User talk:Peterbr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Peterbr, 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! 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:Where to ask a question, 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! Karm a fist 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

1 VWN en WCN
2 Maritime military history task force
3 Re. Smith for President
4 Re: United States presidential election, 2008
5 Regarding presidential "exploratory committees"

[edit] VWN en WCN

Beste Peterbr,

Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, effeietsanders 18:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Okido, ik heb me aangemeld. Peterbr 20:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maritime military history task force

I just wanted to let you know that a Maritime warfare task force has been established. Hope to see you there:)Inge 13:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re. Smith for President

You've probably guessed I have a vested interest in this topic.

There are some updated news stories on the (Campaign website).

The Smith campaign has limited resources and will likely not travel to many states, but has attended events in NYC (Cooper Union), and is scheduled to address the American Jewish Congress in DC on April 30th. With a small following in Iowa, the campaign will probably attend the Ames straw poll in August.

John Cox claims to have volunteers in nearly every state and has traveled to many.

Brownback and Hunter may have more resources, but the fact that they are professional politicians is not a selling point to much of the electorate.

If wikipedia, or the internet in general, holds any promise to "democratize" our process it must be through a full exchange of ideas - not limiting the debate to those already acknowleged in the mainstream media. When in doubt, leave it in.

The reference to other wikipedia pages is somewhat circular - why is any other wikipedia page more authoritative than this one?

Then you list Michael Savage??? Are you kidding? That's completely inconsistent with any of your criteria.

The list of libertarian and independent candidates is arguably less relevant than any working within the two-party system to affect change.

Thanks

Mikesmth 18:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: United States presidential election, 2008

Hello Peterbr, You recently removed some polling data I had added in the form of a graph to the United States presidential election, 2008 page giving the reason, these are 'doctored' by leaving out some candidates (Gore, Clark)... While this is a legitimate concern, you will be pleased to know that the USA Today/Gallup poll included both Al Gore and Wesley Clark along with many other possible candidates (for a complete list of individuals listed in the polling process please find a copy of the poll information on the PollingReport.com website: http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08dem.htm). The reason they were not included in the graph was that I intended to represent the official candidates, that is, those who have filed with the FEC. If Mr. Gore or Mr. Clark were to file with the FEC I would include them in the graph. I feel it is valuable to have this primary polling information available in an easy-to-assimilate representation such as a graph on the page. However, if you have other legitimate concerns about the value and reliability of the information given, let's discuss it and find a solution which satisfies my desire to include a more graphic representation of the facts and your desire to include only reliable material. If you have no objections, I will be reposting the graphs, but will be adding a reference to the poll page itself so that the nature of the poll can be made clear. Thank you again for your work with Wikipedia. --DatraxMada 07:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello DatraxMada, sorry, but I do object. First, there are separate polling articles, which report the same numbers that you put in a graph. Maybe some graphs belong there. Such graphs should show complete results from a poll: by leaving out significant results (e.g. possible candidates scoring more than 10%) the graph becomes a distortion of the facts, which is always a very real danger when dealing with statistics. A secondary concern that I have is that graphically showing the results from only one poll gives that poll more weight than others, while I don't see a good reason why the poll you chose to present graphically would be more significant than others. Peterbr 13:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Peterbr, You recently removed Al Gore as a possible Green Party candidate. If you read the link, you would realize that Al Gore belongs under both the prospective Democrats and Greens list. If you feel I have misspoken, leave Al Gore only under the Democratic prospectives. If you trust sources close to Al Gore, please undo your revision. The alliance 18:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what link? I would need a lot of convincing (meaning: respected sources) before I would believe Al Gore as Green Party candidate. Peterbr 20:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)