Closed Limelike Curves

Hello, Closed Limelike Curves, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Another friend on Wikipedia! Yay! Benjamin (talk) 06:43, 28 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bnuuy and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 1#Bnuuy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

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 2022 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) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm LilianaUwU. I noticed that in this edittoElon Musk, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 02:48, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

The information you removed from the lead section is a summary of information that is fully sourced in the body of the article. See WP:LEAD. General Ization ^Talk 02:49, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I missed that.

When I took a look at the section on COVID-19 in the body of the article, I kinda got the feeling it needs some revision to meet WP:NPOV. But that talk page looks like such a shitshow that I just absolutely do not want to get involved. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

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 2023 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) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 8 § Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 00:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Mathematics of apportionment into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 02:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Highest averages method, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have moved your request to WP:VPT as this sounds like a technical issue (and two of us have been chatting and cannot replicate your issue). Please follow that discussion for the hopeful resolution of your issue. If you want more help, change the {{help me-helped}} back into a {{help me}}, stop by the Teahouse, or Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Primefac (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your contributions to Sequential loser method. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. FULBERT (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, I noticed you completely overhauled the page I knew as Usual Judgement. I was looking at the edit history but see nothing but a big initial edit in January, so I assume you merged in the Usual Judgement page which unfortunately removed it's edit history. I am a bit confused about two sections there: first I don't see how the in the overview presented counting method (paragraph 2) is the same as in the rest of the article. Second I find the line-drawing approach insufficiently explained as to be an understandable and precise procedure. I would strongly encourage you to edit these sections again so that I can verify and proof that they correspond The tie breaking mechanism of usual judgement. I find what you wrote interesting because it suggests that decentralised paper vote counting may be efficient of UJ, which I did not realise yet. However I cannot quite link the Wikipedia page in the current state to people I want to read about UJ which I find very unfortunate Sirati97 (talk) 17:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

You can find the history here. (Sorry about the copy-and-paste, I didn't know about moving pages back then!)

As far as precinct-summability goes, yes, you can tally up grades for candidates in each category. The complexity is O(G*K) for G grades and K candidates. (It's worse than score voting's O(K), but only by a constant factor.) This is a common property of any method that doesn't rely on comparing candidates (only comparing candidate scores).

I've made some edits to try and improve the description. Further improvements are welcome! Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1204706712

"In more recent years, ranked choice voting has been implemented in." ? — Omegatron (talk) 18:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Closed Limelike Curves

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Викидим, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Descending solid coalitions, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

1. Edit the page
2. Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Викидим}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Викидим (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Arrow's impossibility theorem you nominated as a good article has failed  ; see Talk:Arrow's impossibility theorem for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 08:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Social choice theory, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• Abare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Closed Limelike Curves. Thank you for your work on Probability of superiority. Another editor, SunDawn, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good day! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by writing this article. I have marked the article as reviewed. Have a wonderful and blessed day for you and your family!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you so much! :) –Sincerely, A Lime 22:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you have added Creative Commons licensed text to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Draft:Center squeeze. You are welcome to import appropriate Creative Commons licensed content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Compatibly licensed sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any Creative Commons content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Apportionment paradox, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairness.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Closed Limelike Curves, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Descending solid coalitions, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descending solid coalitions.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Викидим}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Викидим (talk) 07:55, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed you made this split proposalonPlurality voting, but I do not see a split discussion on the talk page. I only see merger discussions. Did you mean to apply this template? --Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 23:04, 15 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Under the merger discussions, I think the consensus is leaning towards having two separate articles for Plurality (voting) and FPP. –Sincerely, A Lime 14:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't understand your given reasons for your revert of earlier today.

Droop's exact words are nowhere in the ariticle that I can see. Ther is no direct quote showing his words.

if simple majority is required to win in single winner election, as article says is the base of Droop's quota, then why is Droop quota described as votes/(seats plus 1). that would be 100/2 - 50. that is not simple majority.

and in example, if Washington needs 26 votes to be elected, then after the surplus votes are transferred away, he should be left with 26 votes, not 25.

H-B and Droop are both clear in that the quota is more than votes/(seats plus 1). it seems ot me clear from their writing what they intend.

Dancisin's essay "Misinterpretation of the H-B quota" (available online) is clear about this fundamental mistake that many make.

68.150.205.46 (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Washington needs more than 25 votes to be elected, but "more than 25 votes" means any number greater than 25, no matter how small; it does not mean one more than 25. Votes are infinitely divisible in modern STV systems (rather than the random vote reassignment used in the 1800s), so we need to take the limit as the quota approaches 25.

Dancisin is historically correct in that Droop describes his quota by rounding up at some points in his paper. However, this was an error on Droop's part, and he variously contradicts himself. In one part of his paper he defines the quota like this:

 

and also as "the total number of votes polled [divided by] one more than the number of candidates to be elected".

I recommend reading this paper here on why the 1976 edition drooped the "+1". Including it breaks proportionality, homogeneity, and every other property commonly attributed to STV. The +1 also doesn't affect whether "more candidates are elected than there are seats", because any situation where "one extra candidate is elected" is just a tie for the last seat; this can happen regardless of the choice of quota. –Sincerely, A Lime 04:42, 17 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hi, I noticed you added a suspected paid contributions to the Ranked Choice Voting in the United States wiki article. Why did you add that tag? Has something come up? A Tree In A Box (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

See Talk:Instant-runoff voting for details. –Sincerely, A Lime 14:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello Limelike Curves. I just returned home from a short cruise to Bermuda, and little access to the internet. I see you reviewed Mambourg Glass Company. Thank you very much! TwoScars (talk) 15:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome, and have a good day! :) –Sincerely, A Lime 16:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would say, I think the article itself is very well-researched and the writing is good, so I awarded it GA status according to the criteria laid out in WP:GA. However, I think a lot of the material on 19th century glassworking would be better-placed in an article like glass productionorhistory of glass. –Sincerely, A Lime 16:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You make a good point. At the time, window glass had been somewhat ignored on Wikipedia—it is boring compared to glassware. I was worried that the reader might have trouble understanding it without some background in window glass making. Since that time, I have upgraded Early glassmaking in the United States, and created 18th century glassmaking in the United States and 19th century glassmaking in the United States. The 19th century article was going to be too big, so I split off 19th Century glassmaking innovations in the United States and 19th century glass categories in the United States. TwoScars (talk) 17:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Damn, it sounds like you really like writing about glass. Big mood. –Sincerely, A Lime 18:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the Barnstar! Yes, I have written over 20 articles about glass or glass companies. TwoScars (talk) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

How do I create citition? --Asemahle Noniwe (talk) 08:31, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Citation templates. –Sincerely, A Lime 16:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Lime. It's great to have a mentor like you guide me!

I've been trying to publish my draft but I keep getting a stash error. How do I resolve this? --Xlencie (talk) 20:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Thanks for the kind words :)

I get that bug too sometimes; you can report it on WP:Phab. For a short-term fix, you can just copy-paste the text into a file or document, refresh the page (possibly clearing your cache), and then copy-paste it back in. –Sincerely, A Lime 01:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello my mentor I`m glad to meet you, I am wondering if I can add external links about someone but in that link they mention a short paragraph about him. Besides, talking about history about country. Is that works with Wikipedia Policies?

Thanks for your help --Shobadach (talk) 10:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, you can add external links to relevant articles. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Semi-proportional representation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Winner-take-all.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Approval block voting, is not suitable as written to remain published. 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. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

…for your work on the Droop Quota page; it's been a mess for a long time. —JLundell talk  18:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much, it's always great to hear back from people! :) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

(By the way, if you'd like to thank me, there's a bunch of articles I'd need help on, like Draft: List of pathological elections!) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Majority favorite criterion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Majority criterion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Highest averages method you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, a human here. I've finished reviewing the article, barring signing off the (rather few) items I've listed in the GAN. It'd be appreciated if you'd give an indication of how long you'll need for the review, and indeed if you still wish to go ahead with it. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that the FairVote page was up for deletion. I wanted to send you some links from reliable sources which are reliable, independent, and significant. This 2023 Reason article ^[1] and 2020 Vox article ^[2] are both about FairVote's polling projects. I don't know if this 2021 WaPo article ^[3] qualifies as a significant mention, but it cites both a FairVote expert (Deb Otis) and Fairvote's polling. This 2023 USA Today piece ^[4] is wholly about Fairvote's 2022 'Monopoly Politics Report'. A Tree In A Box (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you! I'd suggest mentioning these in the AfD tthread, they seem quite relevant :) Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Open list, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nonpartisan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article Highest averages method you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Highest averages method for comments about the article, and Talk:Highest averages method/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Chiswick Chap -- Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Electoral quota (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Como ficar rico --Mateus Souza Barros (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, Closed Limelike Curves. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Harsanyi's utilitarian theorem, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply