User talk:Jamaika-Koalition

Georgian poll[edit]

Hello Jamaika-Koalition. I'm very confused by your edit summary here, specifically the claim "This 11 % never have been mentioned in this poll!?" If you look at the source for this poll, the figures are on page 49 and show the ENM with 13% and Georgian Dream with 11%. I hope you can see this? Number 5 7 23:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Number 57,

it seems like it was really my mistake, thanks for calling attention to this page of the poll and sorry for the confusion. What I think the confusing aspect about this is that the August 2014 for example does not include the Which party would you vote for? question. All polls but the latest refer to the closest party, where really no 11 % are mentioned. To compare the results, would it be an option to create an own separate table for closest party and one for voting intention? Another institute (IPM) did also ask for the voting intention. --Jamaika-Koalition (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Actually, I'm not sure whether the ones with "party closest to you" really counts as a poll? I think a third opinion from @Impru20: would help here. Number 5 7 00:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This can be easily solved by just separating those two questions. In the absence of a true who would you vote for question, the closest party question may do the job of at least showing how people's sympathies for each party evolve. However, it obviously would require consistency: for those polls where an actual voting intention question does appear, a separate table should be done. It could spark doubts if different pollsters used different systems to measure vote intention/party sympathy (i.e. one showing only voting intention while other one showing only party sympathy), and then it could require further discussion. However, in this case, it seems there's just a single pollster doing all polls. So, two tables (one for voting intention and other for closest party question) would just do the job here. Impru20 (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In German Wikipedia, I've just solved this problem by adding comments to show that some polls ask for party sympathy and some for voting intention. If NDI (and perhaps IPM) publishes new polls with separated questions for voting intention and party sympathy, this table will also be divided. --Jamaika-Koalition (talk) 12:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Historical rankings of Chancellors of Germany for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Historical rankings of Chancellors of Germany is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical rankings of Chancellors of Germany until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Carrite (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Democratic Union of Germany leadership election, 2018 moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Christian Democratic Union of Germany leadership election, 2018, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 17:22, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there have may have been an edit conflict between an attempted edit of the Opinion Polling section in mainspace and the move of the full article to draftspace, as you appear to have inadvertently recreated the mainspace article with just the polling section. I've marked the resulting mainspace article for speedy deletion as a "test edit". Thanks for your understanding. --Finngall ^talk 18:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I am sorry for that, thank you a lot. --Jamaika-Koalition (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source that Tulsi Gabbard has dropped out of the race?[edit]

I'm not seeing any such source. If you have one, I will restore your edit. Thanks. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 14:59, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK. I found some. Thanks for your fast updating. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 15:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Nebraska, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Delaney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion polls on 2024 Georgian elections[edit]

Hi! I noticed that for this file you may have used unweighted numbers for ISSA poll as GD's votes seem too high while others being too low. If that's the case, I think it'd be better to use allocated numbers, so in case you agree too, here are the official results with allocation - page1 and page2, and the article itself if needed (these 2 images are at the end of it). Thanks J4keeS237 (talk) 21:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your notification! I must have missed that since Mtavari Arkhi published the results without re-allocation excluding undecideds (unlike e.g., Formula). I will later correct the chart accordingly! --Jamaika-Koalition (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]