Demerphq

Hello Demerphq! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — EncMstr 16:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

RFC/discussion of article World War II

Hello, Demerphq. As a prominent contributor to World War II, you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:World War II, in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- Krellis 01:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Regular expression article

Hi Demerphq! Thanks for the question. I would start by writing a proposal on talk:Regular expression which states the problem and some proposed solutions. Title the section something like Proposal to divide article. There is a tag to place on the article to attract attention too. (I found a link to it on WP:TM as Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup#Merging_and_splitting.) I expect you intend something like {{split|Regular expression (computer science)|Regular expression (mathematical)}} (Feel free to fix the article names—I was merely stabbing in the dark, based on what you wrote.) If you don't have a complete solution, it's not a problem: someone will chime in judging by the activity on that page. Regards, —EncMstr 02:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

We

Yes, my fault. You see, the majority of literature I read is about WWII, and the author will generally use 1st person plural to refer to us. My apologies old chap. --LtWinters 14:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Im working on a voting proposal to end the silly debate. Please stay tuned. Demerphq 15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

New Infobox Combatants List Poll

There has been much discussion and acrimonious debates on the combatants list in the infobox over recent months. Various proposal have been made and rejected and accepted to varying degrees, these votes have been marred by confusion and methodology issues so arguably have not necessarily been fair or representative. I therefore propose that we do a new vote with clear rules and proposals and with more than sufficient time for interested parties to both propose candidates and to have a chance to cast a vote. Demerphq 15:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Rationale For Methodology Choice

Before I describe how this vote is to be achieved I think its worth explaining the issues that I believe confront us with resolving this matter:

• Interested parties may not be aware of the vote and therfore may miss the opportunity to
  • Make a proposal
  • Make a vote
• We have a very high candidate to voter ratio.
  • An plurality under this circumstance is unlikely to please many people.
  • An absolute majority (>50% vote for one item) under this circumstance is unlikely
  • Some options may be equivelently acceptable to a given voter
  • Some options may be magrinally preferred over others.
  • Some options may be completely unacceptable to a given voter
• Given the nature of medium (wikipedia) we have the issues that
  • Voting must be done publicly
  • People can change their vote based on how other people have voted.

Therefore I propose that we allow for plenty of time for both proposing and voting, and that we use Definite Majority Choice as our voting methodology. This method has the advantage that it satisfies many of the mathematical properties of fair voting (its impossible to satisfy them all at once unfortunately), most importantly it is monotonic and does not violate Local Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives. This leads me to propose the following rules for the vote.

Voting Rules

1. For the next four weeks or so (until June 25th 2007), people can make concrete proposals for how the the infobox should look (in other words post an infobox verbatim as is done below with a recent proposal).
2. After this time we should allow a further four weeks to allow as many interested parties to vote.
3. Voting will be done by using Definite Majority Choice, which can be summed up as "While no undefeated candidates exist, eliminate the least-approved candidate". This works by people putting their name down with a list of alternatives seperated either by a '>' or a '='.

• • '>' indicates that the item on the left is prefered to the item on the right
  • '=' indicates that the options are equally preferred. For ease of typing ',' is the same as '>'.
  • Votes may list as many or as few (but at least one) item.
  • Items unlisted are considered unacceptable to the voter.

1. Once the voting closes the tabulation will occur as following:
   1. The candidates will be sorted by the number of people that consider the candidate acceptable (presence in any list regardless of order).
   2. starting at the bottom of the list each candidate will be pairwise compared with those above. The first candidate that pairwise defeat all higher approved candidates is the winner.
   3. in the unlikely event of a tie meaning that the two or more options are equally popular then one will be chosen randomly by ordering them as they were proposed, then counting the letters (non punctuation) in the first paragraph of the June 26th New York Times editorial and modulo dividing by the number of tieing candidates. The resulting value indicates which is the winner.
2. This process will be be done publiclly.
3. Once a winner is achieved the relevent text from the winning proposal will be placed on the main page and non-trivial editing of this text will be considered prhibited until a new vote using the same rules has occured. (Fixing typos or clear errors is ok.)

Infobox Combatants List Candidate Proposals

Please

• use subsections for each candidate with a format similar to that used in the first candidate.
• place new entries at the end
• number each option sequentially
• provide a name for the candidate
• feel free to propose more than one option
• do not modify a candidate unless it was your own proposal
• do not remove a candidate once it has been added (unless it is an example of vandalism or scurrilious behaviour)
• remember CANDIDATES MAY BE ADDED AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO MIDNIGHT (GMT) JUNE 25th 2007

Candidate Registry -- Open For New Candidates

Candidate 1 -- Relatively Comprehenseive Dated List

Allies:

From 1939: Poland, United Kingdom, France, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa

From 1940: Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Greece

From 1941: Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, United States, China, Czechoslovakia

From 1942: Brazil

From 1944: Romania, Bulgaria, Finland

Axis:

From 1939: Germany

1940-43: Italy

1941: Iraq (co-belligerent)

1941-44: Romania, Bulgaria, Finland :(co-belligerent)

From 1941: Hungary, Japan

1942-45: Thailand (co-belligerent)

Candidate N+1 -- (new candidate)

Please add a new candidate here preserving this text for other contributors.

Voting

Please

• use a bulleted list (see the sample bogus vote)
• put your name and a list of options in decreasing order of preference, with equally preferable options being allowed:
  • seperate two options by ',' (or '>') to indicate you prefer the left item over the right
  • seperate two options by '=' to indicate that two options are mutually acceptable.
• remember VOTES MAY BE MADE AT ANY TIME AFTER MIDNIGHT JUNE 25th 2007 (GMT) UNTIL MIDNIGHT JULY 25th 2007 (GMT)
• Include only options that are acceptable to you
• Do not include options that are unacceptable to you

Voting Booth (Not Open)

• PseudoUser: 1, 2, 5 = 7 = 9 > 3 (ignore this its a sample vote)

Tabulation

Candidate registration has not ended and voting has not occured

Winner

Candidate registration has not ended and voting has not occured

Proposed deletion of File:Two Blue Acaras.jpg

The file File:Two Blue Acaras.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)