User contributions for Jannikp97

12 November 2024

• 14:4514:45, 12 November 2024 diff hist 21 List of people by Erdős number →S: LS -> Noga Alon -> E
• 14:4314:43, 12 November 2024 diff hist 26 List of people by Erdős number →G: KGL -> Noga Alon -> E
• 14:3114:31, 12 November 2024 diff hist 21 List of people by Erdős number →Two: Added Staiger

8 November 2024

• 13:1613:16, 8 November 2024 diff hist 145 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social utility efficiency →Social utility efficiency: Reply Tag: Reply
• 13:1013:10, 8 November 2024 diff hist 620 Talk:Social utility efficiency →Merge or at least mention Implicit utilitarian voting: Reply Tag: Reply

7 November 2024

• 13:4013:40, 7 November 2024 diff hist 3 m Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social utility efficiency No edit summary
• 13:4013:40, 7 November 2024 diff hist 857 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social utility efficiency →Social utility efficiency: Reply Tag: Reply

1 November 2024

• 09:4909:49, 1 November 2024 diff hist 219 Talk:Center squeeze →Citation quality: Reply Tag: Reply
• 09:4709:47, 1 November 2024 diff hist 348 Talk:Center squeeze →Median voter theorem: Reply Tag: Reply

31 October 2024

• 14:4014:40, 31 October 2024 diff hist −217 Center squeeze →2009 Burlington mayoral election: WP:SPS
• 14:3814:38, 31 October 2024 diff hist −258 Center squeeze →Overview: WP:SPS
• 14:3714:37, 31 October 2024 diff hist 6 Center squeeze →Susceptibility by system: Proper non-simulation sources needed here
• 14:3714:37, 31 October 2024 diff hist −26 m Center squeeze →Overview
• 14:3614:36, 31 October 2024 diff hist −890 Center squeeze →Indirect effects: These sources are not strong enough to back up the statement.
• 14:3514:35, 31 October 2024 diff hist −272 Center squeeze →Indirect effects: WP:SPS
• 14:3414:34, 31 October 2024 diff hist −1 m Center squeeze →Overview: spacing
• 14:3414:34, 31 October 2024 diff hist −1,970 Center squeeze →Overview: This is a way too strong statement. (i) Blacks theorem only applies to single-peaked preferences, this is seldomly the case in real world elections. (ii) The last sentence is not actually supported by the sources. Statistical models are not an adequate replacement for real-world data or studies.

30 October 2024

• 06:3106:31, 30 October 2024 diff hist 376 Talk:Instant-runoff voting →Center Squeeze: Reply Tag: Reply

28 October 2024

• 14:5814:58, 28 October 2024 diff hist −8 m Ariel D. Procaccia →External links: Changed university current
• 14:5714:57, 28 October 2024 diff hist 144 Ariel D. Procaccia No edit summary
• 09:0209:02, 28 October 2024 diff hist −923 Center squeeze →Description: 1. "who hold views similar to their own" seems very meaningless and especially not equivalent to single-peaked. 2. single-peaked preferences nearly never occur in reality, in particular, none of the examples listed on this page have single-peaked preferences. 3. These sentences as a whole just seem a bit out of place. This effect apparently can appear outside of single-peaked preferences, so why phrase it like this.
• 09:0009:00, 28 October 2024 diff hist −634 Center squeeze →Description: I do not believe that such a broad statement can be made, based on just two simulation papers.
• 08:5708:57, 28 October 2024 diff hist −1,788 Sincere favorite criterion None of the sources say anything about it being "particularly prevalent". The second sentence has no source to support it as well.
• 08:5508:55, 28 October 2024 diff hist −4,195 Center squeeze →Description: This whole block is based mostly on unsupported citations
• 08:5308:53, 28 October 2024 diff hist −2,638 Perverse incentive →Electoral systems: This seems very much like WP:NPOV
• 08:4608:46, 28 October 2024 diff hist −2,241 Social utility efficiency →History: Deleted original research WP:OR
• 08:4608:46, 28 October 2024 diff hist −457 Social utility efficiency WP:SPS
• 08:4508:45, 28 October 2024 diff hist −223 Social utility efficiency WP:SPS
• 03:1903:19, 28 October 2024 diff hist −9 Proportional approval voting Seems more accurate

25 October 2024

• 14:0314:03, 25 October 2024 diff hist −206 Proportionality for solid coalitions →Solid coalitions: Do not think this statement is really true.
• 07:3307:33, 25 October 2024 diff hist −1,556 Center squeeze →Description: Both single-peaked preferences and Black's theorem are not really relevant in practise. Tag: Reverted

12 October 2024

• 12:0512:05, 12 October 2024 diff hist −72 m Condorcet method Does not need to be inserted everywhere Tag: Manual revert
• 12:0512:05, 12 October 2024 diff hist −72 m First-past-the-post voting Does not need to be inserted everywhere
• 12:0412:04, 12 October 2024 diff hist −72 m Cumulative voting Does not need to be inserted everywhere Tag: Manual revert
• 12:0412:04, 12 October 2024 diff hist −72 m Coombs' method Does not need to be inserted everywhere Tag: Manual revert
• 12:0312:03, 12 October 2024 diff hist −72 m Borda count Does not need to be inserted everywhere Tag: Manual revert
• 12:0112:01, 12 October 2024 diff hist −2,984 Center squeeze The first sentence is too strong and to generalizing. For saying that it is most common there needs to be some kind of proof or valid citation. For the second one, firstly the median voter theorem is largely irrelevant for real life as preferences are not single peaked, secondly, none of the citations provided here actually show that approval voting would eleminate the effect. Even worse the cited part from the handbook does not even argue for it, but only lists it as a historic argument.
• 11:5611:56, 12 October 2024 diff hist −50 Center squeeze I have no idea who is trying to insert this method everywhere :D
• 11:5111:51, 12 October 2024 diff hist −780 Center squeeze 1, the sources do not really say that, 2 as discussed in the talk blog posts by non-experts should not be here WP:SPS
• 11:5011:50, 12 October 2024 diff hist −1,675 Center squeeze This is a very strong statement about the real world, for which more than a few simulations should be needed to back it up.
• 11:4611:46, 12 October 2024 diff hist −218 Center squeeze This site does not say anything about that as far as I can see
• 11:4411:44, 12 October 2024 diff hist −824 Center squeeze common is a strong claim, also the first sentence should probably not about where it is common, but about what it is

6 October 2024

• 10:0910:09, 6 October 2024 diff hist 25 List of people by Erdős number →Two: added procaccia

7 September 2024

• 20:2920:29, 7 September 2024 diff hist 6 Center squeeze →Cardinal and Condorcet methods: This seems like original research
• 20:2820:28, 7 September 2024 diff hist 6 Center squeeze No edit summary
• 20:2720:27, 7 September 2024 diff hist −370 Center squeeze No (fitting) citations here
• 20:2420:24, 7 September 2024 diff hist −2 Center squeeze No edit summary
• 20:1920:19, 7 September 2024 diff hist −530 Center squeeze WP:SPS
• 20:1620:16, 7 September 2024 diff hist 349 Talk:Center squeeze →Notability of the term center squeeze?: new section Tag: New topic

30 August 2024

• 19:3919:39, 30 August 2024 diff hist 620 Talk:Instant-runoff voting →Lead: Reply Tag: Reply