User talk:Soosider3
Soosider3 (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
July 2022
[edit]
Hello, I'm HMSLavender. I noticed that in this edit to Opinion polling on Scottish independence, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. lavender|(formerly HMSSolent)|lambast 09:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Thanks for the message
- I removed the content deliberately and for a number of reasons
- 1.At this time Techne is not a member of the BPC, all polls on this page are from such members
- 2 It is not a full poll and merely a subset, all other polls on this page are full polls
- Perhaps you should start anew page for sub sets and polls from non BPC members Soosider3 (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- We include polls by Lord Ashcroft in the table, but add a note to say he is not a BPC member, so that wouldn't be grounds for removing it. Techne's twitter bio says they are a member. The technique is perfectly reasonable. They've interviewed more Scottish residents to get a full sample (500), then adjusted that number when compiling their GB-wide data in the same fieldwork. Tables Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Techne are not members of BPC according to their own website they have "applied for membership"
- Lord Ashcroft uses YouGov for his work and they are members of BPC
- Most importantly the sample size is significantly smaller than any other poll on this page all over 1000 respondents, and thats before I get into the lack of data from Techne as to how they identified "Scotland Only" they do not appear to have done so for any other part of the UK.
- For those reasons I do not believe it merits being included here as it significantly lowers the standard and accuracy of the data, there may be an argument for having another page that records polling which does not match the standard so far maintianed in this page Soosider3 (talk) 11:13, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- We include polls by Lord Ashcroft in the table, but add a note to say he is not a BPC member, so that wouldn't be grounds for removing it. Techne's twitter bio says they are a member. The technique is perfectly reasonable. They've interviewed more Scottish residents to get a full sample (500), then adjusted that number when compiling their GB-wide data in the same fieldwork. Tables Jmorrison230582 (talk) 10:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Opinion polling on Scottish independence, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 10:56, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you had read previous edits you would have seen reasons I gave
- Constructive! It is an attempt by me to maintain the high standard of data on this page, every poll recorded going back to 2014 is by a member of BPC and has over 1000 respondents, this Techne poll is a subset of 500, by using this you introduce a significant increase if margin of error and bring down the standard of data recorded. There maybe a need to record polling of a lower standard but it should not be on this page Soosider3 (talk) 11:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
The Techne website says they are a member of the BPC ("TechneUK is a member of the British Polling Council and an MRS Company Partner"). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Firstly may I apologise for the manner in which I edited this page, this is the first time I have felt motivated enough to actually engage with Wikipeadia and do an edit, I realise now that I (through inexperience) have not done it in a way that I should have. I have had talks with the other 2 folk that had responded to my edits and they both seem to have accepted my rationale.
- In response to your latest chat according the page Im looking at https://technedcpa.com/techne-data-consulting-public-affairs/data/ it states very specifically "Techne UK has applied to become a member of the British Polling Council (BPC)" Applied and being a member are not the same thing. Unless of course you could steer me to where on their website it states they are a member, could be possible they have not updated their whole site.
- As regards the size of the poll there is a reason why all the other entries have at least a 1000 in their sample, it produces a much more accurate result and ones that are comparable with each other, that makes this page a very useful resource. To introduce what is effectively a sub set would open the door to other such less accurate data. People of the standing of Professor John Curtice would agree that 1000 is the minimum size of poll in these circumstances. I do hope this reassures you and you would agree that this subset of a poll does not belong on this page, if not I am happy to go to a third party to resolve. Soosider3 (talk) 14:20, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- The British Polling Council's own site lists Techne as a member. As for sample size, there's no requirement to have 1,000 to produce a representative sample. Having 500 means that the margin for error is a bit higher, as Techne themselves acknowledged. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Many thanks for the update, it is clear that Techne has contradictory information on its website, however as you point out BPC lists them as a member, I therefore stand corrected on that matter.
- The most important issue for me is the accuracy and comparability of the data, every single poll on this page going back to 2012 has at least 1000 respondents, as I have said there is a reason for this and also why subsets have never been included and that is to do with accuracy and comparability. Of course you can produce a poll with significantly less than 1000 however that is not the point, the issue for me is why would you want to introduce data of a lesser standard and effectively pollute a sound and reliable piece of work, because that is the effect of introducing small polls and subsets. Perhaps if you feel so strong you could open a new section just for smaller, subsets with higher margin of error. Soosider3 (talk) 07:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- I have had a look at other political polling within the UK, every poll recorded on the pages for UK GE, Welsh election, local elections, Scottish Elections require a sample of at least 1000 to be on those pages here are some examples
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Senedd_election
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2019_United_Kingdom_general_election
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2021_Scottish_Parliament_election
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Scottish_Parliament_election
- The reason is that it accepted by polling companies that in these circumstances a poll of at least 1000 is a requirement to ensure as high an accuracy as possible
- Given this I am still intent on having the Techne entry removed as being not consistent with all other polling and below the standard required to be considered a full poll, we may have reached an impasse and if so I would seek support from the appropriate noticeboard and/or seek dispute resolution.
- I do hope you can see the unsustainability of your position and remove the entry yourself, as previously suggested perhaps a new page or new section to capture these subsets and non standard polls would be best. Soosider3 (talk) 09:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- It would appear that Jmorrison230582has gone quiet on this matter. Given that he seems intent on introducing a poll that is a subset and well below the usually required 1000 respondents I believe the onus falls on Jmorrison230582 to produce a coherent argument as to why this should change, given that all previous polling on this page has required 1000+ respondents and in fact every political poll recorded across Wikipeadia for UK matters also shows a consistent requirement for 1000+. I have already produced links to examples of this and ask that you consider your position and hopefully agree that this is not correct place for this techne sub set of a poll.
- I look forward to hearing your argument as to why many years of established practice are wrong and you are right. Soosider3 (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- You may find this helpful, its is from the British Polling Council webpage "There is no, “minimum”, sample size for a poll which is acceptable, but around one thousand has become the established norm for a nationwide opinion poll in Great Britain." Which would explain why every Polling Company uses the 1000 sample figure, it would also explain why this has become the 'norm' across wikipedia The page goes into detail about margin of error and why 1000 has been established as the norm for acceptable accuracy.
- https://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/faqs-by-members-of-the-public/ Soosider3 (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
- The British Polling Council's own site lists Techne as a member. As for sample size, there's no requirement to have 1,000 to produce a representative sample. Having 500 means that the margin for error is a bit higher, as Techne themselves acknowledged. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election (April 6)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello, Soosider3!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
|
Your submission at Articles for creation: Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election (April 6)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
AfC notification: Draft:Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election has a new comment
[edit]
Your submission at Articles for creation: Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election (April 27)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
- Thanks for looking at the draft. It is proving an uphill struggle first reviewer refused because he insisted in EL being references, this led to further discussion which showed suppprt for the format I have used.
- I understand that you may not appreciate how different politics is in Scotland from the rest of UK which is my prime motive in creating this as a stand-alone article. It would neatly complete the overview of Scots politics when views with polling for next Scottish Election and polling for Scottish Independence. To have it as a subset buried several pages down in a UK/English article does not imho provide it with the prominence it deserves. Soosider3 (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Next United Kingdom general election in Scotland. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Liz Read! Talk! 15:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Liz
- Thanks for your comment, much appreciated.
- I had already discovered the article Polling in Scotland for the Next UK General Election" and have been contributing to it for several weeks now. Did not know how to delete this draft or would have done so myself, far from discouraged as I see it as a learning curve. Soosider3 (talk) 03:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election (September 2)
[edit]- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
November 2023
[edit]
Hello, I'm The Herald. An edit that you recently made to Opinion polling on Scottish independence seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the input. A few of us regular editors of this article have recently been trying to address the issue of accessibility and read ability for readers who may have a defect in their colour vision. There has been an ongoing discussion on the talk page and various options are being explored. However in this case it seemed easier and more sensible to have an area to actually be able to view proposals together- thus the creation of a temporary test area. It also has the potential of allowing other readers ( who may have a colour vision defect) to comment. My apologies this just seemed a quick and efficient way to address this presentation issue and would ask that in circumstances you would see the sense in this approach. Perhaps a note to look at it again in a few weeks as if a concensous has not been reached in that time then it probably won't. Judging by the talk page this approach appears to have created a more collaborative approach Soosider3 (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds like a plan, but kindly use Wikipedia:Sandbox for similar test edits, not the article mainspace, as it may constitute disruption. Thanks. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!
[edit]|
|
Hello! Soosider3,
you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
|
Concern regarding Draft:Polling in Scotland
[edit] Hello, Soosider3. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Polling in Scotland, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
[edit]
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election
[edit]Your recent editing history at Polling in Scotland for next United Kingdom general election shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Bondegezou (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
- I stand by the independent and verifiable evidence re scoop polls, lots of contrary opinions but that is what they are 'opinions' with not a jot of evidence to support the. I would remind you that the polling company stated unequivocally not to compare with others of their polls, yet that is exactly what these 'opinions' advocate. It is a clear weakness of the consensus model where opinion is given equal weight to opinion. That's the real issue here
- If I choose to revert it will be because of above, in the meanwhile perhaps you should reflect on your part in that process. Soosider3 (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Polling in Scotland
[edit]Hello, Soosider3. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Polling in Scotland".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election
[edit] Hello, Soosider3. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election
[edit]Hello, Soosider3. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Polling in Scotland for next UK General Election".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
3RR
[edit]Hi, I'm sure you mean well but please be aware you're at 3 reverts by my count on the SNP article. Please discuss the changes on the talk page per WP:BRD as this would be a rather significant change to a long-standing format. Please be aware of WP:3RR, which another revert would put you past. — Czello (music) 07:20, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- Making this article consistent with other main parties in Scotland where Ideology in Infobox is consistent with Infobox usage, please feel free to use these 'citations' to expand the actual Ideology section in the article, that is the correct and appropriate place for them (if anywhere)
- As for yuour warning re reverts that must place you on a similiar count. Please feel free to open a talk article as to why you think this particular Article requires to be substantially different from all other Scottish Political PArties.
- This is a misuse of the Infobox which is designed for high level headline info not an extended set of citations many of which bear little connection to the subject. Soosider3 (talk) 08:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Soosider3 reported by User:Czello (Result: ). Thank you. — Czello (music) 08:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
June 2024
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Soosider3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Discussion in talk page on this topic in April where broad agreement was to reduce and simplify entries under Ideology in Infobox, making it consistent with every other Article on main political parties in Scotland, I was merely implementing that agreement. I have to say that visiting article for first time in a month or so was astonished to find that rather than simplifying we have a situation where the Infobox has become even more cluttered with alleged citations, this is unlike any other of the articles on the main political parties in ScotlandSoosider3 (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You don't mention that you were edit warring. Once it became apparent there wasn't agreement about your edits, you should have gone back to the talk page to form a consensus. You seem to think you were in the right, and if unblocked would likely continue to edit war. I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I have to wonder if you actually read my comment or know anything about the particular incident and are placing your entire decision on an administrative requirement to admit edit warring. If you had been bothered to actually read the comment you would have realised that. Do you know what I dont need this nonsense, I have voluntarily been very active in maintaining many articles - I will need to review if I wish to continue to do so when others can manipulate the processes. Actually do you know what, ive had enough, will delete my account and find other things to be doing — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soosider3 (talk • contribs)
- No one "manipulated the processes". You were reverted by multiple editors. You were asked several times to discuss it on the talk page. You were notified that another edit would take you beyond 3RR. You were linked to the policy on 3RR, which is a bright-line rule. You didn't discuss it on the talk page and chose to revert again – I'm not sure what you're expecting here. — Czello (music) 18:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)