User talk:Politoed89

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

just so you know, i have a habit of not responding to talk page messages. if i don't respond to yours, i probably did read it, but i just don't have anything to say in response. just keep that in mind. now talk away :3

Hello, Politoed89, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! SwisterTwister talk 19:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Hi![edit]

Teahouse logo
Hello! Politoed89, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse, an awesome place to meet people, ask questions, and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of best-selling singles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sia (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) 11:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Contradicting sources[edit]

I check that the sources used in the article support the information in the article. If you have a better, more recent source, then make your change and point at that better, more recent source. Never insert a figure into an article that contradicts the source used in the article.—Kww(talk) 18:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

OK hold on, I see the issue here; somebody sourced it to the article rather than the traditional route of sourcing the chart history. Whatever, this is a more recent source so yeah. Also, no need for the italics, jeez, it's not that big of a deal. Politoed89 (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Most of the reversions you see today are because User:Anthony77600 has been evading his block. He was, however blocked because he constantly made changes to articles that made made them disagree with the sources. As a general rule, it is extremely harmful and disruptive to change articles to mismatch with their sources. They quickly degenerate into piles of unverified assertions. I usually give stable IPs and registered accounts polite warnings about it. I block registered accounts that continue to do it after warnings. The person responsible for pointing to an accurate and matching source is the person making the change. It's not for anyone else to clean up after.—Kww(talk) 22:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Because it isn't "inaccurate" to be two days behind, and most of these problems occur because of people updating charts based on advance news flashes before the charts have officially updated. Is swisscharts.com "wrong" because it updates on Mondays and the chart is is based on is released on Friday afternoon? These things can't be verified. This week, for example, numerous editors updated "Stay" by Rihanna to claim it was number 37 on the Canadian Hot 100. That turned out to be true: when the site updated on Thursday, it included the position, but when they made the updates, the site showed "58". How is anyone supposed to determine that it's a "future update" as opposed to simple vandalism? It's certainly everyone's job to make sure things stay consistent, but the first and most important task is to make it clear that making it inconsistent is a problem. An editor like Anthony77600, for example, can easily corrupt thousands of articles a day. It's best to leave the updating to people that will do it properly. If the source hasn't updated, the figure should be left alone or the figure should be changed.—Kww(talk) 22:46, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of best-selling singles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fergie (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) 13:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2000, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Try Again (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) 11:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of best-selling singles, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (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) 10:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Whoops![edit]

Sorry about that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Billboard charts[edit]

Hi there,

Thank you for updating the peaks of all the US charts as it saves myself doing it! However, please could you update the accessdate if it's present. It used to be the Thursday date but now it's the Tuesday date every week, unless it's in the Chart Highlights section the day before then it's the Monday date.

Thank you! Ellis.o22 (talk) 23:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Climatology edits[edit]

No, I am a data-oriented professional and am well-oriented with NCDC-sourced data. The explanations, especially the later ones, I have generally written in {{efn|}} adjacent to "1981–2010 normals", should have left little doubt as to what the two additional fields was measuring.

  1. "Location" -- Choose station
  2. "Product" -- Choose "Monthly summarized data"
  3. "Options"
    1. Year range: 1981–2010 in the two boxes.
    2. Variable: "Max temp" and "Min temp".

What appears as "Mean maximum" is 'what one can expect the highest temperature reading at any one point during an entire month or year', NOT 'what one can expect the monthly arithmetic mean of the highest temperature readings each day', which is "Average high".

Unless you are willing to replicate these calculations, the results of which are published by some NWS offices and local media outlets, and point out errors in copying/pasting, etc, please do not expend any more time here. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Except I looked at that, and it still contradicted your edits. :S And keep the condescension to yourself, please.
OK, hold on, I'll check. Wait, I see the issue. The thing that says "Mean" down there is the mean of the highest temperatures of the month. As in, they added together the highest temperature readings of the month of each year, then divided. That's the mean maximum temperature for the month, not the mean daily temperature.
And actually, I can use anecdotal evidence here too. I live in Washington DC, and it gets to 97 degrees maybe twice a month at most. It makes no sense whatsoever that the average would be that.
And that's great that you're a data-oriented professional, but it doesn't mean you can't make mistakes sometimes, so I don't know why you felt the need to tell me that. poli 23:10, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, avg(monthly ceiling(tmax)) across the 30-year period 1981–2010, not avg(avg(daily tmax)). ← Anyone with a mathy background would understand that.
I quote myself: "Unless you are willing to replicate these calculations...and point out errors in copying/pasting" (more like 'miscalculations resulting from copy/paste errors'). Hardly pretending to be error-free, and to the contrary in fact.
You: "I live in Washington, DC and it gets to 97 degrees [Fahrenheit] maybe twice a month at most". Did you live thru July 2012 in the region? Reached 97F eleven times that month at Reagan National, seven even at cold-ass Dulles, and 9 at BWI.
Facts are facts, and I'll leave it at that and its political implications (I share many of Thomas Jefferson's sentiments and as he was a polymath he happens to be one of the historical figures I admire most). And to mirror Obama, who I think is a corrupt (if not lying), naive warmonger, "rape is rape". CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 18:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Politoed89. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)