User talk:VoteFair

Unused discussion page

Please post messages in the relevant article's discussion page. Thanks.

Yes, you can create an article about your book

While you weren't clear on why you believe otherwise [1], you can create the article. If you think that it is not notable, then it would be a waste of time. Otherwise you could create a WP:STUB article that demonstrates clear notability (perhaps in userspace). Focus your efforts on using the article talk page and closely follow WP:COI. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't. My full reply (including the reason) is in the discussion about the possible deletion of the "Creative problem solving" article. VoteFair (talk) 17:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Homunq (࿓) 11:44, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed

Hi Votefair

Something went wrong in your comment here[2]. Please will you correct the pronoun?

Thanks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean you would like the word "hisher" changed to "her," and I'll be happy to make that change. I had not looked at your userpage to determine gender, and I did not want to be presumptuous just based on your username and it's U.S.-centric interpretation. I notice on your userpage that "This user supports the use of gender-neutral language" and I share your desire for gender-neutral language, which is why I often use "his/her" without the slash when I don't want to offend someone by being presumptuous. VoteFair (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried to make the change but with the dispute closed I don't know how to edit my comment. I used to contribute to Wikipedia a lot more, but now I don't edit it enough to remember the detailed ins and outs. If you tell me how to edit the pronoun I'll happily do it. VoteFair (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who Are You and When Did You Quarrel with BHG?

I am closing the dispute over electoral system, but the question of User:BrownHairedGirl needs to be answered. You say that you had an unpleasant dealing with her in the past. She has no recollection of such a dealing and can find no such record in your history and hers. Are you thinking of another administrator, or did you previously edit with a different account? By the way, this isn't the sort of question that can be casually ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies! I looked up the name of the person I was thinking of, and it was NOT BrownHairedGirl! If you tell me how to edit that now-closed dispute page I will happily do so. Again, I apologize!!! Especially to BrownHairedGirl.

For clarification, the years-ago conflict I was recalling occurred on the Creative problem-solving page, when a user reverted all the edits I had made over a period of years, without seeing that I had made many unbiased improvements, including removing spam/promotional content that the reversion restored. Fortunately someone else fixed that oversimplistic reversion. Since then I have not edited that page. Alas, it is now in sad shape. I am internationally recognized as an expert in creative problem solving as a result of my first book (The Creative Problem Solver's Toolbox) having been published around the world in 10 languages. Ironically, in spite of my desire for fairness (including in editing Wikipedia), some Wikipedia editors think I had a conflict of interest because I referenced my book to support one of the (rather self-evident) statements on that page. This brings up the point that the top of the article STILL states "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. (February 2012)" and that referred to me, but I have not edited that article in many years. (Also the note saying "This article relies largely or entirely upon a single source. (February 2012)" no longer applies because there are now additional sources beside my book.)

This years-ago experience also accounts for why I request big changes to the "election system" page using the talk page rather than doing actual edits. I wrote a book titled "Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections" and I don't want to be accused of having a conflict of interest -- for editing a page on a topic for which I am a widely known expert. VoteFair (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@VoteFair, I will leave it to the closer @Robert McClenon to make a judgement on whether it is appropriate to correct the record after closure.

However, I want to note that you made an attack on me the major element of your pitch in a dispute-resolution notice[3]. You now say that you have checked, and find you were mistaken.

I would have thought it was a matter of basic courtesy and commonsense to make those checks before you post a personal criticism, rather than waiting until you are challenged. You chose the word "fair" as part of your username, but your cavalier approach to the reputation of others is far from fair.

I note your comments about the article Creative problem-solving, and in particular you complaint that some Wikipedia editors think I had a conflict of interest because I referenced my book to support one of the (rather self-evident) statements on that page.

I am surprised to find that several years later, you still don't accept the conflict of interest involved in citing yourself and thereby promoting your book. This isn't a matter of "some Wikipedia editors think"; it's a demonstrable point of fact. See WP:SELFCITE about that.

Again, that cavalier attitude to WP:COI is not what I would expect of someone who uses the word "fair" as part of their username.

Since your books are self-published, see also WP:SELFPUBLISH, which I read as meaning that it would be inappropriate for any editor to cite your books.

After unearthing the above, I did a little more burrowing. I see that the article now entitled Kemeny–Young method was created by you, under your own marketing name "VoteFair ranking" rather than the common and scholarly term "Kemeny–Young method".

Ten edits after the page was created here's the last version edited solely by you: [4]. Note that:

The only researcher mentioned is you
The only published works cited are those by you
The only external links are to your website

So I did a little more burrowing. I looked on JSTOR for any citations of your work, looking for "Richard Forbes" within the field "political science": [5]. The only hit is a chapter in a book about convention centre follies, which I think is a false positive.

Then I tried searching Google Scholar for "richard forbes" vote, and I found nothing which mentions or cites someone who could be you. I finally found something in a Gscholar search for "VoteFair": 1 book by you, and seven passing mentions of VoteFair.

So far as I have been able to find, your claimed expertise is recognised neither by academic experts in the field of political science, nor by publishers.

So far as I can see, the reality is not that you are an expert sharing your expertise, but that you are a self-published campaigner and marketer who has been using Wikipedia as a marketing tool. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:VoteFair, User:BrownHairedGirl - I see no reason to go to the bizarre length of giving advice in order to facilitate the editing of a closed DRN thread. I will note that editing a closed anything thread can be, in mathematical jargon, left as an exercise for the reader; that is, it is trivial and isn't worth my explaining how it is done by an experienced editor. (But wait a minute. VoteFair isn't an experienced editor, only a single-purpose account who pops up from time to time to posture as an expert, and happened to engage in a personal attack in the process. It also isn't worth my effort to facilitate the editing of a closed DRN thread by an SPA. The record has been corrected here, and the corrected record includes a negative finding by a respected administrator.) I have nothing more to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To User:BrownHairedGirl: You misspelled my name when you did your search. There is no "R" in my last name. Please try again and you will see that I am widely recognized as an expert about voting methods.

Regarding my book titled "The Creative Problem Solver's Toolbox," there are 9 translations into other languages, and there are two other English editions (one for Southeast Asia and the other for India), and all those other editions are published by established publishers (who paid the publication costs, plus royalties in some cases). Any of those "foreign" editions qualifies as notable, so the original edition -- even though it is self-published -- also qualifies as notable -- because it has the same content.

Regarding the "creative problem solving" page: After someone reverted all my edits I stopped editing that page. Someone else re-inserted my book, and re-inserted some of the words I wrote. So what you now see in that article are edits from others, with no edits coming from me.

Regarding the article that was originally titled "VoteFair ranking" and is now titled "Kemeny-Young Method," those two vote-counting methods use different calculations -- as explained in the "history" section -- but the results of the two methods are always the same, so they now share the same article. Keep in mind that prior to that time the only mention online (anywhere) of the Kemeny method was a short paragraph that was clearly a different calculation method. The fact that VoteFair (popularity) ranking was (at that time) explained in most of the foreign editions of "The Creative Problem Solver's Toolbox," combined with the fact that the orginal Kemeny calculation method is seldom used, makes the VoteFair-ranking calculation method notable.

You and User:Robert_McClenon seem to think that I have a "single-purpose account" and "edit for the purposes of promotion or showcasing." Actually I am a "well-intentioned" subject-matter expert (SME) who edits Wikipedia in my areas of expertise. If my purpose was to promote without regard to conflicts of interest then I would also have added articles about: the Dashrep programming language (which I created, but which is not yet notable), the software negotiation tool at NegotiationTool.com (which is not yet notable), my book titled "Ending The Hidden Unfairness In U.S. Elections" (which is self-published and has not been published in other languages), my VoteFair American Idol poll (which became one of the top American Idol polls with thousands of fans voting each week -- without any mention of it on Wikipedia), and yet other creative projects. If my goal was self-promotion, I would have sought out television appearances (instead I avoid them), and I would have accepted invitations to travel to Poland and South Korea to promote translations of my first book. Also note that -- to my surprise -- someone else, without any prompting from me, created this "VoteFair" user page (and I just keep it updated).

As a kid I grew up devouring the information from two encyclopedia sets, so I understand the value of gathering together subject-matter experts, asking them to write articles about what they understand, and getting further assistance from editors who refine the articles into well-written explanations that are accessible by anyone who reads. I have expertise in lots of areas, but most of those areas are already well-covered within Wikipedia (such as physics, which I have a degree in), but Wikipedia articles about voting methods are not up-to-date, so that's where I'm motivated to improve Wikipedia.

Again, I apologize for my mistake in naming the wrong person on a dispute page. Apparently it's too late to fix that now-closed page. And hopefully you now understand that we share the same goal of making Wikipedia a great resource. VoteFair (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:VoteFair - Well, I understand that you think that you and User:BrownHairedGirl and I share the goal of making Wikipedia a great resource. I am not sure that I agree, because you haven't demonstrated to me that that is your goal. However, as noted above, I have nothing more to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

redirect from "voting rule"

Can you do that as you suggested? Thanks, Homunq (࿓) 20:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before that redirect is created, you (or someone) needs to edit the target page to clarify how/why the term "voting rule" applies to that article. After that edit is done, I suggest making your request on the Electoral System page -- because I quickly looked at the instructions for creating a redirect and it doesn't look like something I want to spend time learning how to do. VoteFair (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, VoteFair. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, VoteFair. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pairwise vote counting moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Pairwise vote counting, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published (it has only three sources). It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pairwise vote counting (June 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by AngusWOOF was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Condorcet method. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Pairwise counting is covered in this method.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pairwise vote counting and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Pairwise vote counting, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, VoteFair! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pairwise vote counting (February 7)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chicdat was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pairwise vote counting and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Pairwise vote counting, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🐔 Chicdat ^{Bawk to me!} 13:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Pairwise vote counting

Hello, VoteFair. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pairwise vote counting, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:01, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Pairwise vote counting

Hello, VoteFair. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Pairwise vote counting".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, VoteFair! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]