User talk:Perpetualization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Perpetualization, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  IZAK 11:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors that you are introducing in the article on Lewis Libby

Please see Talk:Lewis Libby. Even if one assumes that you were editing "in good faith" and that your deletions were not the product of Wikipedia:Vandalism, you still do need to be more careful and responsible in your editing. Please read talk pages and post on them before making such changes. If you are new to editing a controversial article, you need to follow policies and guidelines tagged on its talk page. Thank you. (Please do not reply to this on my personal talk page. Please make your comments in the section that you added in Talk:Lewis Libby. Thanks again.) --NYScholar 23:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:2008_GOP_Iowa.png

Hi, Perpetualization. I'm happy to see you contributing to the charts in the polling section. I have one minor suggestion for improvement: I think, for each poll, the data should add up to 100% so as to not under-represent the number of undecided voters and voters currently favoring "other" candidates. In my charts summarizing poll data for GOP candidates, I've tracked the four major Republicans, and I see you've added Huckabee, which is great (particularly in Iowa), but I think the Undecided category could be improved by including "Other" candidates and calling the combined category "Undecided/Other" or by adding an "Other" category so that each poll adds up to 100%. Keep up the great work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robapalooza (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:2008 GOP Iowa 6 Months.png

Hi,

I noticed that you were upset that I uploaded a different version of this picture. Might I suggest that you change the way your format the graph to make it more informative? I think that using a moving average rather than a linear regression best represents the information you intend to convey. For example, in this picture specifically, Fred Thompson's polling numbers rise significantly just after he announces his candidacy officially, then fall in the subsequent months. A linear regression does not show this trend well; a moving average does. Let me know what you think.

Cheers,

Acegikmo1 (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Perpetualization,
What you say makes a lot of sense. Leaving the previous six months graphs as they are but changing the graphs convering more time is probably the best way to convey the information. If you intend to do this, you have my support and appreciation. Let me know.
Sincerely,
Acegikmo1 (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chart software?

Regarding the charts in the wiki GOP 2008 Presidential Polling page, I have been using OpenOffice.org Calc to create charts, which is a free download (Calc is a comparable program to Microsoft Office Excel). What software do you use for charts? If what you're using is compatible with MS Excel, perhaps I can get you to email a copy to me, so I can use the same format. Generally speaking, again, thank you for helping with the graphing duties. Perhaps, if the stars align, we can coordinate our style. I definitely appreciate what you mean by the time it takes to do charts.--Robapalooza (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:NOT reply

I explained my reasoning for reverting that part of WP:NOT#STATS in my nomination for deletion of the pages mentioned. I assume you have read this as you are a contributor to the deletion debate. To restate my point, the original change was made a couple of months ago without discussion, I felt it contradicted the point of the policy and did not reflect consensus.

Here are some examples of how the information within the articles may be confusing, misleading or without sufficient context (although I do neccessary think that these are the reasons for deletion)

  • There is no indication of the sample size for each poll
  • There is no indication of the data collection techniques for each poll
  • There is no indication of who was included in the sample and how or why they were chosen
  • There is no indication of the margin of error for each poll
  • There is no indication of the purpose of each poll
  • There is no indication of all the options available as responses to each poll
  • There is no indication of he question(s) posed by each poll
  • There is no critical analysis of the sampling techniques, questions, etc. for each poll
  • There is no indication of the ongoing political events at the time of each poll
  • There is no information on the organisations carrying out each poll and whatever bias they may or may not have

Wikipedia is not a list of statistics, a link repository, a directory, or a news service. Statistics can be both useful (links to essay) and addictive but that doesn't mean they belong in an encyclopaedia. [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)]]

I would be happy for you to use any of the points I made to try and improve any aspect of Wikipedia. Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]]

[edit] Graphic Designer's Barnstar

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Your latest GOP map is excellent. The new shading adds meaning and, I think, in one image, you neatly summarize the wide-open state of affairs in the GOP race. Therefore, as a small "thank you," I'm giving you a Graphic Designer's Barnstar. I don't know if I'm "qualified" to give you one, but I did anyway. Someone was nice enough to give me one not long ago for my work in these 2008 election-related articles. As you know, we do this out of a labor of love, and I think it's good to get a pat on the back every once in a while. (I can't tell you how amazed I was that these articles were nominated for deletion, and I'm glad to see that flap has died down.)--Robapalooza (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orson Scott Card Views on sex

Just to let you know I'm proposing restoring this section - see my reasoning and proposed wording for the section on the talk page. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. --Zeborah (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Minor edits" and edit summary comments

Please read up on these two subjects before you do any more editing. See Help:Minor edit and Help:Edit summary. You haven't been using the minor edit checkbox correctly, and you should enter an edit summary comment for all edits that aren't on Talk pages. Thanks. RedSpruce (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)