User talk:Robapalooza

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Welcome!

Hello Robapalooza, 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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  -- KHM03 21:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent graphic.

Barnstar-worthy work!
I don't generally support the use of polling data in Wikipedia articles, but I wanted to compliment you on your graphic and methodology regardless. Very glad to see some editors understand that the primaries are not a first-past-the-post process. Italiavivi 22:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:2008 Polling HC FT.jpg

There are a couple problems with your chart. First, you state that Clinton's lead expanded form six points to ten, whereas you chart clearly shows her lead at starting at 45-42 and expanding to 48-43. This is a growth from three to five, not six to ten. Second, I was always taught to start numbering at zero. Your graph begins at 35%, artificially exaggerating the difference between to two data sets. - SigmaEpsilon → ΣΕ 00:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. In early versions of the chart in question (head-to-head charts of hypothetical matchups between Clinton and Thompson, for example), I used a different Y-axis scale, and I misjudged the differences between candidates. I've since updated all charts to use a simplified Y-axis that more clearly shows point differences. As an engineer, I understand that charts should start from zero, but as a practical matter, it makes the information difficult to read. I think readers will clearly understand that the races are still relatively close. --Robapalooza 14:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charts of candidates' progress

I was quite impressed with the charts. I was disappointed to see them go. But, as you said, they would involve a lot of work to maintain.

Just curious, which software tools did you use to construct the charts? Dogru144 11:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just use Excel and a program that prints the output as a PDF. I cut and paste the image into Paint and save as a JPG. There's probably an easier way of creating JPGs, but I haven't found one yet. Time permitting, I may bring back the Clinton v. Giuliani type charts. I've replaced them with charts of candidates' progress in the first few "key" states, i.e. IA, NH, NV and will add FL, SC if possible. --Robapalooza 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)--Robapalooza 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)--Robapalooza 14:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] proportional representation on the Dem Prim page

I am loving what you did with the proportional representation on the Dem Prim page, I'm wondering, could you recalculate it with the new poll for California (showing Barack Obama ahead).--Mh10190 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to except polls on Obama have not shown him in the lead in California. Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries,_2008#California. --Robapalooza 19:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dem Primary page

I just updated the Dem Primary page. It was unattended for a while. Ill fix up the the map, can you please update the proportional graphs, they are really great.

[edit] Barnstar

The Special Barnstar
Great work on the charts and graphs you added to show the polling information. Your efforts are appreciated and have earned you this special barnstar Southern Texas 18:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charts

Thanks for making the chart with all the candidates. I do see what you mean about it being hard to read. I think that adding a "undecided" and "other" category would help, but even more so if "other" and "undecided" were kept separate. I am also not sure if a linear graph is a good way to model the data, although I can't think of any other way to do it. Mathnsci 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How about next-order regression

Linear regressions are not that informative. Do you have the ability to do something besides straight lines on the poll data? -- Yellowdesk 15:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with next-order regression, but I'll look into it. Right now, I'm using openoffice.org Calc program which is a simplistic version of Microsoft Excel. I'm limited to linear, power, exponential regressions. I can also display the mean, but I don't think the mean is helpful at all. If possible, I'll look into moving averages and getting a better program with better statistical packages.--Robapalooza 01:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To address the concerns some of you have over the use of linear regressions

To address the concerns some of you have over the use of linear regressions, I've added links to sites that summarize polling data in a similar manner, but use different methods for plotting averages. I will keep maintaining the charts on this site, since it includes more data than the images in the attached links. Thoughts, questions, suggestions, etc. are welcome. This example is from the Republican California primary section, but similar links appear on this page. [1] --Robapalooza 00:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Presidential polling

Hi, you recently added a paragraph to each of the main presidential contenders. For example, you added a paragraph to the Fred Thompson article that mentions other candidates like Romney and Giuliani. However, Romney and Giuliani had not previously been mentioned in the Fred Thompson article, and are not wikilinked. I will try to fix the paragraph you added to the Fred Thompson article, but please try to be more careful. Thanks.Ferrylodge —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Predicted outcomes of games

I admire your work with game predictions, but I have several concerns with it. First and foremost, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't speculate about the future - we only write what has happened or is certain to happen. A game will be played this Saturday, but speculating on the winner is outside our scope. Secondly, Sagarin's calculations may be protected by copyright or other intellectual property law. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know, but if it is protected, copying his entire ranking scheme is probably not a fair use. Lastly, it is a maintenance nightmare. Instead of just having to update records weekly, images have to be redone.

I would suggest bringing this up at WT:CFB before spending any more time on it. --B 19:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Although the analysis is forward-looking, the statistics are compiled weekly and are, therefore, current. That is, Sagarin's statistical analysis and my separate analysis have already happened. Also, I have included these charts on sites that are dedicated to this season of college football for the various teams. These teams carry an appropriate current event tag, so I think the charts are appropriate for such pages. Sagarin's webpage is protected by copyright, which means you can't copy his content without permission. The charts do not copy his content. Rather, my analysis in an independent analysis of his statistics, and, I believe, is properly attributed. The chart is entirely my own work. If you look at his statistics page, it's merely a list of numbers and he suggests that you can "predict" the outcome of a future game by comparing numbers, but he does not perform such calculation for the reader. I've merely picked up where he left off and applied it to the ACC teams and South Carolina. Maintenance doesn't bother me. I run this analysis every week regardless. The images are easily updated using Wikipedia's tools. I'm happy to discuss this matter further in a forum, if it is deemed necessary to do so.--Robapalooza 19:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
If he were running a publicly available formula (eg the RPI), there wouldn't be a copyright issue. Although I suppose that the charts just for ACC schools is probably sufficiently transformative to get around it.
I'd still suggest taking it to WT:CFB though. Even though it's a formula (as opposed to someone's swag) I still think that's too much of a crystal ball. I can raise the issue and start the conversation there if you like.
A few other random thoughts if you do continue doing it: (1) Can you make the images SVG? SVG allows the charts to be scaled to any resolution with no loss of quality and so it's much more reusable. If not, PNG is the second choice ... there actually is (or was) a bot going around converting all gifs to PNG. (2) Unless there is a compelling reason not to, freely licensed images should generally be uploaded to Commons. Free images are gradually being checked (to make sure they are legitimately free) and moved. (3) Citations and wikilinks in section headers are bad. You may want to change it to something like I did in 2007_Virginia_Tech_Hokies_football_team#Future_game_Sagarin_predictions where the section header is small and the citation is a small note below the table. --B 20:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again. Time permitting, I'll edit the section headers. Also, per your suggestion, I've added a section to WT:CFB inviting input on this topic.--Robapalooza 20:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello Robapalooza. Very interesting work. I'm still looking forward to other people's comments. In the meantime, I'd really like to see the predictions for Texas. Any chance of you either adding them in or e-mailing me your spreadsheet so I can play with it? My e-mail is set on Wikipedia so if you decide to do that you can go to my page and then click "E-mail this user" in the toolbox on the left. Thanks for showing us this interesting analysis. Best, Johntex\talk 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Robapalooza: As I've asked before, please discontinue placing this graphic or anything pertaining to Sagarin predictions from 2007 Miami Hurricanes football team. I appreciate your efforts, but my objections stand: "While interesting, I am not convinced the table is particularly encyclopedic. (WP:CBALL, WP:IINFO)." I don't think it belongs in any article - the betting line is enough - but since I edit the Miami Hurricanes, I'd rather not have to keep removing it. --mc machete 00:41, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I respect your right to remove the chart, but I also have a right to include such charts. I respectfully submit that the charts are not a "crystal ball" at all. Rather, the charts are simply summaries of statistical information about the strength of each team based on past performance as compared to the statistical strength of future opponents. I also respectfully disagree that the charts are merely indiscriminate collections of information. Still further, out of 13 articles that include this kind of graphic, you're the only one to object. In any event, I hope you guys beat Boston College.  :-) --Robapalooza 18:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Sample Gameknot profile page.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Sample Gameknot profile page.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 04:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Done--Robapalooza 05:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belated welcome to Wikipedia

As one Clemson alumni to another, welcome to Wikipedia! Chris 15:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clemson Tigers

I edited the Clemson Tigers article per your request, putting all of the references in the reference list. While I graduated from Clemson, I normally don't edit Clemson articles because that is not my interest. Sorry about that. Chris 23:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your calling my attention to the Clemson Tigers article via my talk page. I edit the Clemson University article, but generally stay away from the athletics article, so it is unlikely that I would have seen the discussion. I did have an opinion on the matter, and posted it on the talk page. Mescad 00:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Image:2008_GOP_Iowa.png

i agree that the polls should add up to 100% and i will most likely add an "other" category, however i would like to keep the undecided voters separate from the others given that undecided voters will move to one of the other candidates by the primary (or not vote) and candidates who support other voters will most likely continue to support those through the primary. Thanks for the suggestion Perpetualization 02:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Polls Program

So far, i had been using Microsoft Excel, but recently, i just recently installed Windows Vista on a new hard drive, disconnecting the one that i was using before, having believe that i copied all the important files over. I later realized that i forgot the information for those graphs. I will send it to you once i get my hard drive up and running, but i can explain the relatively simple process i use.
I copy the data into a spreadsheet, using the last date of a poll for the x axis and each candidates data as the y axis. Because this process is time consuming, i have only copied Iowa, California, and Florida to my computer. The graphs involve circle data points, one larger than the default for all canidates (so they may be easily seen). The 6 months poll is created simply by looking at which polls are less than 6 months in the past and only including them. I included undecided whenever it was listed in the polling data, and i computed other (100-(canidates+undecided)), but if any of the candidates or the undecided value was missing, i did not put an other data point. This is to avoid weird inflation of other data if a poll does not include Huckabee as happened several times (especially in California). The trend lines are simple lines of best fit. The font for the axis was changed because the default became unreadable once uploaded. Some changes i plan to make once my computer begins running are:

adding a last updated date which is displayed on the graph
adding Ron Paul to the graphs

If you are interested in helping with the page, i would advise you that graphing is probably not the most helpful way. California, Florida, and Iowa are the states with the most polls and other states, which do not have nearly as many polls, do not benifit from a graph and trendline that displays few data points. The most helpful way would be to make sure polling data stays up to date, which it is not. This can be as simple as going to realclearpolitics.com and taking any polls that they have, that wikipedia does not, verifying them, and adding them. Perpetualization (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, i've gotten my computer working again, and i am now using excel 2007. Ron Paul has been added to all the graphs as you can see, and i have added some additional graphs. Looking at the page though, i am hesitant to add more graphs, especially last 6 months graphs because many states do not have enough data to warrant graphs, and they take up a lot of space on the page without really displaying much useful information that one cannot see from the numbers. Your thoughts? Perpetualization (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
I've really like following the polling data graphs, and I like that you've kept them up to date! I find them a better source of information than many others out there. Patrick Ѻ 00:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two other Clemson CEs I know also have law degrees

I forgot to tell you this earlier, but there are two other Clemson CEs who also got law degrees: Tracy Zlock (Fall 1993 - JD from Georgetown) and John Eric Fulda (Spring 1995 - JD from South Carolina). i am trying to think if I knew you from classes at Clemson, but my mind keeps drawing a blank right now. What were you involved with at Clemson? Belated Happy birthday though. Chris (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008

An article that you have been involved in editing, Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 21:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate over Article for Deletion: Clemson University football recruiting scandal

Clemson University football recruiting scandal has been nominated for deletion per WP:AFD. Please participate in the debate here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clemson University football recruiting scandal, if possible. Thanks. Thör hammer 09:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Robapalooza! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 14:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Major Alan G. Rogers

I saw your article on Rogers. I would be prepared to monitor it because it will probably be the subject of an article for deletion question at one point. If you need help with this, just let me know. Remember (talk) 00:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Great job beefing up the Rogers article. Looks much better now. Remember (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I think with Satyr on board, I am not needed. Good article. :) Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the mention of the same sex marriage again. It is still not properly sourced. I know this may anger you so I decided I should contact you personaly about it. Edit...not to anger you, but to give you an honest heads up on what I did.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that was me. I always seem to forget that I am not logged in automaticaly like at other sites and start making comments and even forget to sign with tiddles. I try to go back when I realise what I am doing, but you cant resign on an edit.

Thank you for your patiance. Not something you see at Wiki much anymore.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion as requested

Hello Rob:

Regarding: "In June 2006, Rogers provided the opening prayer for a same-sex wedding ceremony. Rogers reportedly expressed "an intensely deep loneliness that stemmed from his inability to have both a [same-sex] relationship ... and the military career he also loved so much."

This is very personal stuff. Too much so, in my opinion, for an encyclopedia. If you were writing an essay or a book about Alan Rogers, this would be appropriate. You would be able to expand these thoughts. Here I don't think you can.

That's one opinion. Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of GALLA

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article GALLA, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? R00m c (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)