User talk:Prcc27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Prcc27, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!


[edit]

I saw your edit question on Eureka, California. I did not revert the edit, but it looks like to me that since the earlier mention of snow is in a record-breaking year, that it would be notable whereas a light dusting in an otherwise ordinary year is not notable. Hope this helps ! Ellin Beltz (talk) 09:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

List of House of Anubis episodes[edit]

You are editing against what a reliable source states. You need a much better reason than "I don't believe it". Both the Futon Critic and TV Guide are very trusted reliable sources of broadcast information. Nick's promos conflict with what really is happening. Nick is promoting the normal weekday schedule but they ARE airing the first eps on the 7th. Until 8:30 comes and goes we won't have better information than what is the latest schedules. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just a sneak preview! (twitter.com/NickelodeonTV/status/155710312182579200). This tweet is from the Nickelodeon official Twitter account.
Great, further confirmation that the first airing is tonight. I added the Nick tweet as a reference to the article. It doesn't matter what Nick calls it, it may be "just a sneak preview" but the first airing of a season is the important info to be in the article. I did note that the official premiere is listed on the 9th. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough!

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited List of House of Anubis characters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Philip Wright (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) 10:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

May 2012[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to House of Anubis, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Photocaucus[edit]

Hello, user. What pictures do you prefer?

Option C/E)
Obama portrait crop.jpg Mitt Romney by Gage Skidmore 6 cropped.jpg

Option B)
Obama speaking (23).jpg Mitt Romney by Gage Skidmore 4.jpg

Option D)
Obama portrait crop.jpg Mitt Romney by Gage Skidmore 3.jpg

--Belibaste (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

option c/e please!!!--Prcc27 (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, Prcc27, ¿can you write this words in the page of discussion of the elections 2012. If you don't write this, is denegated. Thank you.--Belibaste (talk) 21:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Victorious season 4[edit]

You started a discussion on the talk page. Don't edit war this issue. Work to get concensus on the talk page. You have made 3 reverts so far and could get blocked for breaking the WP:3RR rule. Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012[edit]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to List of Victorious episodes. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

April 2013[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sam & Cat. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please heed the note that advises contributors "Don't add Cameron Ocasio unless and until there is reliably sourced official announcement." Orlady (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There was a source thank you very much! --Prcc27 (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

References[edit]

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

iCarly[edit]

Understand the term main character. Justice just appeared and was credited in a crossover of both TV series, in that sense iCarly cast must be added to Victorious just because of this. Consider that I've seen your editing in the past, reverting me is not WP:CONSENSUS and if it is needed you and me can be blocked or the page protected. For good of the three better discuss rather than start an WP:EW. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on ICarly. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at iCarly. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Understand the concept of main character. It was a special opening for that episode only. talk about it on the talk page before adding it. WP Editor 2012 (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at iCarly shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. 155blue (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. IMBD is not a WP:RS Please read that page. Also she is not a cast member WP Editor 2012 (talk) 17:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Information icon Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:List of House of Anubis episodes. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. If you are really that IP, log out and make the changes as that editor. The dates of the original comments are important. Otherwise leave old comments in a talk page alone. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

warning[edit]

Your edit has been rejected. Please take it to discussion. If you continue edit warring, I will ask to have you blocked. — kwami (talk) 07:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I did take it to the discussion. You started the edit war. --Prcc27 (talk) 07:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Uh, no. You made an edit. I rejected it. Then you started an edit war over it. If you want to make a change, then it's up to you to convince the rest of us. That's how it works here. (See WP:BOLD.) — kwami (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by you "rejected it." --Prcc27 (talk) 08:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Prcc27. You have new messages at Geraldo Perez's talk page.
Message added 15:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

References[edit]

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Thanks.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Does the claim "Circumcision does not appear to have a negative impact on sexual function." use a secondary source? --Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Next time you add content without consensus you may be blocked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

SSM polling[edit]

Would you check out the percentages and colors they match up to at Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States#By state? Right now Missouri which has a support rating of 38% is labeled as pink while Kansas at 39% is in red. I also want to know where you consider the "majority" point to be? Is 51% support stretching it a bit? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

At what number do you define the majority opposing SSM? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:21, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Review[edit]

See Wikipedia:Reviewing. Regards. Ron 1987 (talk) 03:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States - Illinois[edit]

Gov. Pat Quinn has instructed county clerks to issue marriage licenses to all who apply. It's not just in Cook County - it's throughout the state. This supercedes the legislation. - ILBobby (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States map[edit]

Those colors where on there for a reason. I can't see the colors made in the edit by Bigdaddybrabantio. I'm getting sick of this. The colors where good for a reason, but you keep editing it. Please keep it the way it was.GayTenn (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in Kentucky[edit]

Could you reply to my comment at Talk:Same-sex marriage in Kentucky ? I think the entry for Same-sex marriage in Kentucky could be made much better very easily in the way I suggest, but since you started the entry I'd like to hear from you. Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:44, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of 2014 Eureka Earthquake for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2014 Eureka Earthquake is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Eureka Earthquake until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Ways to improve 2005 Eureka Earthquake[edit]

Hi, I'm Dreambeaver. Prcc27, thanks for creating 2005 Eureka Earthquake!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. It seems you have made a mistake with the date of the earthquake, which you have stated in the article as 14 June 2014. Wanted to bring that to your notice. Happy writing!

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Dreambeaver(talk) 07:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of 2005 Eureka Earthquake for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2005 Eureka Earthquake is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 Eureka Earthquake until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Dawnseeker2000 00:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Earthquake articles[edit]

Hello, please do not create any more of these types of "articles". There is usually nothing to say about these types of low impact earthquakes because no one was affected, and all they'll ever achieve is stub class here. WP does not need stubs; it needs comprehensive articles where people can actually read and learn something. We have a solution for these types of events: the list articles. Thanks, Dawnseeker2000 00:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion on SSM (states)[edit]

Please Stop removing my most recent addition to this section. The two polls that were added (NJ and NY) were from March of 2014. You can not just edit the section without reading the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.71.243 (talk) 04:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but you added an older poll from California as well. If you don't want me to revert you, don't put older polls. Simple as that. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage in the United States[edit]

Hi, I reverted your edit to Same-sex marriage in the United States and changed it back to the plural. More than one marriage was performed that morning, so the plural is more accurate. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 04:08, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the plural is less accurate. When you are specifically referring to a specific amount of marriages performed then it is. but if the amount isn't specified, generally it is referred to as plainly "Same-sex marriage" not "Same-sex marriages". A good example of that is the title of the page Same-sex marriage in the United States. Sure more than 1 ssm was performed, but it's referred to as "same-sex marriage". --Prcc27 (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
If you marry several couples, you have performed several marriages. That is the grammatical sense in which the sentence in question is written. Several marriages were performed. When speaking of the phenomenon of same-sex marriage as such, the phenomenon is singular, hence the article title. Hope that helps clear things up. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 03:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi & sorry for the misclick[edit]

Been travelling this last week and have only been able to edit via a smart phone. Editing that way can be a little tricky (its happened to me before) and I inadvertently touched rollback while checking my watchlist. Apologies, and have a great rest of the weekend. Dawnseeker2000 03:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States[edit]

Please don't edit war. Unreferenced material can be removed at any time. Use the talk page. — kwami (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Sorry, I would have- but I'm on my phone... Prcc27 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I noticed the thing that said colors in the table match the map. Prcc27 (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It did match. — kwami (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami:Could you please fix Connecticut; it doen't match the table..!? --Prcc27 (talk) 03:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that should be navy then, but could you provide a link to where you got that data, so it's verifiable? — kwami (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Here's the link, it's already on the table... [1] --Prcc27 (talk) 03:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

That link's dead. Google can't even find the domain. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: How is it dead...? On my computer it works..! :o What do you mean by "dead"..? --Prcc27 (talk) 03:45, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I get the error message "unknown domain: www.publicpolicypolling.com". I've even started replacing some of those with other polls. I've asked at the help desk, but so far no response. I'll try WaybackMachine and see if it does any good. — kwami (talk) 03:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, could you check the dates on the other "Shifting Landscape" poles, and replace them if you have s.t. more recent, like you did for Ohio? — kwami (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami:Done. Unless those links appear to be dead to you they can now be updated on the map. P.S. Those edits might get reverted because they kept reverting Ohio. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I can access them through Wayback, so I think we're fine. Very odd that I can't access the site from my IP address, though. — kwami (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Okay good. That means Connecticut can be changed as well. --Prcc27 (talk) 04:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm holding up on reloading the map until I check the rest of the states. FL, MT, SC, & NC also need to be changed. — kwami (talk)

What about Illinois? In the state article there's another poll from a few months earlier, but I can't access that either. I'm hoping it has better than a 9% sampling error; we can probably change the state from pea-soup to azure if you can access it. — kwami (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Reviewed all the refs & updated the map. Moved Nebraska down because the poll is over 2 yrs old; that was the only one.
However, while I've always assumed that an uncertainty is 1σ (as it is in everything I work with), some of the polls give the error and then say they have 95% confidence that the true values are within that range of the results. This suggests it's the margin for p=0.05. I've asked at the help desk, but if this is the case, then we can move more of the 'maybes' to absolute majority, and break some of the statistical ties. It was only a day before s.o. answered by last question, so hopefully we'll know soon. (Meanwhile, best to be cautious with our claims.) — kwami (talk) 06:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I uploaded a version assuming all errors are p values, so it would be in the article history in case you need it, then reverted. The map does look bluer, with ME, DE, and the Pacific states going dark blue and only AR (+ old NE) going red, but there's no difference in the ties. — kwami (talk) 06:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Okay. I think it's good that we got rid of dark gray. But umm.. How come some of the states with polls that aren't two years or older have question marks; specifically Oregon and Nevada..? Prcc27 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Oops, for Oregon I got confused with another poll. Nevada's because the margin of error slightly overlaps 50%. I suspect it's still a majority to 95% confidence, but I worked out the relevant numbers for standard deviations, not p-values. (Also, if the error were r

ounded off to 4%, like it is for DE, then we wouldn't worry about it, though it matters if the value is rounded off from closer to 54.5% or closer to 53.5%; that potentially changes Oregon as well.)

Take Delaware: The poll result might be 53.6%, and the error 4.4%. I'll fix Oregon for now, but we should probably revisit these marginal cases (also perhaps the Carolinas) after I confirm the margins we're allowed assuming all polls are based on p=0.05. — kwami (talk) 20:03, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I got rid of the grey by using older polls w published errors. We still might be able to update them. I left Hawaii in the chart only because the discrepancy is so great.
We should probably average all polls taken over the past year, rather than picking one that might turn out to be an outlier, but that would be a lot of work. — kwami (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Re. Texas, in WI 51% support SSM but 56% support recognizing SSM performed in other states.[2] Of course, that explicitly said 'in other states', which the Texas poll did not. — kwami (talk) 20:44, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow, look at the Utah and Louisiana polls I found. Found NE and SD too, but no surprises there. — kwami (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Pretty sure the Utah one is actually an old one; you might wanna check the other ones too. Prcc27 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Check the ref. It was January this year. — kwami (talk) 04:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Another Louisiana poll [3] Prcc27 (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

That's the one we had. But besides being older, it's completely incompatible. Since we have a couple refs now that LA is ~40%, I'm assuming it's an outlier. — kwami (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Added map to Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Presently_in_litigation. You might want to check for accuracy & completeness.

I thought most states had cases pending. Maybe we just don't cover many of them? — kwami (talk) 04:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Yeah, all but a few states... Also, here's the UT poll I was talking about.. Is it accurate..? [4] Prcc27 (talk) 04:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, but that's the other Utah poll we have in the table. They were polled in the same month, too.
As far as analyzing whether a poll is accurate, that's a bit beyond us, I think. We could use Nate Silver's evaluations, but unfortunately he hasn't been active recently. Also, many of these polls are by newspapers etc. that don't have much of a track record to evaluate. The smaller the sampling error, the larger the sample, and hopefully the larger (and thus more expensive) polls are done fairly well. The Utah and Hawaii polls have differences of 10%, which means there's something wrong, but I don't know how to decide between them. Louisiana, though, was a 20% change, from dead last to middling. Generally when you have a bunch of data that is consistent and one datum that's not, you can toss the outlier (though two polls isn't exactly 'a bunch'). We should keep an eye on all three to see how upcoming polls track them. — kwami (talk) 06:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Yeah, but the colors on Utah need to be flipped since the most recent poll shows opposition rather than a tie. Prcc27 (talk) 06:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

The polls were simultaneous, over the same week in January.
I've also gone by the idea of not making a strong claim unless it can be substantiated. How can we justify coloring Utah majority opposed, when we have a poll showing nominal majority support? The gold means it's indeterminate, which is the weaker claim and basically the situation we have when we consider both polls. So Hawaii for example is also gold, with a question mark in blue, NC is pink, w a ? in red. — kwami (talk) 06:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Wow. Now we've got Georgia going from dark red to light blue. Light blue is the objectively weaker claim, but it's not what you'd expect. It looks really weird blue with a red question mark. What if we split the state, half one color, half the other, giving neither prominence? — kwami (talk) 07:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: But shouldn't Georgia be beige..? It seems like it's within the margin of error. Prcc27 (talk) 10:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be, if the margin of (sampling) error were the standard deviation σ, but it appears to be the interval for 95% confidence, which is 1.96σ. So a difference of 1.65σ, for 95% confidence that the higher-polling opinion is actually higher, is just 0.842 of the sampling error, which in this case is a tad less than the 5% difference between support and oppose. Of course, all those numbers are rounded off; it would be nice to have them to 3 sig fig. BTW, I've posted these numbers at the humanities ref desk, and so far the only objection has been what we've already noticed with Georgia and Utah: a poll doesn't tell us all that much. I'm only working on accounting for the reported precision of the poll, but ignoring the fact that, precise or not, the results may not be very accurate.
If we had a large number of polls, it would be better to average them, but it's not very meaningful to average two divergent polls. — kwami (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I think the other California poll was actually more recent.. Prcc27 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not as precise a poll, and it's only by a couple months. I tried to only include polls within ±4%, or a minimum of 600 people. — kwami (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, found another Texas poll. It's older, but also surveyed a larger base, and AFAICT was not about recognizing marriages performed in another state, and still it came back with the same results, a statistical tie. So I feel better about having Texas gold. — kwami (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Kwamikagami:, sorry to bother you; I was just wondering if both polls for North Carolina should be pink. (Sorry, I don't fully understand how this works). --Prcc27 (talk) 04:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The numbers I used are listed in the legend of the map at Commons.
Think of it this way: The sampling error is the range that the true figure should fall within 95% of the time. That means that 2.5% of the time it will be greater than that range, and 2.5% of the time it will be lower. So, if a poll result is 55%, and the sampling error is ±5%, there's a 95% percent chance that the actual figure (in the real world) is in the ±5% range of 55%, or between 50% and 60%. But there's a 2.5% chance that it's above 60%, and only a 2.5% chance that it's below 50% – that is, we can be 97.5% confident that a polling result of 55% indicates a true majority. But if we're only demanding 95% confidence, we have a bit of leeway – we can still be 95% confident that we have a majority even if the poll result is somewhat lower than 55%. Now, how much less? I calculated that 95% confidence would follow if the poll result is 0.653 times the sampling error above 50%. (I'm not used to working with p-values like this, but I posted the numbers at the ref desk, and there weren't any objections.) Now, if we look at the second NC poll, it's 53 ± 3.6%. Since 0.653 times the error (3.6%) is 2.35%, we only need to be at 52.35% to be confident we have a majority. The figure of 53% is of course rounded off to two digits, so it could really have been anywhere from 52.5% to 53.5%, but even at 52.5% it's slightly more than we need. We could try to dig up the original poll results if we were concerned about it being too close to call, but it this case we don't need to.
That doesn't mean the majority of NC are opposed to SSM. The ±5% is only the sampling error, the likely error assuming they polled a perfectly random set of people. There are all sorts of potential non-sampling errors well. It only means that, if this was a perfect poll, with a random sample that perfectly reflected the proportions of the true range of opinions in NC, and there was no confounding influence, leading questions, priming, or other bias in the poll or afterwards, then we're just a tad better than 95% confident that the majority of NC are opposed to SSM. Of course, real polls are never that good. Usually only about 10% of people called agree to a telephone poll. Are they truly representative of the other 90%? Probably not. That alone means that we can't have 95% confidence in the results. That's why people like Nate Silver compare polls to voting records, weigh the pollsters against their performance, and consider as many polls as possible. If we had eight polls, with different wording and from different pollsters who all had a track record of getting these things right, and they all had results close to 53%, then we'd be very confident that the majority of NC opposes SSM. But with one or two polls of unknown reliability it's much more difficult to judge. — kwami (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Why does Alabama have a red question mark..? --Prcc27 (talk) 05:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I've read comments about AL having very low support, though I haven't found an actual poll. And where metastudies discuss polling coverage, it's the states of the upper Midwest that don't have any polling data, not AL. So I assume there's an old poll out there somewhere, and it almost certainly shows majority opposition. — kwami (talk) 07:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Should we add this misleading poll? Also, D.C. needs to be gray with a blue question mark (I don't know how that can be pulled off) and I'm leaning towards opposing having Alabama be a red question mark. --Prcc27 (talk) 01:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We can certainly take out AL. But I don't think we need to worry about blue states. Because support is steadily increasing, once a state polls support consistently, IMO it's just blue. — kwami (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Okay. Also, the most recent poll suggests that a majority of Americans are against same-sex marriage, but the polling sample seems to discredit it. Should it still be added to the by state chart to show how there were two (or three) different polls with different results. We could note how the most recent poll isn't that accurate in the sample size section. I should probably take this to the talk though... --Prcc27 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't know which poll you're speaking of. For the past few years polls have pretty consistently showed support. There are always outliers, of course. Though I wonder if the 59% support we show have isn't also an outlier. You can't get there by adding up recent state polls. — kwami (talk) 05:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: I put the poll on the talk. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: The map doesn't match the chart. Also, it looks like Oklahoma has a poll now. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll change the chart but I think Oklahoma needs be updated on the map. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I decided to change the chart back because I'm not sure if there's 95% confidence. --Prcc27 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Oklahoma was fine, but I didn't have access to software to select which parts of the map to revert. Thought I said s.t. in my edit summary. — kwami (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: As for the other states (SD & SC)... Could you explain how they were wrong..? I'm a little confused on that and don't know how to do the calculations. It looks like they're in the margin of error though. --Prcc27 (talk) 11:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Btw, now that I can edit the map (since it's text editable) I will change those states without messing with Oklahoma. --Prcc27 (talk) 11:10, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes, they're right at the margin. The figures should be in the file description. I'm on a new OS and don't know how to access the file. — kwami (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar![edit]

LGBT-Barnstar1.png The LGBT Barnstar
I also award you a barnstar for working to make Public opinion of same-sex marriage in the United States a better article through discussion and edits. Great work! =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:50, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gay sexual practices, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frottage (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) 08:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Idaho[edit]

So the gov who vows to appeal is named Butch Otter. I had to laugh. Do you think he's taking it personally? — kwami (talk) 04:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Oh my gosh, are you serious? Isn't Butch a lesbian term and Otter a gay term..? xD --Prcc27 (talk) 04:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Oh, that's even funnier! I didn't know about "otter". No wonder he's so upset! — kwami (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: And apparently he married someone named "Gay Simplot"..? I'm not sure if this is actually true (you can't always trust Wikipedia, you know?) --Prcc27 (talk) 05:39, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
It seems too good to be true, but apparently it is: [5]kwami (talk) 05:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
@Kwamikagami: Wow! :o --Prcc27 (talk) 23:24, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Cousins in Idaho[edit]

Done! File:CousinMarriageWorld.svg You may need to clear you cache (usually hitting ctrl-F5 while viewing the page) to see the change. Pardon us using your talk page Darlwik. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding modifying others comments[edit]

Hello, please don't modify other peoples messages as you did here [6] and here [7]. Thanks! Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Thegreyanomaly: I'll try not to. I'm doing some of my edits on a mobile device (this edit included). Prcc27 (talk) 20:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage status in the United States by state[edit]

Can you explain your reasoning for the recent changes you have made to this page? I really don't see how the new map helps the article at all. 67.215.140.115 (talk) 03:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@67.215.140.115: Since the article is mostly about same-sex marriage, I added a same-sex marriage map. But since it also talks about other unions, I decided to leave the map. --Prcc27 (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The state by state chart includes civil unions and domestic partnerships, so the appropriate map was on the page already - adding the second map is confusing, and doesn't add any information. Please revert to the previous version. 67.215.140.115 (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
@67.215.140.115: Since the article seems to actually be about same-sex unions in the U.S. by state rather then same-sex marriage, I feel like the name of the article should be changed first. You can change the name of the article and/or revert my last edit if you want... --Prcc27 (talk) 03:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the intrusion into this convo, but I am having the same concern. The community has rejected taking out CU/DPs from File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg. Trying to remove that map and replace it with your CU/DP-gutted map is undermining the consensus against you. Please stop, thanks. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 04:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Thegreyanomaly: The map isn't even on this article anymore because I realized that article touches on more than just marriage. Which is why I moved the page to what it was originally called. I don't remember there being consensus to not have a marriage map made but rather to not remove information from the partnerships map. --Prcc27 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
You made a marriage map and then you tried to replace the old map... You are undermining the consensus to leave all the information. Since you can't removing CU/DPs from the original map you are trying to replace the original map. This is evident by your edits at Same-sex marriage in New York and your active attempts to replace it at Talk:Same-sex marriage and Talk:Same-sex marriage in the United States. Please stop. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at LGBT rights in the United States. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I am placing this tag as you have inserted a map into the article that was not agreed upon via consensus and removed the map that was agreed upon. The agreed upon map File:Samesex marriage in USA.svg covers all the articles it is used in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: It was a bold edit. When the edit was challenged the map was removed from the respective pages. Furthermore, I didn't even remove the partnership map from the Lgbt rights u.s. article.
  • @Thegreyanomaly: Don't come on my talk page and accuse me of lying. I did add the the map to the US Lgbt page but did NOT remove the partnership map. Prcc27 (talk) 02:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Adding redundant maps that the consensus was against is not being bold, it is undermining consensus which you did at more than just this one page. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
    • @Thegreyanomaly: Cool, doesn't make me a liar though. Prcc27 (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
      • You did remove and replace the map here though: [8], adding the map to LGBT rights in the United States was also prob not the best idea without first addressing the talkpage. WP:BOLD means to do things that are not reckless, anyways I just want to say that going around consensus in any shape or form is never a good idea here on Wikipedia unless you explain what and why you are doing what you are doing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

MSM blood donor controversy[edit]

Prcc27, I wrote "per 3/4 participants", not "votes". However, I can see how anyone would take that as meaning the decision was based on majority. My bad.

There was unanimity that MSM blood donor controversy was not desirable. Gay male blood donor controversy was the only alternative on offer. You've since offered Men who have sex with men blood donor controversy, which would appear to me to fit with what others would support.

Can I suggest you move it to that title and leave a note on the current talk page (not the archive)?

Thanks, --Tóraí (talk) 20:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Tóraí: I tried to move the page, but it said the title was on the title blacklist. --Prcc27 (talk) 02:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Done now. If that title isn't good to all then I suggest another RM. --Tóraí (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

RFA[edit]

Not much gets by without someone noticing... If I may, let me offer some unsolicited advice: Not now. I haven't seen a candidate even get close with less than 5000 contribs, they almost always end within an hour or two via WP:NOTNOW. Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship is worth a read. It looks like you might be on the right path, but it is just too soon for most of the community to trust you yet. Age and experience work against you, but fortunately, both of those are easily solved with time and by doing things. Dennis Brown |  | WER 20:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd suggest holding off too. In particular, <250 talk page edits would be seen as a sign of not enough experience at interacting with other users.
I also think you're on a good path. A kicking now in RfA (and RfA is always a kicking!) isn't what you need. It could also spoil a future RfA because some editors would interpret an unsuccessful early RfA as a sign of power hunger, etc.
So, my advice is also to take heed of WP:NOTNOW. Bring more articles up to spec, get involved in discussions, keep your cool, get more experience under your belt, and if things continue as they are now, you can expect my !vote in a year or two.
(And if you want me to delete your current RfA page while it is still untouched by others - to give you a fresh run next time around - I'll do that. Just let me know.) --Tóraí (talk) 21:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
@Tóraí: Thank you, I'd appreciate it if you deleted my current RfA. Prcc27 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
I wandered back and saw the note, so just went ahead and deleted it for you. Dennis Brown |  | WER 23:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Gay blood donation listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gay blood donation. Since you had some involvement with the Gay blood donation redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - MrX 21:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

One of those maps you wanted[edit]

I was tired of seeing the CU/DP map as a PNG all over the place. I map an SVG map and uploaded it at File:Same-sex unions in the United States.svg. I have a lot of work to do, so I'll let you replace the PNG map. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Men's rights movement probation notice[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Bbb23 (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
For a good job in the articles about LGBT topics. Миша Карелин (talk) 20:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

About Pele' article[edit]

Dear user, I dont know you like European footbal or no, but there is a question about famous footbaler Pele's article. About his confesion to had a gay sex. The discussing is here [9]. Please take part if you can. M.Karelin (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Same-sex marriage in Texas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orlando Garcia. 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) 08:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Same-sex marriage in the Fourth Circuit may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • A ruling striking down [[Same-sex marriage in Virginia|Virginia]]'s same-sex marriage ban]] goes into effect August 18, 2014.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Template:Samesex marriage in USA map shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You're well over the limit here. Please stop edit warring and take your concerns to the talk page. Artichoker[talk] 06:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

@Artichoker: Calm down! All I did was switch "performed" and "recognized" around so they were in alphabetic order... Prcc★27 (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
(I did accidentally remove a "<" though, but that was an accident). Prcc★27 (talk) 06:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
(ec) Sorry, I saw on my notifications that you had reverted my edit and your edit had broken mark-up. However I can agree that your last edit wasn't necessarily a revert of the central issue. I have restored the alphabetical ordering. Artichoker[talk] 06:26, 9 August 2014 (UTC)