User talk:Ohioan1

Welcome!

Hello, Ohioan1, 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:

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 ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please review WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:OR before adding unsourced claims, commentary, or analysis to articles, especially where the subject is a living person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion or opinion board. Notable opinions that are published in reliable sources can be added to articles, but as editors, we are expected to be neutral, and only report what has already been reported by reliable secondary sources. I presume from your edit history that you are new, and interested in political articles. I just thought you should be aware of these required guidelines before you get yourself into trouble. Happy editing. - Crockspot 05:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harris Poll[edit]

Sorry for being a bit of an ass in the comments section. Just for your benefit, I thought I'd explain why I reverted. Since a poll doesnt not count every single American, a poll does not achieve a precise result. It achieves an approximate result. This is why every poll has an accompanying margin of error based upon survey methadology and the number of individuals sampled. This typically corresponds to a 95% confidence interval.

Let's say a poll asked school kids, "do you like peanut butter?" and 35% of the kids said yes, and the margin of error was +- 4%. This means that 95% of the time, the ACTUAL proportion of kids who like peanut butter will be between 31% and 39%. 5% of the time, the proportion will be outside that range (below 31% or above 39%).

So why did I revert the Rice edit? Basically because the difference was within 2x the margin of error (and very well within). The poll showed 48% thought fair or poor job with a margin of error of 3%. Let's assume that if someone didn't choose the fair/poor they would choose the excellent/pretty good and vice versa. What's the probability that more people think Rice is doing an excellent/pretty good job even though the poll's estimate was that more chose fair/poor?

To calculate this, we first must realize a 3% margin of error corresponds to a standard error of 1.53% (roughly margin of error divded by 2). What's the probability that the fair/poor number is actually below 47%? Turns out this will occur about 25% of the time. (In excel =NORMDIST(47,48,1.53,TRUE) ) This is far too high of an error to make a factual, declaratory statement. Depending on the subject matter, u generally want at least a 95% confidence rating (less than 5% chance the statement is wrong). This is why on election night, newscasters say the race is "too close to call." It's because the result is within their margin of error.

Cheers! -- Mgunn 08:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that polls have a margin of error, and that newscasters may say on election night that the race is too close to call.

I do not accept the implication, in your illustration, that newscasters would not state the result of the polls. That is because poll results are factual, notwithstanding that polls carry a margin of error.

Thank you for your explanation.Ohioan1 14:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

Adding original research to biographies of living persons is a violation of WP:BLP, and can result in a block of a user. I already provided you with links to the guidelines above, I suggest you examine them carefully. Synthesis of source information, and drawing conclusions about source information that is not drawn explicitly in the source itself is most certainly original research. Consider this an unofficial pre-warning that you are violating WP:BLP repeatedly on the Condi Rice article. Judging by your edit history, it would seem that your only purpose at Wikipedia is to grind an axe against Dr. Rice. I recommend that you reexamine your purpose and goals as a Wikipedian in light of the guidelines, before you get yourself blocked. There are other wikis that are more appropriate to your style of editing, perhaps you should investigate them. - Crockspot 18:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your commentary.[reply]

Your suggestion that I have an axe to grind is unfounded.

The record shows that I have added citations to support requests for additional support.

The commentary in the article regarding Rice's poll standings was accurate six months ago, but is now misleading. The integrity of the article is in question, and hardly encyclopedic.

It is unclear how one can conclude that reporting the sum of poll numbers is synthesis, and original research.Ohioan1 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That perception is based on the fact that your edit history reflects no interest other subjects or articles. Time will tell if that perception is founded or not. Simple arithmetic is not synthesis, but more complex analysis of raw data begins to move into synthesis territory, and charactarizing or declaring the significance of that data, or the analysis (synthesis) of it is original research. You also have the "undue weight" clause to consider: are we giving more significance to a piece of information than it deserves? - Crockspot 20:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanations. With respect to the polling results in particular, the references to results that are six months old are now incorrect. The corrections do not place any more weight to polling than what was previously published; they introduce accuracy in presentation.Ohioan1 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

This is your final warning in regards to your edits on Condoleezza Rice. It has been explained above and on the talk page that your edits are not appropriate. If you continue to edit war on this article, you will be reported to the administration group for disruption. Discuss the changes you believe should be made before continuing; this is a community project and being bold only goes so far before it becomes disruption. auburnpilot talk 03:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the corrections I have proposed. Please cite support for your statement that Rice has the highest approval ratings. I see that she has less than 50% approval, so this is not fairly labeled with the words "highest approval". For your information, I have published discussion of the edits, including some earlier today. The "response" to the discussion has included wholesale reverts for multiple topics sans any communication.Ohioan1 03:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AuburnPilot, Since you apparently believe the characterization I have made is not neutral, please consider posing the following question to some neutral acquaintances you may have.

Polling results for three individuals rate performance in two categories, “Excellent/Pretty Good” and “Only Fair/Poor”. The “Excellent/Pretty Good” percentage results for the three individuals are as follows: A-46; B-32; and C-29; and the “Only Fair/Poor Ratings” are A-48, B-66; and C-58. Which of the following are fair to say regarding A’s results? 1. A has the highest job rating of the group. 2. A has the least disfavorable job rating of the group. 3. A has less than a 50% favorability job rating 4. A has a disfavorable job rating

If you think this question is unfair, please let me know how you would make it fairer. Thank you for your communication. Ohioan1 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Have you editted Wikipedia prior to January 30, 2007? If so, what was your previous account? Thanks, I would appreciate an answer. -- Mgunn 00:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC) Thank you for your question. I see that you are concerned I might be "some random middle school student or a sock puppet." There are some highly talented middle schoolers so this might be taken as a compliment? If I were a sock puppet, whom would I be a sock puppet for? As I've alluded to before, prior to the date you cited I have not had an account. I am unsure of the relevance of this question. You suggested earlier that the poll information I added could stand, but not in the lead. So why is it proper to have all the detail that is there now? I have discussed poll issues in the talk pages, and my questions have been unanswered. Thank you, Ohioan1 01:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rice Polls[edit]

Thank you for adding the citations re: Rice's poll numbers. The language remains misleading, however. The citation you provide re: Polling Report shows that the Excellent/Pretty Good number is below 50%. So, calling the results "highest favorability" is not accurate. Please revise the assertion. Regards,Ohioan1 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohioan1 has been repeatedly trying to insert wacky poll information into the lead and making edits that can best be described as political commentary. The account edits nothing but the Rice article. It's quite wacky as far as I can tell, and it wouldn't surprise me if it's some random middle school student or a sock puppet of someone with an axe to grind. -- Mgunn 09:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mgunn: I agree with your analysis.--Getaway 22:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure why you persist with ad hominen attacks. I would appreciate it if you would address the logic of the presentation.Regards,Ohioan1 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several people have already pointed out to you that the edit that you are insisting on is several things and all of them are violations of Wikipedian rules. It violates undue weight, it is POV, it is original research, etc. The edit is inapproprite and will be corrected by other editors. Have a good day!--Getaway 02:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your explanations. Adding one neutral statement next to several "favorable" statements should not violate weight. Adding a single relevant, factual statement to a series of related facts should not be considered POV. Reporting a Harris Poll should not be considered original research. Stating that edits will be "corrected" appears contrary to the invitation to resolve these items on the talk pages.Ohioan1 02:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, mistakes can be made and when it happens they will be corrected. There is no place for POV.--Getaway 13:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative Noticeboard[edit]

i posted an administrative noticeboard incident for your continual posting of political commentary on the Condoleeza Rice page and for the complete lack of response on talk. I also questioned whether you were a sock puppet. just keeping you informed per witiquette -- Mgunn 18:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your notice. Your reversions cause the page to omit pertinent developments to two points made in the lead: polling results and the postion of Time magazine. As such, the exclusions create POV.

I have posted more than a half dozen responses on the talk page, so I do not understand your comment regarding a lack of response. If I am supposed to be responding elsewhere, please help me find the proper area. Sincerely, Ohioan1 02:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection templates[edit]

I noticed your request to remove protection from Condoleezza Rice because of the obtrusive template. In the future, you can simply swap {{sprotect}} with {{sprotect2}} in order to get the less obtrusive padlock. If it's the new template {{pp-semi-protected}}, all you have to do is add |small=yes so that it reads {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}}. Any editor may do this, not just admins. Thanks, - auburnpilot talk 07:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Condi movement[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed maintenance notices from Draft Condi movement, even though required changes haven't been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a page. Thank you. Btl 11:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohioan1 and Dr. Condi Rice[edit]

Looking back on Ohioan1's Wikipedia career it is clear that Ohioan1 was created by a Wikipedian for the express purpose of editing the Dr. Condi Rice article. Once those edits were implemented Ohioan1 changed into another identity.--InaMaka (talk) 13:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA reassessment of Condoleezza Rice[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Condoleezza Rice/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Poll.GIF listed for discussion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Poll.GIF, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]