ThrawnRocks
Welcome edit
|
Republican Primary Polling Map edit
Hi ThrawnRocks. When you reverted my changes to the key to the map, you said "The numbers were right. Recheck the map, and read the footnote." Did you take your own advice? The numbers are still wrong. I may have made a mistake about Montana because Palin's color looks too much like Perry's, but he numbers for Romney and Bachmann still don't reflect the map. The map shows Romney leading in NV, UT, MO, FL, MI, NH, VT, MA, CA, AZ, CT, and RI (12) and sharing in OR, NM, OH, NC, NJ, CO, and AK (7). But the key puts him at 12 and 8. Likewise the map shows Bachmann leading in MN and PA (2) and sharing in VA, NM, OR, MT, WI, NC, NJ, and WV (8). But the key puts her at 2 and 7. I'm pretty sure that makes the numbers wrong in at least two places, but since you may be the only editor capable of reading the map (and the footnote!) I'll let you figure it out. You can make the changes if they're needed. 76.106.47.236 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for the response. You're right about the source of my confusion. The West Virginia stripe looked like the same color as Pennsylvania. Since you seem to be the one editing the map, can I ask you about Ohio? It's striped for Perry and Romney, but that's based on a split poll where Romney only won when Perry wasn't included. Since Perry is definitely running now, doesn't that mean that according to our poll he's winning the state outright? Shouldn't Ohio be colored solid for Perry? Thanks. 76.106.47.236 (talk) 15:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
- By the way, adding the faded colors to the key is a nice touch, too. Thanks. 76.106.47.236 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Striping edit
Thanks for the explanation about Ohio, but if the criterion is to stripe whenever a candidate is within the margin of error behind the polling leader, then there are a few changes that need to be made, I think. Missouri is colored solid red for Romney, but the latest poll has a MOE of 5.8% and Perry is only 3 points behind Romney. According to your criterion, Missouri should be striped for Perry and Romney (blue/red). Similarly, Pennsylvania is currently colored solid gold for Bachmann, but the latest poll had a MOE of 5.1% and Sarah Palin was only 5 points behind Bachmann in the split she was included in. So Pennsylvania should probably be striped for Palin and Bachmann (green/gold). Right? Isn't that how you're saying the striping works? Consistency is key here, I think, whatever the criterion is. Thanks for your work on this and your engagement! 76.106.47.236 (talk) 01:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Actually, there's even more. In the Virginia poll with a MOE of 4.9%, one split shows Perry 20 - Romney 16, and the other shows Bachmann 21 - Perry 18 - Romney 18. Virginia is currently striped for Perry-Bachmann, but in both splits, Romney is within the MOE of the leader. So based on the MOE criterion, we should be showing this as a three-way for Perry-Bachmann-Romney. In Montana, one split shows Palin 20 - Bachmann 18 - Romney 17, and the other split shows Bachmann 25 - Romney 22. Given the MOE of 5.0%, Romney is within the MOE in both splits, so Montana should be striped Palin-Bachmann-Romney. In New Jersey, the split that includes Palin shows Romney 21 - Bachmann 18 - Palin 16. Palin is within the 5.7% MOE, so New Jersey should be striped Palin-Bachmann-Romney just like Montana. Am I missing something here? 76.106.47.236 (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
- Finally, if we apply this criterion consistently in the map, why don't we also bold all candidates within the MOE when we list the polling data. It's the same data, just presented in a different way, and it would encourage readers to think actively about the MOE. What do you think? 76.106.47.236 (talk) 01:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Cainless primary map edit
Hi, ThrawnRocks. When Cain dropped out, you reverted to gray not only the solid-Cain states but also the states in which Cain was tied with some other candidate. I don't really understand why you removed the stripes representing candidates who remain in contention. There are six such states: Nevada, Texas, Mississippi, Illinois, Virginia, and Maine. It could be some time before we get fresh polling from these states, and in the meantime it would be useful to know where Cain was tied with Romney, where he was tied with Perry, and where he was tied with Gingrich. My suggestion is that we simply begin with the map as it existed on 30 November, and replace all the green pixels with gray, leaving the non-green stripes intact. So in Texas, for instance, it would be apparent that Rick Perry was tied for first with someone who has since dropped out. Does this strike you as a reasonable compromise? If I had the means of editing svg files, I would be bold and make the changes myself. LANTZYTALK 03:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- I think the map already includes too much old inaccurate data. So no, I'm not going to add the stripes back. Someone else can if they feel so inclined, and I won't start an edit war or anything, but I would rather be taking stuff off the map right now than putting it on. ThrawnRocks (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification edit
Hi. When you recently edited Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1964, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John W. Reynolds (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Maps edit
Hi, just wanted to say you have done great jobs on maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leading_Republican_2012_primary_candidate_by_state_map.svg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1996RepublicanPresidentialPrimaries.svg Is it possible you could do a map for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 ? There had been a great map at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c8/20120220051919!Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C_2012.svg but they have changed it to a new map that makes the shade of purple very blinding and bright, and difficult for me (and I cannot imagine how many others) to look at. The user there refuses to change it, and was wondering if you could create a color-friendly map, like you have done on your other maps. If you could, you have my advance gratitude. Stopde (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2019 election voter message edit
 | Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message edit
| | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |