User talk:Ka-Ping Yee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ka-Ping Yee, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Hyacinth 22:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Voting System

Thanks for all your efforts in the voting system discussion. The theory people far out-number the technical people here in Wikipedia. I'm glad you've joined the conversation as you've got some experience in both. As to your question about Vote counting system, the entire election technology section could use some good reorganization. There is quite a bit of overlap between some articles and quite a bit of information still needed. There have been some issues like how do you differentiate between the idea of using an optical reader to tabulate votes without limiting it to just something like M100 machine. So, yes, I would definitely roll Vote counting system into a voting system article. The other question is would you combine it with the more comprehensive voting machine article?--Electiontechnology 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement and your contributions too. I see what you mean about Voting machine — I just went and had a look at it. I'm surprised that Voting machine claims to include all machines involved in the preparation, counting, and tabulating process; I've never seen the phrase "voting machine" used to refer to anything but the machine on which votes are cast, i.e. just the machine used directly by voters. I'd consider Voting system to include all the parts (registration, ballot preparation, polling place procedures, vote casting, ballot collection, and tabulation), with voting machines being just one part (vote casting by machine), thus a subsection of Voting system pointing to the main Voting machine article. Ka-Ping Yee 20:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a good point that the term voting machine is being a bit stretched, but without access to voting system the thinking was something like "voting system (technology)" was a bit confusing. Hopefully we'll get a positive consensus about the voting system terminology ---Electiontechnology 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great visualizations

Hi there, I was wondering if you might allow your voting system visualizations to be posted on Wikipedia, perhaps at Controversies regarding instant-runoff voting but ideally at Instant-runoff voting itself. I think the "controversy" reads a bit one-sided and your visualizations would bring a great deal of clarity to the discussion. You could post them yourself or if you'd like you could release them under a compatible license on your webpage and I could post them for you. Let me know. - McCart42 (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I've made my case for you on Talk:Controversies regarding instant-runoff voting#Do not remove visualizations! - I think that given your work you could reasonably be considered an "expert" in the field, and frankly, not to offend you, but you don't have to be an expert to roll your own Monte Carlo simulations to demonstrate the efficacy of voting systems in real-world situations. What I'm trying to say is that while yours is unequivocally the best visualization I've seen on this subject, people could easily write their own independent simulations to confirm yours. I've been searching and so far all I've found is this. I may write my own, but I'm taking qualifying exams next semester so I doubt I'll have the time. - McCart42 (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems the best way to get this started is to add a pair of images to Controversies regarding instant-runoff voting. I'm partial to [1] vs. [2]. If people disagree with the addition and consider it OR, perhaps you could publish the source (or I could direct them to [3], where source is available). Do you know anywhere your work or similar work has been published? That would of course make the issue of OR moot. Thoughts? - McCart42 (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, take your time. Congratulations! - McCart42 (talk) 07:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your input on the waterboarding article

I think your suggested lead is a big move towards a consensus. Great job (and better than mine)! Remember (talk) 03:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind compliment! I appreciate your contributions to that discussion as well. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 13:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstars for all

The Barnstar of Peace
For your work in helping to promote discussion and consensus related to the waterboarding article in a construction manner, I award you this Barnstar of peace. Thanks for all of your hard work. Remember (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waterboarding lead

I have removed this sentence. "Expert opinion is divided on the issue of whether waterboarding is torture." Please reconsider your vote. I will resolve any concerns you may have. We work together yes? It will be Good Article. I seek only accurate statement of 3rd Party opinion. Shibumi2 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

In the Waterboarding article, do you have any idea what happened to the ten sources that were originally in the first sentence, for the term "torture"? Badagnani (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe they're now in the sentence that begins "Today it is considered to be torture...". —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 06:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review for Blackwater Worldwide, please help!

Blackwater Worldwide, an article under this WikiProject, is up for Peer Review to move to Featured Article status. Please help out and offer up reviews, advice, or edits to the article or review at:

Thanks. You weren't involved before, but your copyediting and writing skills would be terribly appreciated! Lawrence Cohen 14:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation to submit paper for review and publication

I believe that your visualizations are of great potential use in educating people about voting systems and how they perform under various situations. As you know, though, the use of your images is problematic on Wikipedia because of the lack of peer-reviewed publication.

The Election Methods Interest Group was started to, among other things, address this problem, for there is a great deal of work that has been done on election methods that has not found any home in peer-reviewed publications, even though the general election methods community is in substantial consensus about this.

EMIG is a Free Association using Delegable Proxy (the latter is known as Liquid democracy on Wikipedia, and a Free Association, in short, follows the model for free peer associations pioneered by Alcoholics Anonymous, most notably stated in the Twelve Traditions). The upshot of all this is that EMIG is not going to take any controversial position *as any organization*; however, it can consider a proposed article, review and critique it and correct errors, and can poll its members using standard deliberative process to determine a measure of consensus regarding the article; and an independent publication may use the results of such a poll as a standard for peer review. That independent publication may simply be a moderated mailing list where clear standards exist for what is published, making any post to that list "peer reviewed." And thus eligible for use as a "reliable source" under Wikipedia standards. Print publication is *not* required.

So I'm asking if you are interested in providing an article. It could be an article you already have written; understand that you would be granting a GFDL license to edit the article and to reproduce it in its original form and as edited. You'd have the ability to deny publication under your name, ultimately, if you did not agree with edits made to the article, but this could be a fast track to publication.

What do you think?

(About EMIG: the main communications link is at [4] and there are subsidiary lists, effectively committees. The design is to have a top-level list with little traffic. The delegable proxy design allows the interest group to grow, with members who move on in their activity to remain connected with EMIG through proxies. Naming a proxy is completely voluntary, but those who do will effectively be adding weight in the estimation of consensus when polls are taken, because, in the analysis of polls, the votes of proxies may be expanded for report by the votes of those who trusted them as proxies, but who have not voted themselves. (And this is delegable proxy, i.e., proxy designations are assumed delegable, the proxy of a proxy represents, as well as the proxy, all clients of the proxy.) It is a way of balancing out participation bias by weighting the opinions of those who are trusted. As a Free Association, however, no decision is binding on anyone, and any client may change a proxy designation at any time and may also reverse the effect of their assumed vote by simply voting directly. I really do encourage anyone with an interest in voting methods to join EMIG; it not only costs nothing, but one does not have to even watch traffic to be useful, something useful is done simply by naming a proxy. Further, someone not ready to name a proxy and not currently willing to read list traffic may go on Special Notice status, and Special Notice subscribers would only receive rare posts, approved by vote of members -- or as needed in emergencies by a moderator. There is no cost, no necessary burden, and no implied endorsement of any view through joining.)

I hope you will consider this, I look forward to hearing from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 21:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canada spoken article

Hi Ka-Ping Yee; thanks for contributing a spoken version of Canada. I've downloaded and will listen to it over the weekend, and will give you some detailed feedback some time next week. I've put some more comments at the talk page as well. Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I have reviewed Canada; see here for my comments. I can say that your clear, well-paced narration was a pleasure to listen to, and the excellent sound quality you have achieved has inspired me to buy a new microphone to replace my worn-out 11-year-old model! Hassocks5489 (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I appreciate the time you took to review the recording. I'm glad you liked it! In case you're curious, I used a Sony ECM-MS907 for this recording. —Ka-Ping Yee (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Waterboarding

Please see the above link as I have requested arbitration for a dispute that you are involved in. Feel free to contribute there. Regards, henrik•talk 11:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 16:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waterboarding

This Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision may be reviewed through the above link. Further to the relevant findings of fact, Waterboarding and all closely-related pages are subject to article probation (full remedy); editors working on Waterboarding, or closely related pages, may be subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator, whereby any edits by that editor which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, may result in a block. (full remedy).

Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block length shall increase to one year (full enforcement). Before such restrictions are enacted on an editor, he or she must be issued with a warning containing a link to the decision.

For the Arbitration Committee,
AGK (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)