User talk:Spartan7W
READ THIS FIRST: To Address Any Questions
The WikiProject United States Presidents has fallen dormant, and I believe it is an important topic to ensure the quality and richness of its content. I am taking an initiative to bring life back to the project, and work on improving the articles therein concerned.
If you have questions about my "series boxes", I understand. Please read this before posting below
Spartan7W § 05:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
November 2015
Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Talk:Bobby Jindal without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I have restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TJRC (talk) 05:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Signpost exit poll
Dear Wikipedian, you recently voted in the ArbCom election. Your username, along with around 155 other usernames of your fellow Wikipedians, was randomly selected from the 2000+ Wikipedians who voted this year, with the help of one of the election-commissioners. If you are willing, could you please participate (at your option either on-wiki via userspace or off-wiki via email) in an exit poll, and answer some questions about how you decided amongst the ArbCom candidates?
If you decide to participate in this exit poll, the statistical results will be published in the Signpost, an online newspaper with over 1000 Wikipedians among the readership. There are about twelve questions, which have alphanumerical answers; it should take you a few minutes to complete the exit poll questionnaire, and will help improve Wikipedia by giving future candidates information about what you think is important. This is only an unofficial survey, and will have no impact on your actual vote during this election, nor in any future election.
All questions are individually optional, and this entire exit poll itself is also entirely optional, though if you choose not to participate, I would appreciate a brief reply indicating why you decided not to take part (see Question Zero). Thanks for being a Wikipedian
The questionnaire
Dear Wikipedian, please fill out these questions -- at your option via usertalk or via email, see Detailed Instructions at the end of the twelve questions -- by putting the appropriate answer in the blanks provided. If you decide not to answer a question (all questions are optional), please put the reason down: "undecided" / "private information" / "prefer not to answer" / "question is not well-posed" / "other: please specify". Although the Signpost cannot guarantee that complex answers can be processed for publication, it will help us improve future exit polls, if you give us comments about why you could not answer specific questions.
quick and easy exit poll , estimated time required: 4 minutes
|
|---|
|
|
Detailed Instructions: you are welcome to answer these questions via usertalk (easiest), or via email (for a modicum of privacy).
how to submit your answers , estimated time required: 2 minutes
|
|---|
Processing of responses will be performed in batches of ten, prior to publication in the Signpost. GamerPro64 will be processing the email-based answers, and will strive to maintain the privacy of your answers (as well as your email address and the associated IP address typically found in the email-headers), though of course as a volunteer effort, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will have a system free from computer virii, we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will resist hypothetical bribes offered by the KGB/NSA/MI6 to reveal your secrets, and we cannot legally guarantee that GamerPro64 will make no mistakes. If you choose to answer on-wiki, your answers will be visible to other Wikipedians. If you choose to answer via email, your answers will be sent unencrypted over the internet, and we will do our best to protect your privacy, but unencrypted email is inherently an improper mechanism for doing so. Sorry! :-) |
We do promise to try hard, not to make any mistakes, in the processing and presentation of your answers. If you have any questions or concerns, you may contact column-editor GamerPro64, copy-editor 75.108.94.227, or copy-editor Ryk72. Thanks for reading, and thanks for helping Wikipedia. Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:25, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
PS
Re your comment (and effort) on Peter Sellers: if you can't think of a decent bio without infobox, you can look at Sibelius and Mozart (with open discussions), at most other classical composers (the exceptions being Handel, Beethoven and Bach, in the order of acceptance) or at any personality still marked red from this list. I share your view, but it's dangerous ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt: I like to fire shots across the bow. In any event I'm willing to make the case that they need them and their lack of them is harmful. Spartan7W § 14:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sibelius then, 150 years yesterday, 20k+ hits that day. - DYK that you are a member of the cabal of the outcasts by what you do? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Seems like a group within my scope! Composers do seem to have fewer info boxes, which is unfortunate, but for Peter Sellers at least very few actors don't. Even if you don't want an Infobox the collapsing thing is stupid. Spartan7W § 14:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
RfC
Since you are a partcipant of WikiProjects Airports, your inputs could be useful here. Pathmaraman (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
US presidential election title cards added 1 Feb 2016
Hi there, I'm curious about the title cards you've been adding to the U.S. presidential election pages. What's up with those? They kind of stand out, and don't seem to have analogues on other national election pages. Bir oqughuchi (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I also have concern that these are unnecessary and only cause distraction away from the page content AvRand (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Bir oqughuchi: @Avrand6: Their purpose is to provide a stylistic/thematic element to election pages to brighten them up a tad from textual and somewhat monotonous appearance they have. When compared to almost all ohter global high-traffic websites, Wikipedia could be described as having an outdated or otherwise uninspired bland appearance. These simply take an area of redundant text, the repetition of the article title above the infobox, and replace them with a titlecard that gives a them and a bit of 'life', while remaining uniform between pages. For the main election pages, these titlecards use the same three colors which the election's series sidebar box use. For the GOP and DNC specific primary pages, they use base colors common on each party's internet and social media materials to better reflect the respective party. This way, the reader is given a more visually appealing, and through use of colors, subtle feel for what each page may contain. These titlecards don't have any images, aside from perhaps a few stars, and do not take up a terrible amount of room. On the desktop format they are to the side, and are well within the overall width of the infobox. On the mobile format, they are right atop the page, are centered, and are only one finger's scroll from vanishing from view.
- Essentially, my interest in remodeling and updating the election pages is to make them more effective in relaying information, more visually appealing for a general viewer accustomed to logos, themes, style, etc. throughout the modern world of websites, and giving a general uniformity among the pages by doing so. I understand that this is another of my highly WP:BOLD iterations for the election pages, but I believe it is a good and harmless move. Many millions of people are going to be flooding to Wikipedia over the course of the next hours, and the year ahead. These people have grown used to websites with some color, which a great array of aesthetic features, regardless of that site's purpose. Here, we are in some ways outdated; some of it is overlooked because of Wikipedia' encyclopedic nature, and that must stay, and people will understand. But in this case, it is a good balance by providing our reader with the same content in a more contemporary and aesthetically pleasing manner. By including no features which are subjective in any way, I believe these titlecards do have that aesthetic appeal while remaining strictly neutral, and minimal. If the reader sees these, and how the uniform theme follows throughout other pages, they will only see them for a few seconds, but it will subliminally link the general arc of information through this stylistic element. The reader comes here to find out information and learn. If this were an article on the economic theory of the consumption function, and I were to insert an image of a beautiful female nude it would be very distracting for men, and of a male nude, for women. That is a distraction. People aren't going to forget about what they came to look for because of a simple titlecard. Spartan7W § 14:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a graphic design site. The infobox itself provides all the information necessary about the election without an unnecessary graphic pushing it down. It actually impedes readability... on any screen size under 1000 pixels tall, viewers don't get to see the electoral map without scrolling down and just see your image. Also, if they are kept for some reason, please make them cleaner... three different fonts in three lines of text is jarring to the eye and doesn't flow well. 2601:600:8500:1F90:74B7:CA71:2611:3EF (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, all. I think the problem is that to some, the title cards are not seen as aesthetically pleasing, and instead distract from the layout of the page. People who use Wikipedia any more often than "very infrequently" will probably remember the standard layout of many, many pages, with main intro text on the left and an infobox to the right. Here, for no particular reason, there is a different layout. Bir oqughuchi (talk) 01:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Iowa
There are a lot of sources that say the same thing and some that say something different. We just have to agree to which source has the most accurate delegate count. 2605:6000:54C2:1F00:9DDA:55A:2BDF:81FC (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Iowa numbers
Hello. According to the published rules of the Iowa GOP (Article VIII of their bylaws), the top three breakdown is 7-7-6, not 8-7-7. As you'd notice, if you add up the numbers with 8-7-7, you come to 29, and there are only 27 to go around. If you want to discuss further, I'd invite you to chip in at Talk:United_States_presidential_election_in_Iowa,_2016#Delegate_rounding rather than here. 86.3.110.34 (talk) 01:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- That is not true. This is your original research, not based by any reputable source. Also, a 6,200 vote spread wouldn't yield the same delegates between outright winner and 2nd, although close 2nd 3rd would. Spartan7W § 01:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, it isn't original research. Clearly we consider The Green Papers to be sufficiently reputable to be name-checked in the comments in the article itself, and they have 7-7-6, which they've calculated according to the official rules rather than estimating. The raw numbers are 7.46 for Cruz and 6.56 for Trump, which last I checked both round to 7. If you think they've added up wrong, feel free to explain why on the talk page I've linked. 86.3.110.34 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't see why this is the only source. The New York Times, FOX News, Google, Washington Post, other have what is presently on the page. Maybe this site is wrong. Spartan7W § 01:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, it isn't original research. Clearly we consider The Green Papers to be sufficiently reputable to be name-checked in the comments in the article itself, and they have 7-7-6, which they've calculated according to the official rules rather than estimating. The raw numbers are 7.46 for Cruz and 6.56 for Trump, which last I checked both round to 7. If you think they've added up wrong, feel free to explain why on the talk page I've linked. 86.3.110.34 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The U.S states maps and colors of the maps (Presidential primaries election,2016)
Hello dear Spartan7W. I just realized that you are using different colors in state maps for showing candidates status. I wasn't sure about the colors that we are using so I used the same colors that are indicating in this map and this for candidates. So are we going to use the colors that you indicating in article:United States presidential election in Iowa, 2016 ? I just updated my previous maps based on the colors that you like to candidates have in wiki articles.
In addition, I had already created two separate state map categorizes for each democratic and republican primary candidates. I worked on these files (states maps) and tried to make their size (KB) of them as low as possible so they can be loaded easier and faster on browsers. One of the problems that I found with your Iowa maps is that their size are much more compared to the state maps that I've worked on. For example, this Iowa map that you have uploaded has the size of 602 KB. The size of your map is 20 times more than the Iowa map that was supposed to be used on article. The next problem with your Iowa map is that it is not actually SVG (vector) because the pixels will be visible when you zoom on them. Please make sure to use the maps in these two categories[1][2] because of the reasons I mentioned. Thank you! Ali Zifan 04:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The colors I have used are ones used now on the primaries articles and templates. I determined them for good contrast and general visual effect, and they seem to work well. If you wish to make maps, that's fine, just lets keep colors consistent. Those polling maps do not have colors chosen to account for 12 possible candidates. Mit as well use these new ones . Spartan7W § 04:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Can you lighten up Cruz's color some more? It's almost identical on a map to the "tie" result, and is dark just like Trump's. Techgeekxp (talk) 14:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- I will lighten up the tie color, which doesn't need to be that dark. Spartan7W § 14:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Iowa pledged delegates are 30 not 27
so i have been doing some research and as you know each state gets 3 party votes but apparently those 3 votes are not unpledged in all states .. some of the states actually have them pledged and among those states is Iiowa so right now the allocation should be for 30 delegates and not 27 but here is where it gets tricky .. we have no source to confirm the fate of delegates awarded to candidates who dropped out of the race .. so i think we should find out what happens to those delegates then recalculate the whole thing with 30 delegates in play .. if you have any source to confirm the fate or dropping candidates delegates kindly share it and you can check this out http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R-PU.phtml .. you can see the states that actually has unpledged delegates and Iowa is not among them .. am not the biggest fan of this site but they are the only site dedicated to this whole election and they keep changing and updating their calculations and lets not forget about this official allocation http://www.iowagop.org/2016/02/03/release-iowa-gop-certified-caucus-results/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhMeD BoSS (talk • contribs) 16:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Wall Street Journal, for instance, indicates Kasich and Fiorina with delegates, and Paul now gone. http://graphics.wsj.com/elections/2016/iowa-caucus-results/ Spartan7W § 16:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
check this out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Delegate_counts_for_suspended_candidates .. i think we should re-calculate the whole thing awarding 30 delegates in total and cancelling out the votes for Paul, Santorum and Huckabee — Preceding unsigned comment added by AhMeD BoSS (talk • contribs)