User talk:Perpetualization

Welcome!

Hello, Perpetualization, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  IZAK 11:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Lewis Libby. Even if one assumes that you were editing "in good faith" and that your deletions were not the product of Wikipedia:Vandalism, you still do need to be more careful and responsible in your editing. Please read talk pages and post on them before making such changes. If you are new to editing a controversial article, you need to follow policies and guidelines tagged on its talk page. Thank you. (Please do not reply to this on my personal talk page. Please make your comments in the section that you added in Talk:Lewis Libby. Thanks again.) --NYScholar 23:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Perpetualization. I'm happy to see you contributing to the charts in the polling section. I have one minor suggestion for improvement: I think, for each poll, the data should add up to 100% so as to not under-represent the number of undecided voters and voters currently favoring "other" candidates. In my charts summarizing poll data for GOP candidates, I've tracked the four major Republicans, and I see you've added Huckabee, which is great (particularly in Iowa), but I think the Undecided category could be improved by including "Other" candidates and calling the combined category "Undecided/Other" or by adding an "Other" category so that each poll adds up to 100%. Keep up the great work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robapalooza (talk • contribs) 18:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I noticed that you were upset that I uploaded a different version of this picture. Might I suggest that you change the way your format the graph to make it more informative? I think that using a moving average rather than a linear regression best represents the information you intend to convey. For example, in this picture specifically, Fred Thompson's polling numbers rise significantly just after he announces his candidacy officially, then fall in the subsequent months. A linear regression does not show this trend well; a moving average does. Let me know what you think.

Cheers,

Acegikmo1 (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Perpetualization,

What you say makes a lot of sense. Leaving the previous six months graphs as they are but changing the graphs convering more time is probably the best way to convey the information. If you intend to do this, you have my support and appreciation. Let me know.

Sincerely,

Acegikmo1 (talk) 06:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the charts in the wiki GOP 2008 Presidential Polling page, I have been using OpenOffice.org Calc to create charts, which is a free download (Calc is a comparable program to Microsoft Office Excel). What software do you use for charts? If what you're using is compatible with MS Excel, perhaps I can get you to email a copy to me, so I can use the same format. Generally speaking, again, thank you for helping with the graphing duties. Perhaps, if the stars align, we can coordinate our style. I definitely appreciate what you mean by the time it takes to do charts.--Robapalooza (talk) 04:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my reasoning for reverting that part of WP:NOT#STATS in my nomination for deletion of the pages mentioned. I assume you have read this as you are a contributor to the deletion debate. To restate my point, the original change was made a couple of months ago without discussion, I felt it contradicted the point of the policy and did not reflect consensus.

Here are some examples of how the information within the articles may be confusing, misleading or without sufficient context (although I do neccessary think that these are the reasons for deletion)

• There is no indication of the sample size for each poll
• There is no indication of the data collection techniques for each poll
• There is no indication of who was included in the sample and how or why they were chosen
• There is no indication of the margin of error for each poll
• There is no indication of the purpose of each poll
• There is no indication of all the options available as responses to each poll
• There is no indication of he question(s) posed by each poll
• There is no critical analysis of the sampling techniques, questions, etc. for each poll
• There is no indication of the ongoing political events at the time of each poll
• There is no information on the organisations carrying out each poll and whatever bias they may or may not have

Wikipedia is not a list of statistics, a link repository, a directory, or a news service. Statistics can be both useful (links to essay) and addictive but that doesn't mean they belong in an encyclopaedia. [[Guest9999 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)]][reply]

I would be happy for you to use any of the points I made to try and improve any aspect of Wikipedia. Regards, [[Guest9999 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Your latest GOP map is excellent. The new shading adds meaning and, I think, in one image, you neatly summarize the wide-open state of affairs in the GOP race. Therefore, as a small "thank you," I'm giving you a Graphic Designer's Barnstar. I don't know if I'm "qualified" to give you one, but I did anyway. Someone was nice enough to give me one not long ago for my work in these 2008 election-related articles. As you know, we do this out of a labor of love, and I think it's good to get a pat on the back every once in a while. (I can't tell you how amazed I was that these articles were nominated for deletion, and I'm glad to see that flap has died down.)--Robapalooza (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know I'm proposing restoring this section - see my reasoning and proposed wording for the section on the talk page. Look forward to hearing your thoughts. --Zeborah (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read up on these two subjects before you do any more editing. See Help:Minor edit and Help:Edit summary. You haven't been using the minor edit checkbox correctly, and you should enter an edit summary comment for all edits that aren't on Talk pages. Thanks. RedSpruce (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its the Cookie Monster (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Please review our policy on biographical material about living people. Your recent edits to Elizabeth Warren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) violate that policy. Contentious, negative material about a living person - for instance, accusing them of committing a crime - requires high-quality independent, reliable sourcing. It is not appropriate to allege criminal activity by quoting a blog as your source (see WP:BLPSPS). That remains true even if the blogger's speculation has been uncritically repeated on a partisan third-party website (see WP:BLPGOSSIP). MastCell ^Talk 17:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you vandalize a page, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Bearian (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to understand the reasons for this warning and feel that it was given incorrectly or in error. I do not meet the qualifications for it as described on the template page. I have posted on Bearian's talk page. Perpetualization (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing an attorney of being disbarred is about as defamatory a statement as one can make, short of child molestation or murder. Common decency and our rules dictate very strong proof before such a statement is made. If you had not been warned before, and were a noob, then I could give you some slack. Bearian (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is an utterly false statement and this is quite frankly an abuse of your moderator powers. I did not accuse an attorney of being disbarred. Elizabeth Warren stated that she is not a registered member of the New York bar. I introduced a section in an article describing a recent controversy where there was some discussion about whether or not her practice of law was illegal given the fact that she was not a member of the bar. Disbarment was never an issue as all parties to the controversy agreed on her membership status. Additionally, I have not been warned before. Perpetualization (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You got so many of your facts wrong, that I can't begin to respond. I am sorry you feel that way. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take the time to actually respond to what I'm saying, as is required of you as a sysop? I never made a statement of disbarment. You have falsely claimed that I made such a statement. Perpetualization (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I admit that I over-reacted to this edit, and will change that to a 1st warning, but I emphasize that you made a BLP violation. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with the page Elizabeth Warren on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Men's Rights". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 15:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not blank pages, as you did to Female privilege, whatever the reason. Somebody will come to Wikipedia, find a blank page and wonder what on earth is going on. If an article is a duplicate of another, then redirect it. If you feel that an article doesn't belong on Wikipedia, then look at the deletion policy. If it indeed meets the criteria for deletion in your judgement, then nominate it as appropriate. Thank you. — Smjg (talk) 07:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, per MOS:HEAD, please do not link section headings. Instead, please include a link in the body of the section, or a {{main}} template immediately after the section heading. In addition, the page you linked to (female privilege) is a redirect to the men's rights movement page itself. As a possibly helpful suggestion, you can check links for redirects by installing popups or a similar navigation tool. They're quite handy, and allow the automation of a lot of minor, tedious tasks. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your last message on my user page contained nothing I wish to pursue, so I deleted the discussion. For example, you referred to my edits as "accidental vandalism", which is an oxymoron.

(You may delete this also...)

FriendlyFred (talk) 05:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--Aquillion (talk) 08:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Perpetualization. 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)[reply]