User talk:ElectAnalysis

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (4th) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Timberframe (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on [[:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007]]. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Jd2718 (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have filed a 3RR report here Jd2718 (talk)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three reverts rule on Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007. You may resume editing after the block expires but continued edit warring will result in longer blocks without further warning. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 21:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was not aware that I had breached the 3RR rule I believe that the edit war violation was made by another user. I and others are now engaged in a discussion on the merit of the information published. The other users should have also sort discussion prior to reverting the edits. The edit block has limited the discussion currently under way.

You were plenty aware. You warned another user about it here; how could he violate 3RR unless you were reverting him the whole time? Kafziel ^{Take a number} 21:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it depends on who initiated the first undo. Use A makes an edit. user B undoes (1) I revert his edit (1) user B undoes (2) I revert his edit (2) next undo is 3RR breach... That would mean that the original edit should stand pending review. But is a user is quicker on the reporting or works in collusion with other editors ...

No, it doesn't depend, because you left out User C. Two users reverted you, so neither of them broke 3RR. Just you. Kafziel ^{Take a number} 22:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There were three. And prior to today, I had no history with either of them, and of course not with this brand new account. Jd2718 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Well if you can work in collusion or with the support of a third party I guess you are not held accountable. Maybe I should have taken more notice of who was reverting the same edit. But given the fact that the information that was the subject of the "edit war" was misleading See below) I fail to see why the editor did not recognise this fact and participated in the discussion or issue a 3RR warning himself. For any misunderstanding on either your or my part I apologize.

However I am very much concerned at the questionable assertion of "Original research" allegations, by the above editor Jd2718, given to justify the non publication of statistically correct information whilst supporting the publication of no statistical valid information. The allegation that the graphics submitted for publications should not be published o the grounds of Original researchat best is specious and has no substance. If you apply the argument and assessment made by Jd2718 then you would have to do likewise to the currently published graphics, one which has no statistical merit. All the data presented in the supplied graphics is based on official published results and are verifiable. If you can demonstrate otherwise then I would be most interested in your findings. ElectAnalysis (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False and misleading statistical information published whilst detailed statistical information is prevented from being published

Is it Wikipedia's aim to publish false and misleading information in pursuit of a few editors desire to publish misleading data. Is Wikipedia a collection of false facts and political bias. No longer a reliable resource for factual and informative data?

There is no statistic merit in publishing the second highest polling party. A region can have 90% support for one party and the second place represent 5% or it could be 45% for one party and the second place 42%. This is a proportional ballot it is not first past the post. If need be I suggest you update the map and record the percentage of each winning party for each region as was published for the 2006 election. The second place map has no encyclopedic value. I have included a Swing analysis chart based on the official published results.

A swing analysis is common in any election. It shows the change in voter percentage for each party by regions from 2006 to 2007.

If you take a look at the third graph above you will see that it provides much more information the the flawed second place highest vote map published Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007. The published map only shows the geographical relationship of voter support. It does not show the full strength or relationship between each of the parties. What is more relevant geographical distorted distribution or teh relationship of each party's support.

The above graph shows the relationship between both the geographical region and all parties be it not published as a map. One user tries to claim that the data presented is "original research" There is no more original research in presenting the swing and voter percentage the looking up the values on the official published election results, Which presumable is what the person who created the statistical flawed distribution map has done. I see no debate or complaint by the person who engaged in the undeclared "edit war" applying the same logic to the original publication.

Further more the publication of the swing chart is very much a valuable resource in that it shows, at a quick glance, the change in voter sentiment both overall and per region. Just because he/she is not capable of reading a simple graph does not mean others have such difficultly. Swing charts are very common electoral analytical tools ad are also published by Wikipedia i relation to other elections. Why not Ukraine? Maybe it is a case of some editors seeking too much ownership and not respecting their wishes and opposing views of others. Maybe it is just plain political bias. Either way it does not serve Wikipedia well. You sought it out in the mean time we will arrange to have this information published on anti-wikipedia.com

Please read here for information on how government funded vote counting system was generating maps for all 1st, 2nd and even 3rd places. Per Wikipedia:Verifiability this make it legal to include in Wikipedia unless strong reasoning will be provided to not do so. Even more charts proposed by you has problem - % in region does not play huge role in elections results, it's number of people who voted in district that matter. IMGO, this justify removal of your charts and inclusion of maps. --TAG (talk) 04:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Tag Odessa comments that the percentage pf votes does not play a huge rile i teh elections is false. It is the percentage of the vote that 1. determines the thresh hold (3%) 2. The number of positions election to each party. The swig analysis is as stated based o the published data by the Ukrainian Electoral Commission. It is a common ad well established means of recording ad displaying change in voter support. The publication of second place maps as indicated has no statistical mrit what so ever. if the maps where published by the electoral authority the why is there no link accreditation or citation attached to them? The swing chart also shows the full extent of all teh top six parties in relation to each other. User TAG:Odessa is seeking to prevent this valid ad significant information form being published for other alteria motoves not made claer in his commets. If you look at other election reports on wikipedia you will find similar swing analysis charts. Why are they not acceptable for Ukraine. This is not yuour private blog or a extension of the Maidanua.com.ua web site.

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Magioladitis (talk) 18:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am but are the others I trust you have also placed such a notice on their user pages.

Mariah-Yulia is discussing the dispute in the talk page. I think if you were a little bit more patient the subject would already be over. As you may have seen, I also believe that the section shouldn't be in the article. I was more calm because I don't consider myself as an expert in the subject. Three small things you can do and you will always have better results in Wikipedia:

Always when you make an edit, use the summary box to describe your actions. (You partially do that).
Always assume good faith and be calm. Dont' make personal attacks. Saying that the users editing an article have "hatred" is far from truth.
If your edits is twice reverted, don't insist. Use the talk page. Request help. As you see I am not Russian nor Ukrainian and I am following the article. More people can help so the article expresses a Neutral Point of View (NPOV).

Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again I repeat i what way is the published comments Russia's response to the election it is not and if you assume Good faith you can not and should not imply that the disputation over Ukraine's non payment of its gas supply is is Russia's response. There is a consistent bias showing up in the editing of the published information in relation to the Ukrainian Politics. information is slanted and bias. information is selectively removed and information and certain information is allowed to remain all pointing to a NPOV and political bias. A good example is the attempts the remove factual records related to the Constitutional Court challenge over the election itself. Myself and others are very much monitoring this situation. ElectAnalysis (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for attempting to reveal real-world personal information of another user. The edit in question has been deleted from the page history. Because I've seen little from you but accusations of conspiracy, edit warring, and personal attacks, the block is indefinite. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 23:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]