User talk:Mrprasad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Condorcet-Hare Method

I'm pretty sure you came up with the "Condorcet-Hare Method" you wrote about, which is against Wikipedia's policy on original research. Wikipedia articles are meant to explain concepts that people are looking for, not to promote new ones. I've put the page on Articles for Deletion. Writing about original research is a common newbie mistake, so don't take this too hard.

But given your interest in voting systems, there are a number of ways you could help Wikipedia. The whole collection of articles about individual voting systems is poorly organized, and some (like Plurality voting system and Instant-runoff voting) are used as battlegrounds for arguments over the merits of the methods. The Voting systems WikiProject can always use help. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greatest possible consensus

The example you added to Approval voting is useful. I'm a bit dubious about the terminology you introduce afterward, though, particularly "greatest possible consensus". The term sounds POV to me, and I can't find it used that way on Google. Do you have a source showing that this is a term used by published Approval advocates? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paired comparisons

I noticed your recent creation of the article "paired comparisons." I wanted to point out that there's an even easier way to reference one article from another, called redirecting. Next time you want one article space to go right to another one, simply open the article you want to redirect from, and type:

#REDIRECT [[the article you want to point to]]

And the page will go right there. If you have any questions, lemme know. Cheers, JDoorjam Talk 02:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)