User talk:Jerzeykydd/Jan09-June09

US Cable News
Hi Mapple001, thank you for your question on my talk page. This isn't a bad start at all. A made a few minor tweaks. You have provided some references, which is great. However, you could improve it further by citing more sources. For example, in the "History" section you provided a lot of facts that could be referenced. I also see you have introduced several redlinks. Do you plan on writing corresponding articles soon? If not it would be better to unlink them. All in all, you are off to a great start here. Keep up the good work! Accurizer (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi thanks for contacting me. Great start. I added info about CNN Airport Network and CNN en Español to the CNN spinoffs section. I also added a section about the harder to find channel ABC News Now and one about the 24 hour sports news channel ESPNews. I also added the template for WikiProject Television and WikiProject Television Stations, so the article will get wider exposure and attract more helpful editors. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)



TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

TomCat4680 (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont know how either. Ask someone on Wikimedia_Commons, they should be able to help you.TomCat4680 (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2012
Hi. I'm still waiting for a response from you on the talk page. Tim meh  !  00:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CNN
IMO, most of the people on CNN are liberal-biased. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's computer jargon (IMO means In MY Opinon). I was commenting on Campbell Brown. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Merger
Hi if you still think that MSNBC's Third Prime-Time Show Search should not be merged into MSNBC, please tell us why on Talk:MSNBC. Thanks TomCat4680 (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Re-directed
Hi I redirected your MSNBC old article to your new one per your your request. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Since most of the info on MSNBC Lineup Changes Since 2008 is outdated, I proposed that the still accurate information be merged back into MSNBC. Please discuss this on Talk:MSNBC. Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: MSNBC
OK..I see what you are doing. Sorry about that..--Michael (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

United States presidential election in California, 2008
Hay there, I was just wondering what your reasoning behind your drastic changes to United States presidential election in California, 2008. All of the information on the page seems pertinent and your restructuring cut a lot of stuff out. – Zntrip 00:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The list of candidates does more than list their names, it gives some background. I don't know what you mean by the electors section being "messed up", it seems fine to me. With regards to your two most recent edits, the lead is essential to the article and it is redundant to say "statewide results" when it is obvious. Also take a look here, headings needn't be capitalized. – Zntrip 02:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific, what is irrelevant? – Zntrip 02:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit the article until we discuss this a bit.
 * 1) The lead paragraph, while it may be common sense, is necessary. You may already know this, I may already know this, but not everyone does. The article should not written to such an extent that it requires readers to already have an understand of the subject, even a widely known one such as this.
 * 2) The list of candidates gives a brief background, nothing more. While most readers will probably know about Obama and McCain, they probably do not know who Frank Moore is.
 * 3) Why add the word "statewide"? Because you already added it to other articles? The article is about the election in California and there is a section for county results. Even though it is obvious the table lists statewide results, it can easily be deduced. Also, please read Capitalization. Section headings are not capitalized. – Zntrip 03:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have addressed your points, but since I don't think we will come to an agreement I'll ask for a third party opinion to help us come to one.
 * Take a look at Lead section. It is supposed to serve as an introduction and a summary. This will inherently contain information that some people will already know, for example, the article entitled Solar System starts with "The Solar System consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity".
 * The list of candidates just gives some background on each candidate. It is convenient for the reader and such a section is standard for all election articles.
 * I think a solution to the last point that we could both agree on is to have one section called "results" with a subsection for the country results and another for the statewide. The two paragraphs after the lead should also go into the results section. I'll edit the page to show you what I mean. – Zntrip 03:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved our discussion to the article's talk page. – Zntrip 03:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss
Will you please discuss any problems you are having with United States presidential election in California, 2008 at the article's talk page? You have yet to address my last comment. I would also like to point you to Wikipedia's sock puppetry policy which I believe you may violating. – Zntrip 21:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Wording
I really like most of your edits to election articles making them cleaner, but there's one problem. Please don't use the wording "refers to how" in the intro sentence. It's somewhat tacky and is not encyclopedic phrasing. It makes it seem that you are defining a term rather than describing an election. Thanks! Reywas92 Talk 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Laaa200 (talk) 01:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

A response
You asked how I created, well it was not done alone. What I did was I took images like, , and , copied and pasted them to Paint, edited the colors of the counties to gray and the borders white, and went from there. The information as to what to color each county can be found on each state's board of elections website. I have blank maps for only Virginia, West Virginia, New York, and New Jersey though.

Your recent edit to Public image of Barack Obama
This whole section has been removed. In addition to being off-topic, it included a citation from americanthinker.com, certainly not a reliable source on anything. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:53, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The section included irrelevancies like Wall Street Journal editorials (the WSJ editorial page is not a reliable source) and ratings by a political journal. Neither of these is relevant to an article on his image, the subject of the article onto which it was grafted. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

United States presidential election in Hawaii, 2000
First off thank you for your work adding election articles this is something that has been needed for a long time. Recently I stumbled across an article you created for the United States presidential election in Hawaii, 2000, within the article there were several instances were wording which came across as opinionated, this is contrary to wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. An example of this: (not exact quote) in the traditional blue state, Bushed received just 37% of the vote - the use of just implies it was a bad finish when in fact it was better then in the prior election and roughly what was expected (See Avoid weasel words for further info). Also since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia it is best to use exact vote totals and percentages for margins of victory, as well as adding all the candidates to election results boxes regardless of how minor there percentage of the vote is. While this may come across a critical that is not my intent (I thought it was critical when someone gave me a similar message). I just know from my experiences that it is easier for the article to be created with detail, then it is to go back and add it later.

Watch the details and most definitely keep up the additions: Highground79 (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wisconsin Democratic primary, 2004
John Edwards is not a former general. I can tell that your eager to create articles but I found several articles were there were major problems, the Edwards example is one. In other articles you said the primary was uncontested and then whent on to say that someone came in second. If the election was uncontested then there would be only one candidate. Even if the candidate has quit the campaign but is still on the ballot the election is considered contested. These are careless mistakes and make entire articles suspect. In the 2000 New Jersey presidential election article you had a reference for Al Gore talking about gun control in New Jersey - one problem the article was talking about his campaign (hypothetically) talking about gun control in new jersey, it was not about something that actually happened but something that was believed would probably happen. Also I have noticed that your articles have a degree of bias to them, pushing the negatives of the republican candidate, mentioning items multiple times this has no place in wikipedia. Try to be more careful in the future most of these mistakes can be avoided easily.

Election Results
In US presidential elections the election results determine how delegates are awarded this is done on the state level in most states but in some it is done on the congressional level. The county data while interesting technically has no bearing on how delegates are awarded (a candidate could win only one county and win the state) Also if articles are labeled as statewide, county, and congressional district results instead of what they are "results by" (except for the statewide which is the result) it can be confusing and misleading for people who do not live in the united states and are not familiar with are election system. While all the data is interesting as well as factual in the United States for the most part we have a winner take all system, therefore there is only one result per state (Nebraska awards delegates by congressional district) that matters and that is the way delegates are awarded (statewide). All other "results" are a break down of the election results which is why I'm changing it to "results by county" and "Election Results" (to clearly state that the data is a breakdown of that which matters).

I personally do not like the electoral college system and would prefer a proportional representation system, but this is what we have and the election result (is the pooling of votes from which delegates are awarded usually statewide but not always) Highground79 (talk) 03:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. ''Also, please do not revert others' good faith edits as vandalism. Instead of edit warring over how to label the election results in each state, start a discussion on the talk page so consensus can be reached one way or the other.'' Tim  meh  15:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)