User talk:Scott Ritchie

This is my talk page, please leave messages.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Scott Ritchie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Onlyemarie 22:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Time signature

replied to your comment at this talk page. TrbleClef 08:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

replied further TrbleClef 23:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

FairTax

I see you made a post on the article's talk page; welcome to the FairTax article. I'm not trying to 'claim' or 'own' this article, but I would like to see a broader base of contributors. Please stop by and make some edits, this article needs 'em. Don't worry if you revert me, if you have a reason, I won't be offended. Just jump right in. I try to remember that contentious articles like this are the very reason why we have an NPOV tag to apply... people aren't going to agree fully on this issue, but we should have differing views documented properly. Best regards. Unfocused 13:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cycle of poverty

The article is in the "Socioeconomics" category, which is a subcategory of "Economics". Maurreen 23:16, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

African COTW

You showed support for the African Collaboration of the Week. This week Dar es Salaam was chosen. Please help improve it to featured-article standard.

Cast your vote to select next week's collaboration!

Education in the United States

Could you please look at the nomination and reevaluate or update your comments? I have tried to fix your original issues, but I would like you to satisified enough to change your vote.--naryathegreat | (talk) 03:28, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Consider integrating St. Olaf College Quantitative Literacy insights into this article.

RJBurkhart 11:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Phishing

Hi, Scott Ritchie! Thanks for your comments at the Phishing peer review. The article is now a Featured article candidate; please vote as you see fit. Thanks again, -ZeWrestler ^Talk 22:09, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

My Belarusy featured article nomination

Hi. Can you please review the comments made on this page regarding the featured article nomination of My Belarusy? Many of the concerns raised by you and others, mostly pertaining to spelling, grammar and style, have been fixed. Andrew pmk 02:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Spoo

Hello! Just a heads-up - I've responded to and addressed your objection over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Spoo/archive1. Thanks for your time! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Follow-up: I've addressed all of your concerns - I moved all footnotes to the ends of sentences after punctuation, and I've gone through and excised / fixed anything that didn't jive with keeping with proper subject-verb construction.

As ALoan noted, the article is much better, thanks to you and Tony's criticism. Looking at your contributions, your time on wikipedia isn't as extensive as the average wikipediholic that peruses FAC, so I genuinely appreciate the time you have taken with Spoo.

I believe the article, as it now stands thanks to you and Tony, is completely worthy FA-hood, but no matter whether or not you support it, I extend my genuine thanks. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 00:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Is this an improvement? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:54, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, here are the differences between the verion to which you were referring in your last comment and the article now, encompassing edits by Tony (who has changed his vote) and me. It's crunch time for me over at the FAC, so can I look forward to a change in vote based on the improvements? No matter what you decide, thanks once again for your help! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

RE: VOTE!! - HDI in country infobox/template

Hi! I hope you're well; thanks for your vote! I'm administrating this vote/topic and have left a response to your comments there; I hope it allays your concerns. Thanks again for participating. E Pluribus Anthony 20:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote, and HDI discussion underway ...

Hello! I hope you're well. I'd like to thank you for participating in the vote earlier to include the HDI in the country infobox/template. Yay!

After a lengthy gestation, a discussion piece has been prepared to help give form to the vote. If you've a preference for how and where this information should appear in the infobox, I'd appreciate it if you head on over there and comment. :)

After a decision is arrived at, if at all, I'm also hopeful to prevail upon you to add the values (if you're willing and comfortable) for a handful of countries; the more people doing it, the less time it will take to implement the vote and realise the fruits of our collective labour.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks again for your co-operation! E Pluribus Anthony 03:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Butter

You might have another look at the FAC. I've expanded the "History" section some, in particular the terrible bit you pointed out, and would appreciate further input. Thanks! —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Voting system is featured

Finally, voting system has become a featured article!

I want to thank you for the work you've done on the article. The article wouldn't be what it is without your contributions. So it's your featured article too. Nice work! rspeer 20:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Cumulative voting change

Hi Scott. Thanks for fixing up the strange comparisons to range voting in Cumulative voting. I saw that too and also funny stuff on not supporting majority criteria or Condorcet which seemed obvious and intended quality! Your reduced paragraph is good - just listing what it satisfies or not. Tom Ruen 22:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Society for German Colonization

Nice catch, and thanks for pulling it off the List of Missing Africa Topics, too! Keep up the good work, --Dvyost 07:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, thanks for making my Wikipedia Signpost template work more nicely on my user page. rspeer 06:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Life extension

Please see my comments on the discussion page of Life extension concerning your revision.--Ben Best 06:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

re: MoS:DP (Tedernst)

Here's what I was using: MoS:DP#Longer lists

The section titles don't need to have the word "ward" in them, because this is a page called ward, so that's just redundant. Hope this helps. peace, Tedernst | talk 22:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Watchlist idea from your user page

According to Wikipedia:Administrators#Other, admins get access to a page listing articles which are not on anyone's watchlist. Not quite what you mentioned, but interesting. Qutezuce 09:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Stairs

I (was) protected. Lucidish 17:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Gerrymandering

Thanks for your feedback; I think it's pretty likely I'll revisit and edit there soon. Kaisershatner 20:06, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

St. Olaf Paracollege: Praire Passage Encounters

Scott - I recall our initial chat in Northfield, Minnesota. It may have brushed upon computer-assisted abuse scenarios like: The 480 that uses Future history with social network analysis ... I've continued interacting with Minnesota Futurists after migrating to Monticello Township, Kansas from the infamous river port of Bloomington, Minnesota
RJBurkhart 12:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC) aka User:65.30.117.192

Merged ethic of reciprocity with Golden Rule (ethics)

From talk page of Golden Rule:

I'll post this same comment on reciprocity's talk page, and on Scott Ritchie's and on nirvana2013's, for their info and so either one can finish up this job.... For7thGen 01:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject merger

Hi!

Per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Campaigns and Elections, would you object to merging the old, apparently inactive WikiProject (of which you were a member) into the newly created one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referenda? I initially created mine without having found out that yours existed, and in an afterthought realized that the "Campaigns" part of the old project's title might not really be suitable, though I may of course be wrong on that. Either way, please let me hear what you think; I've got a number of proposals ready to be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referenda, and would greatly welcome your input! Cheers, —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 15:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I think you should have got this a long time ago for your work on Single Transferable Vote. Alun

Single Transferable Vote

Single Transferable Vote is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

intuitionism

Thanks for your (very welcome) contribution to intuitionism. May I suggest that when you make significant changes to an article you leave a descriptive edit summary? That makes it faster to determine that your edit was not some sort of subtle vandalism. Not all editors are as careful as I am about reading diffs before reverting. CMummert · talk 01:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Video on STV

Hey Scott, I was talking to Bill Redpath a few months ago and he said that there is about a 30-minute video about STV that does a really good job explaining it. Apparently, a bunch of people saw it and none of them had any trouble understanding STV after that. He couldn't remember the name of it, though. Do you know what he's talking about? My name is Nathan Larson, by the way. Captain Zyrain 04:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing to an STV video I've encountered is the Flash video made by the British Columbian government during the STV referendum there. IIRC, it was about 30 minutes. It might still be online somewhere. Scott Ritchie 08:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Redpath may have been talking about a VHS video. I found the Flash video you're talking about. it's only a few minutes long (which may be a good thing): http://www.citizensassembly.bc.ca/resources/flash/bc-stv-full.swf I'll test that out on a few people who have never heard of STV before. Captain Zyrain 12:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I want to let you know that the Single Transferable Vote article was what convinced me that we need to use STV in U.S. elections. It did a very good job of explaining how the system works (the Oranges, Pears, Chocolate, Strawberries, and Candy example was particularly good.) I just wanted you to know that what you are doing is having an impact. Like most Americans, I hadn't heard of STV before that, but one day I decided I was going to sit down and read the Wikipedia articles on all the different voting systems and decide for myself which was the best, rather than taking any person's word for it. And STV was clearly the best. Captain Zyrain 02:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at Instant Runoff Voting?

Scott, the article on IRV had been seriously in need of edit to remove POV material and to restore balance. It took me some time to really see the dimensions of what had been going on there. Ultimately I discovered that the anonymous editor, who was using massive reverts, blatant violation of 3RR, to keep criticism of IRV out of the article and to preserve the exact propaganda wording that was being used, was none other than Rob Richie, director of FairVote. We have mail from him from the same IP block, and more evidence besides that. Further, there was a very active sock puppet, original long banned, User:BenB4, who has a new incarnation not yet identified as a sock, but it's obvious: User:Acct4. repressing critical content.

There is now an edit war with User:Tbouricius who registered and started editing furiously to undo what I'd done.... In case you don't know, he has been a consultant for FairVote.

I ask you because you are both familiar with election methods and have experience at helping create good Wikipedia articles, Single Transferable Vote being quite good.

If you look over [1], the history of the article, back to the beginning of September, you should see a series of reverts from Richie, as 72.75.x.x, and he commented in Talk (most of his reverts have had no comment, but this time he did:

"Ask 10 Questions" put a series of negative information in this article without discussion. These items reflect political bias and seem to come directly from someone associated with http://www.ncvoter.net/

Later, doing massive reverts on me, he gave as the reason: 11:57, 27 September 2007 72.75.26.158 (Talk) (38,928 bytes) (Undid revision 160519361 by Abd (talk)Avid proponent of other systems trying to change article)

It appears that Richie thinks he owns the article. I thought we were *supposed* to change articles! For the better, of course. My goal is purely to make the article fair and balanced. It is not there yet, and it is becoming clear just how important small nuances of language are to Richie et al. (Right now, the only two editors in clear opposition to my efforts are Richie, working anonymously, and the new Tbouricius.)

But they had been doing this before I showed up. Abd 05:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Electoral reform in Virginia

I have created this article, and here are some others I recommend creating. I have also cross-posted this to Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referenda:

• Electoral reform in the United States by political division
  • Alabama - Alaska - Arizona - Arkansas - California - Colorado - Connecticut - Delaware - Florida - Georgia - Hawaii - Idaho - Illinois - Indiana - Iowa - Kansas - Kentucky - Louisiana - Maine - Maryland - Massachusetts - Michigan - Minnesota - Mississippi - Missouri - Montana - Nebraska - Nevada - New Hampshire - New Jersey - New Mexico - New York - North Carolina - North Dakota - Ohio - Oklahoma - Oregon - Pennsylvania - Rhode Island - South Carolina - South Dakota - Tennessee - Texas - Utah - Vermont - Virginia - Washington - West Virginia - Wisconsin - Wyoming - Washington, D.C. (District of Columbia) - American Samoa - Guam - Northern Mariana Islands - Puerto Rico - U.S. Virgin Islands

Captain Zyrain 17:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Wine article

Although you may feel you're a bit close to the project to edit the Wine (software) article directly, there's a couple of {{fact}} tags on it that could do with clearing up, and I've just started a section on corporate sponsorship of the project that needs filling out - anything you could add on the talk page would be most welcome! - David Gerard (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Preferential block voting

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Preferential block voting, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Bloc voting. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

CPO-STV

Are you kidding?--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Elections in Malta Election judge Conference committee Elections in Argentina Oregon v. Mitchell Colin Rallings Sonti Representation of the People Act 1918 BC-STV Electronic voting in Ireland Elections in Slovenia Michael Thrasher Personation Tuak Security mom Rebecca Mercuri Grassroots democracy Unanimous consent Victor D'Hondt

Cleanup Condorcet criterion Swing vote Majority Merge Scrutineer Alcopop Bioremediation Add Sources Two-party system Additional Member System Positional voting system Wikify Unconditional election Reconstruction Act Aprepitant Expand Consistency criterion Condorcet loser criterion KFC

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

Thanks, Scott. Yes, I have been a good editor. But, I have noticed that a few admins can get abusive from their own ignorance. That sort of thing makes Wikipedia less interesting and relevant. Too bad. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Voting System FAR

I have nominated Voting system for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Apportionment (politics)

I disagree with your revert of me, changing "misapportion" back to "malapportion", but I see it was you who advanced this point earlier on the talk page. Would you please reply to my concerns at Apportionment (politics)#Misapportionment? Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:12, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Notification of merger proposal on article you created

I just wanted to let you know an article you created has been nominated for merger by [[User:SMcCandlish}SMcCandlish]]. It has been proposed Cornish game hen merge with Cornish chicken. If you are able to post your thoughts On the talk page that'd be great. JTdale ^Talk 12:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Scott Ritchie. 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)

MoS:DP listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect MoS:DP. Since you had some involvement with the MoS:DP redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 18:38, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Scott Ritchie. 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)