User talk:DrFargi

Don't talk just ask. :P

Endashes in date ranges

Hello.

Thanks for you many contributions to Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2016 presidential primaries. Please see MOS:DATERANGE for how date ranges should be written.

Thank you.

HandsomeFella (talk) 12:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

2 Results Maps

Why are there 2 result maps by county?DrFargi (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Map1

File:2016 Republican Primary County Map.png

Map2

Unspaced endash

Hello.

Thanks for keeping opinion polling articles up to date, but please see MOS:DATERANGE about spacing issues for the dates. It specifically says:

• Other "pure" ranges use an unspaced en dash as well:
  • day–day: 5–7 January 1979; January 5–7, 1979; elections were held March 5–8

The endash should only be spaced when a date range is between dates in different months:

• If at least one of the items on either side of the en dash is in a mixed format (containing two or more of day, month, year); carries a modifier such as c.; or otherwise contains a space; then a spaced en dash ({{snd}}) is used:
  • between specific dates in different months: They travelled June 3 – August 18, 1952; They travelled 3 June – 18 August 1952

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

linkrot on polling page

You're missing something: maintaining citation format is just a stylistic choice. In essence, all the information needed to verify is already on the page - polster and poll dates. As the url is just a convenience, the poll should not be removed if it rots. Rami R 06:32, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Stylistic choice????? Convenience????? Since when has this been alright to do referencing without proper citations, dates, etc? Why are we condoning this all along without taking any action? And why is this template located on top of the article in the first place.

DrFargi (talk) 13:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not saying we shouldn't maintain proper citation format. I'm saying that improper citation format is not a reason to remove a poll. Dates, publisher and url are already in the article; as such the information is verifiable and should not be removed, regardless of citation format or linkrot. Rami R 06:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Here we were lucky. If there wasn't a backup poll link, we would have lost the source altogether. That's why proper citation is needed for the polls. We shouldn't tolerate the improper links.DrFargi (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

References

I had assumed you were a bot, due to the multiple templates per page (sometimes within a paragraph of one another) and their inconsistent application. I am glad to see that my editing history has been utilized to make application less inconsistent. If one looks at election articles going as far back as 2004, the current format has consistently been the format for including polls in articles; this is why, even after the external links template you utilized was included, editors continued to add polls in the same way they have done for a decade.

As the external links page shows, there is no issue with including candidates' websites, which seems to have been clarified. The issue, therefore, is polls. The same eternal links page shows nothing for or against including polls in the way they have been. I am by no means opposed to changing the format, but this may be something to be taken up with an administrator, considering the volume of articles which will need to be altered (over four-hundred, if one only looks at American gubernatorial and senatorial elections), as well as the established habits of other editors. As has been demonstrated over the past week, individual editors are likely to ignore the template message. It may be best for you to place these articles into the external links cleanup maintenance page if you have an issue with them, rather than add multiple templates per page. ALPolitico (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DrFargi. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DrFargi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)