitly. ::To say that a method fails any of these other criteria implies that the method fails Smith, so in a sense it is redundant to say that it fails Smith. However, not everyone knows this, so it makes sense for the wikipedia to state it explicitly. ::Smith is a very important criterion. To call my adding the Smith criterion to ranked ballot method pages "arbitrary" is needlessly insulting. ::I will visit the page that Rspeer mentions. My opinion is that the "satisfied criteria" section of the Schulze method page provides an interesting model for similar sections within other pages about ranked ballot voting methods, although I realize that some of the "satisfied criteria" there are not satisfied if the method uses margins as the defeat stength definition, and I admit that I am somewhat ambivalent about mentioning Mike Ossipoff's criteria on wikipedia. ::User:Hermitage 00:26, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hermitage
This user is the voting system enthusiast James Green-Armytage, and has been active on Wikipedia since 10 May 2005.
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
H
HA | HB | HC | HD | HE | HF | HG | HI | HJ | HK | HL | HM | HN | HO | HP | HR | HS | HT | HU | HW | HX | HY | HZ |Words begining with Hermitage:
Hermitage
Hermitage
Hermitage
Hermitage,_AR
Hermitage,_Arkansas
Hermitage,_Arkansas
Hermitage,_Berkshire
Hermitage,_Dorset
Hermitage,_Missouri
Hermitage,_MO
Hermitage,_PA
Hermitage,_Pennsylvania
Hermitage,_Tennessee
Hermitage,_TN
Hermitage_AOC
Hermitage_AOC
Hermitage_Castle
Hermitage_grape
Hermitage_Green
Hermitage_Museum
Hermitage_Museum
Hermitage_Rooms
Hermitage_wine
Hermitage_wine
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
