User talk:Μαρκος Δ
- 1 Polling graphs
- 2 Disambiguation link notification for March 16
- 3 Podemos - United Left merger?
- 4 Cristina Kirchner
- 5 Inadmissible accusation
- 6 User:Cambalachero
- 7 Disambiguation link notification for September 1
- 8 ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
- 9 Left Party (France)
- 10 Composition bar
- 11 Nomination of Brazilian general election, 2018 for deletion
- 12 RfC on the type of treemap
- 13 Disambiguation link notification for March 10
- 14 Maltese general election, 2017
- 15 Norwegian parliamentary election, 2017
- 16 ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Well, I must thank you all for praising my work so far, but I don't consider it nothing special. :)
Anyway, I don't care that much to tell about how I make the graphs. I do them through Excel by using a series of different formulas whose purpose is to work as some kind of moving average, but showing much more smoothed and streamlined trends than what would result from using a pure moving average method. While I don't consider it being a secret so as to not tell anyone, however, I do recognize that I'm probably the only one who does fully understand the rationale of the system I use. Not only that, but mine's only one out of many ways to represent an opinion polling graph. That said, I'm afraid to tell anyone about how it fully works out of fear they may try to do their own without fulling understanding it, resulting in screwed graphs. I believe that if other people want to do a polling graph of their own, it'd better for them to design and discover a system of their own which they can, later on, fully handle.
That said, I don't have any problem with making as many graphs as people ask me to do. I'll have one for the next Norwegian election ready within a couple hours at most. Cheers! Impru20 (talk) 11:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Next Brazilian general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Congress. 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.
Podemos - United Left merger?
If you check the sources, you'll see those are opinion polls showing data specifically for a hypotetical Podemos+IU scenario, thus showing data for a joint list of those two parties. Even if those have not merged yet, that doesn't prevent pollsters from asking on such an scenario. I've not merged anything. I think that counts as a good reason. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. One of the main problems of your draft is the use of the word "alleged" to describe the cult of personality and the attacks against the press. Perhaps you suspect that the Kirchners deny it, and that we are neglecting their point of view on the matter. Far from it. The supporters of the Kirchners are proud of their blind loyalty to their leaders, and give themselves fancy names like "soldiers of Cristina" or "lads for the liberation". The only difference between supporters and critics is whether that loyalty is a defect or a virtue, and whether to embrace those fancy names or address this people with impartiality. Similarily, they do not conceal or deny at all their attacks against the press, they think that they are well justified, because of a number of conspiracy theories. Note as well that, regardless of the way the BBC organizes the info of their news articles, our article should be focused on CFK' cult of personality, not that of Eva Perón, which should be described elsewhere. Cambalachero (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
This. That it is easier to read in that way is YOUR opinion. You've no authority role over others, so I'll not stand by your accusation. I see no difference from a reading viewpoint, yet using a "center" align style clearly distorts the table, as makes comparison more weird (specially for polls having a decimal to other having none). I've not accused you of anything nor have I been unpolite to you. I could very well say it is YOU the one acting as if this had to be done your way. You've not even considered to discuss anything before making your accusation. I edit whatever I see fit under WP:BOLD, and that doesn't mean I own anything. Impru20 (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- I could say the exact same thing for you. I made an edit and explained it, while you failed to come up with a single argument against – and just plainly reverted it. While it's clear that you took my "ownership" accusation personally – for that, I'm sorry – I was referring to a previous edit war we've been through on the French polling page, where you also repeatedly altered the layout of the table to suit what appears to be your preferred layout. Hence my accusation. Though like I said, I take it back as it was needlessly blunt. I stand by my point that the new version is easier to read, and unless you have major objections, and a better argument than "it makes comparison more weird", I'll change it back. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- What did you explain? You just say that it can be better read that way. On which basis? I just reverted it saying it isn't. Btw, you did not explain anything in the Next Irish general election article, and the first serious response I have from you is you outrightly insulting me, accusing me of ownership.
- In the French polling page I was just being WP:BOLD. Being bold just doesn't justify accusing another guy of "ownership", because I could very accuse you of trying to impose your preferred layout with the center aligned text. And as you may see, I did not use that argument right away as you did. "My preferred layout" is the layout being used most extensively in several opinion polling articles, and it is taken from Canadian election articles, where it has been used uninterruptedly for years now, with so far good results. In the French case I did not press the case further because I understood than the French specific case with opinion polls (which can't be compared to other countries due to poll numbers publication issues) was special and could justify for it. But I don't see any of it here. Instead, I see you making opinion-based changes and outrighly attacking others who revert you (revertions which "could" mean that the issue should need discussion because someone doesn't agree with you).
- Yes, I have major objections. You can't raise any argument supporting that it is more easily read that way, and I could just use a similar case than you do by saying that I disagree with it. For the German specific case, it makes comparison between opinion polls more difficult (as I took care to explain you above; you seem to have ignored it) as some polls use decimals and others don't. Having those with a centered aligned text makes numbers to be in different places between polls, breaking any armony that could be accomplished with the previous version. So, unless you can prove that it is factually better for it to be read that way, I'll just have to consider that it is just your opinion and not a proven fact, and thus, mildly ask you to revert it.
- Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
- Had you stated a reason right away, as one is supposed to, we would have avoided the edit-warring altogether. One could even argue that it wouldn't be necessary to have to argue for the minor edit that is aligning the data to the center (unless there is a discussion on it, as there is now), as very few users would find it objectable at all. Hence no explanation on the Irish article. When you simply revert an edit to a table to which you are the major/main contributor, without an explanation, it gives off vibes along the lines of "no, this is mine, don't edit it" – especially when you've been a diehard pusher of the same layout on other pages. Anyway, it's not a big issue to me, I'd simply have preferred it if you would've explained your view rather than saying "it looks worse", when I've already come up with a reason for my own change. But since you have, as you say, major objections, I'll therefore leave it be. As for my "attack" on you, I already apologized. Twice. Do you want me to say it again? Μαρκος Δ (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Cambalachero and Jetstreamer are very biased editors favoring their opinions over facts. I personally don't have the time/energy to constantly police them. I don't think there is any recourse, but if you find one, let me know! Sushilover2000 (talk) 22:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- The dispute was resolved some time ago, luckily; I managed to get some outside help in the end. But thanks for the response. :) Μαρκος Δ (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Muslim female political leaders, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Justice and Development Party and Republican People's Party. 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.
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
The infobox already contains fields that are specific to both the Infobox political party and the Infobox French political party. If it is kept as a general political party then all of the parameters EPseats, RCseats, SENseats and NAseats are lost. What do you feel is lost by changing it to the Infobox French political party?Naraht (talk) 15:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello Markos. You'll have seen I reverted your addition of the composition bar to a few election results tables as I really don't think it's suitable for these, and I think if you really want to make this change, you need a centralised consensus at WP:E&R. However, I saw in a few places you had added it to the infobox instead – I don't think this is such a bad idea, so perhaps you could do that instead? Cheers, Number 57 22:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Nomination of Brazilian general election, 2018 for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Brazilian general election, 2018 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/Brazilian general election, 2018 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. Holy Goo (talk) 14:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
RfC on the type of treemap
Hello Μαρκος Δ. There is a discussion going on about using which type of treemap for 2016 United States presidential election in each state articles. Please join the discussion, so the dispute can be resolved. Thank you. Ali 03:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islam in Greece, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golden Dawn. 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.
Maltese general election, 2017
I've noticed that you were the one who has reverted my most recent change to the wiki page on the latest Maltese general election. Just curious, but could you perhaps explain (and/or possible show) to me how you would improve that 'Results' table (e.g., What new columns, footnotes, or sources would you would add to it?)?
Thank you and I await your response.
- Yes, of course, KLO2015. I'll get back to you later today when I have time. :) — Μαρκος Δ 05:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Norwegian parliamentary election, 2017
German: Wieso sollen die beiden Blöcke nicht aufgenommen werden das werden sie in den Umfragegrafiken und -seiten doch auch?
English: Why the two blocks are not to be included in the survey graphics and pages but also?
- Hey. We have already established that on the talk page. The two blocs have effectively broken up. The Ap+Sp+SV coalition broke down about two years after their defeat in 2013, with SV formally leaving the cooperation in January 2016. This year, they announced a series of ultimatums to Ap and Sp, that would need to be met if they were to run a joint campaign. They were not met, and the three parties ran separately, and were not a clear government alternative. Thus, placing the three of them together would be like placing SPD, GRÛNE and LINKE together, even though everybody knows they are not going to form a coalition together.
- When it comes to the government parties, it was made clear that the Christian Democrats would not necessarily promise to support the H+FrP coalition for another term. Indeed, the Christian Democrats and the Liberals have now joined the opposition parties, but passively allow H+FrP to govern. Therefore, with 2/4 center-right parties in the opposition, and the other 2 in government, it makes equally little sense to include them in the same bloc.
- That being said, most newspapers tend to group the parties together in a center-left and a center-right coalition for the sake of simplicity, which is where you might have seen the two "blocs" grouped together like that. But that's actually a little misleading, considering one of the most widely expected outcomes of the 2017 election was an Ap+Sp+KrF coalition, breaking that bipartisan bloc model completely. — Μαρκος Δ 12:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)