User talk:Meamemg
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] A welcome from Sango123
Hello, Meamemg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
- Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- Simplified Ruleset
- How to edit a page
- Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style
- Wikipedia Glossary
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.
Happy editing!
-- Sango123 (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)
==You helped choose Aang as this week's WP:AID winner==
Davodd 17:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] CVC
You are right, it is September for the CVC opening. I changed it back. I thought I read somewhere that it had been pushed back to December. Yesterday's Roll Call article correctly states September.--Daysleeper47 15:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] United States Senate Page
You're welcome. I see you've been about the only editor trying to keep the article free of vandalism. I'll be happy to stick around and assist. (I'm probably off-net for a three days starting Tuesday, so you're on your own then.) John Broughton | Talk 01:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC) :Just curious, if VP Cheney were impeached and thus tried in the Senate? Am I correct, in assuming the president pro tempore (currentley: Robert Byrd), would preside over the Trial? GoodDay 18:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] BSA
Welcome to the Scouting WikiProject! I noticed your interest in the Boy Scouts of America. You may be interested in The Language of Scouting, the official BSA style guide- we us this as a supplement to the AP Stylebook. In the terms and style section is an entry on capitalization that should prove useful. Please let us know if you have any questions. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 22:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
- I replied to your question on my talk page. --Gadget850 ( Ed) 00:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
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 15:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Presiding over the Senate
I saw your edit to President pro tempore of the United States Senate. You are correct that only majority-party senators currently preside. I suspect, however, that the anon who referred to senators of both parties presiding is thinking of the Senate of an earlier era; senators from both parties routinely took part in presiding until I believe the mid-1970's. I'm going to leave a note to the anon to this effect, though with dynamic IP's I don't know whether he or she will receive it. Regards, Newyorkbrad 23:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Special Rules
Hi Meamemg,
Recently, I registered, but I was the original author of the Special Rules article.
You made a made a change in it in November, but I recently changed it back. You changed a "Majority of the entire membership" to "majority vote." These are two different things. Majority vote is a majority of the votes cast. In an organization with 125 members, a vote of one in favor, no one against is a majority vote in RONR. For some things, like adopting special rules is a majority of the entire membership (or a 2/3 vote with notice) is needed. If the organization has 125 members, 63 yes votes are needed (RONR, pp. 17, 390-1) is needed.
I just wanted you to know that I changed your edit. Please feel free to chech on the RONR website or ask the question on that board if you'd like to verify it.
Thanks,
--J. J. in PA 08:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Blocking a nonregistered member
How do you block an unregistered member engaging in vandalism?
I have one on a page that I monitor.
J. J. in PA 16:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Where do I leave the formal warning; it's a living person's bio. Don Bailey.
He's not registered, so I can't talk with him.
J. J. in PA 21:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. Perhaps this will stop it; I'm a little concerned because it is a living person biography.
J. J. in PA 03:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
A new post warning post from Lawprofessor. He is adding "sanctioned" comment again.
J. J. in PA 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Striking your vote
Hello Meamemg,
Thank you for your interest in the Wikimedia Board Election. The Election Committee regretfully informs you that your previous vote was received in error and will be struck according to the election rules, described below.
The Election Committee regretfully announces today that we will have to remove approximately 220 votes submitted. These votes were cast by people not entitled to vote. The election rules state that users must have at least 400 edits by June 1 to be eligible to vote.
The voter lists we sent to Software in the Public Interest (our third party election partner) initially were wrong, and one of your account was eventually included to our initial list. There was a bug in the edit counting program and the sent list contained every account with 201 or more edits, instead of 400 or more edits. So large numbers of people were qualified according to the software who shouldn't be. The bug has been fixed and an amended list was sent to SPI already.
Our first (and wrong) list contains 80,458 accounts as qualified. The proper number of qualified voters in the SPI list is now 52,750. As of the morning of July 4 (UTC), there are 2,773 unique voters and 220 people, including you, have voted who are not qualified based upon this identified error.
In accordance with voting regulations the Election Committee will strike those approximately 220 votes due to lack of voting eligibility. The list of struck votes is available at https://wikimedia.spi-inc.org/index.php/List_of_struck_votes.
We are aware of the possibility that some of the people affected may have other accounts with more than 400 edits, and hence may still be eligible to vote. We encourage you to consider voting again from another account, if you have one. If you have no other account eligible to vote, we hope you reach the criteria in the next Election, and expect to see your participation to the future Elections.
Your comments, questions or messages to the Committee would be appreciated, you can make them at m:Talk:Board elections/2007/en. Other language versions are available at m:Translation requests/Eleccom mail, 07-05.
Again, we would like to deeply apologize for any inconvenience.
Sincerely,
Kizu Naoko
Philippe
Jon Harald Søby
Newyorkbrad
Tim Starling
For Wikimedia Board Election Steering Committee
[edit] WP:CITE
For the record, I don't think WP:BLP would regard an unsourced statment about a living person as "unharmful", but I'm glad you found a reliable source. Happy editing. Croctotheface 05:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] President pro tempore of the United States Senate
I've whitelised the specific url per your request, for President pro tempore of the United States Senate and have added the citation back[1]. Thanks Meamemg. Cheers--Hu12 (talk) 05:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] the Instant-runoff voting article.
Thanks for your comments on this article. All the issues in the RFC are about the introduction, which is a critical part of the article. One of the editors is COI on this, being a paid consultant to FairVote and, quite possibly -- the timing is perfect -- a "meat puppet" recruited by the Executive Director of FairVote. He was blocked for that, but because he is a published author in the field, and it seemed like he would behave reasonably, I helped restore his access. However, he must be understood as promoting a pro-IRV agenda. He's reasonably restrained in that. User:MilesAgain is an acknowledged sock who has been largely promoting the same agenda that was promoted and maintained in the article by the blocked sock puppets User:BenB4 and User:Acct4 and the IP editor who acknowledged being Rob Richie (which was also known by the IP). I don't know who MilesAgain actually is.... but the point is that these editors know that the introduction is very important, for many readers, where IRV is being promoted, will read the introduction and nothing else. So what is in the introduction should be spotlessly NPOV.
It's clear why they want the Robert's Rules "recommendation" there. In the past, I've added the balancing information to the introduction that is necessary to make it an NPOV report, and, of course, it was objected that this was too much information for the introduction. So ultimately the mention of Robert's Rules was moved to the interior of the article where the explanation could be complete. It seemed that it was settled, but MilesAgain put it back and has been edit warring over it, moving the language around, recommendation to advises to suggests and all of it ignoring the basic point: Robert's Rules actually criticizes IRV, specifically. There are other "preferential voting" methods which don't have the problem RR is concerned about.
The other issues are more subtle. The emphasis that the voter is casting a "single vote" has previously been acknowledged by a neutral editor as being totally unnecessary for the meaning, so why do they want it? It's because there is current legal controversy -- and actual lawsuit over this -- and FairVote is actively promoting the controversial position that IRV is only a "single vote." It's arguable, for sure, but promoting a controversial position in the introduction? Not okay! Again, detail is already there, the use of the term adds nothing except to promote a particular interpretation. And without source, to boot.
As to the explanation of the name, "Instant Runoff Voting" was invented by FairVote as a political tactic, this is well-known, and should actually be in the article, I'm trying to find reliable source for it. The method is actually a simulation from stated preferences of Exhaustive ballot, not Runoff voting, and it behaves very differently from Runoff voting as a result. Again, it's a complex issue. I'd be in favor of *history* on the invention of the name being in the intro; otherwise, it is essentially promoting a political intepretation.
FairVote developed these arguments and interpretations and has been promoting them for more than ten years. Many of the arguments are, indeed, quite subtle, I bought the "Robert's Rules recommends..." argument myself for over a year. Until I learned that I needed to look at FairVote arguments with a jaundiced eye. Anyway, thanks for your comment; I hope you will look at the other two components to the RFC and indicate your opinions there as well. --Abd (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
