User talk:Stormy160

-

Revert on 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia

When you reverted me at [1], you returned the article to the state it was left in by a serial vandal, who was entering false data in many articles about elections. Please verify that the information you restored is supported by reliable sources. - Donald Albury 09:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sorry. Stormy160 (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flip Visibility

We keep going back and forth on the article 2022 New York State Senate election, and I want to understand your thinking and come to some sort of conclusion. Redistricting has made this process very confusing so my apologies for the back-and-forth. Take district 47 for example. That's one of the districts that got moved from upstate NY to Manhattan. I believe that the numerical district should be listed as having a republican incumbent somewhere in the article so that if/(when) it flips blue, that can be indicated on the map. Basically, what I mean is that the "seat gain" should match the amount of flips on the map. That's why that second table was on the bottom, to simply show who represented the numerical district before and after. If democrats gain two seats in the new york state senate, but there are no flips indicated on the final map, or anywhere in the article for that matter, that's kind of confusing to the reader. Therefore, I think there should be some sort of indication of the circumstances that have to do with redistricting. What do you think we can do? GeorgeBailey (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also! Before I forget, I like what you're going for with the map. Do you think there could be a way to indicate retirements? I've seen that on other articles. Keep up the good work. :) GeorgeBailey (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll admit it’s kind of a mess because the entire map got scrambled by redistricting, but I think it should be based on a) what party controls the territory (for example, district 47 is entirely controlled by democrats) and b) what incumbent is running there. I think that second one is the key. I guess that indicating retirements is difficult when there are multiple incumbents, which is where most of the retirements are in this case. That’s a tricky one. Stormy160 (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We will figure it out. Is it cool if I put the second table back? GeorgeBailey (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The table or the graphic? Stormy160 (talk) 03:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The table. That's gonna be helpful when calculating the seats lost/seats gained metric and also for the preceded/succeeded by thing in the individual politician's infobox (since that goes by district number). The second table would go under a results tab GeorgeBailey (talk) 04:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think you are getting the message here, that the district number doesn’t matter in the slightest. I’m fine having that second table but there needs to be a reason for it’s existence. Frankly I’d prefer to make a results table for each district and their primaries but that’s too much work I don’t have the time. Stormy160 (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think making a table for each individual race would be a lot of work. I know the district number doesn't "matter", but there needs to be a list of the current state senators directly followed by the new list of state senators.

I mean we already have a list of the current senators on the page and the election hasn’t happened yet. I don’t see the need. Stormy160 (talk) 22:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at North Carolina's 9th congressional district, you may be blocked from editing. Bettering the Wiki (talk) 04:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what?? That 2018 election was literally voided, that’s entirely factual. Stormy160 (talk) 12:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New York Election Reporting

When we make the summary tables, we need to tell both a complete set of results, and do so in a way that is consistent with similar elections. Your methodology does neither of those. If you were going to make these changes, you also need to go back and change past election articles that have used multiple results graphs for years.

First of all, saying that "Democratic or Republican" candidates simply "Appear" on other lines is misleading. For purposes of the ballot, a candidate that appears on two lines is a candidate for both parties; they don't serve as a candidate for only the major party and then happen to "appear" on other lines. Oftentimes, there is a lot of investment into these third party candidacies, such as Cuomo's bus tour with the Woman's Equality Party back in 2014. Furthermore, in previous elections there have been a lot more parties, many of which (such as the Independence and Reform Parties) nominated members of both major parties. If you were going to extrapolate your changes in 2022 to the 2020 or 2018 (or earlier) elections, you would not be able to in a way that is not convoluted. If you want to summarize electoral fusion you can do that, but call the system out by name and explain what it is, rather than only vaguely describing its effects.

Secondly, election results are not reported based on caucus membership. That has never been true, whether we are talking about Angus King and Bernie Sanders caucusing with today's senate Democrats despite running as independents or James Buckley caucusing with Republicans after the 1970 election despite running as a Conservative. Consider also Fred Thiele, who for many years was a member of the Independence Party of New York despite caucusing with Democrats in the State Assembly (he did change membership before 2022, and is thus noted properly as a Democrat in the most recent assembly election). Sure enough, that seat is counted on Wikipedia as an Independence Party controlled seat for his years in the party, ignoring his caucus membership. Reporting this elections based on caucuses would run counter to conventions used for almost every election on Wikipedia. The one exception is when there are members of one party in multiple caucuses, such as the Alaska State Legislature, but that is not the case here. Party Registration, on the other hand, is a common metric used when reporting election data on Wikipedia and has been for years.

Thirdly, including the nomination table simply gives a more complete picture of the election. The point of an overview section is to provide and overview of the election results detailed later in the article, and those results later in the article feature parties backing the winning candidate, so those parties should probably be noted in the summary at the top as well. This should not supplant the membership table, which is meaningful in its own right, but it definitely serves a role, hence why it has been used in past articles on NY elections as well. MCUSRAP (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to tweak the wording that’s fine, but the point of the two bar graphs is to show how the votes convert into seats. Therefore it doesn’t make sense to include the third parties in one but not the other, and obviously including the third parties in the number of seats graph would screw everything up. Stormy160 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to begin with, the popular vote bar graph ought to reflect the votes as they are cast. If 52% of votes cast were for the Democratic Party, the popular vote for the party is 52%, not 55%. Likewise, the votes cast for third parties, as certified by the state, is around 9.1%, and that is the number that should go in the bar graph per the precedents of the past several NY election articles.

The point of the bar graphs, like you said, is to show how votes convert into seats. The votes of the Conservative Party and the WFP Did translate into seats for their nominees. Take the fourth district for a great example. The Democratic Party received more votes than the Republican Party, strictly speaking, but the Republican nominee won due to Conservative Party votes. Thus, the votes cast for the conservative party can be directly tied to the success of the nominee— if we set aside the conservative votes, the result of the election is changed. Conservative votes translated into a seat for the conservative nominee, so If you want to demonstrate how votes translate into seats, you need to display the third party data as well.

Perhaps that might be confusing to some, but that is why the headings of the bar graphs (Seats by Party Nomination and Seats by Party Registration) are very clear about what they represent. It is understood by any one who reads the bar graphs that XX% seats were won by the nominees of each party, and YY% seats were won by members of each party. I fail to see what exactly is screwed up about that— what it represents is clear to me and the half-dozen different users that put those graphs together, after all, and nobody else has complained. MCUSRAP (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are no “working families” or “conservative” members of congress in this regard. Maybe this makes sense to us junkies but 90% of people reading the page won’t get it. The conservative and working family votes all went to candidates that are primarily democrats or republicans. Therefore we should collate them for the graphs of this purpose, and we already have the separate one that organizes it by party line. Stormy160 (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And of course, then we’d have more than 26 seats shown on the graph if we were to include third parties in the bottom graph. That makes even less sense. Stormy160 (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(sorry for the delay)

Our job fundamentally is to give them the data exactly how it is given to us. A large part of the issue is that there have traditionally been different standards for how to group the vote totals on the different tables and the lead infobox, but the most common convention for many years has been that the popular vote bar graph uses the disaggregated totals, because those are the totals reported by the state BOE.

Furthermore, all elections since 2012 currently have the party nominations box, and you are the only one who seems to take issue with that. There is not more than 26 seats on such a graph, as the way the election is set up means that nominees are not mutually exclusive; that is literally what electoral fusion is in the first place. More than one party can nominate the winner of the same seat; that doesn't mean there are multiple seats per race, and hence there will only ever be 26 seats regardless of whether one party gets credit or four parties get credit. MCUSRAP (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Road edits

In the major intersections table, the location for a junction should be the city/township/borough the junction is in, not an unincorporated community or a nearby incorporated community. Also, the destinations in the major intersections table should be as they appear on signs. Dough4872 02:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Bold, or disruptive?

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 180 Degree Open Angedre (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]