User talk:Nitroxium

 RDN1F                  TALK  20:38, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Fourth Round Group A
Template:2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Fourth Round Group A has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. JMHamo (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
Hello, I'm Stesmo. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of Nationwide opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2016 presidential primaries. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. 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. Stesmo (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Prcc27 (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

States with statistical ties within the margin of error

 * Washington (margin of error ± 6%): Clinton 35%–6%=29%; Warren 26%+6%=32%. If you take the margin of error into account it's possible that Warren leads Clinton or that they are tied.
 * Vermont (margin of error ± 3.8%): Sanders 36%–3.8%=32.2%; Clinton 29%+3.8%=32.8%. If you take the margin of error into account it's possible that Clinton leads Sanders or that they are tied.
 * Montana: there is no margin of error so how do we know that Clinton's lead isn't within the margin of error of being a tie? But I yield on that one since we don't know the margin of error.. Prcc27 (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "That's not how statistical ties work (see republican article or national polling articles for examples)" Well then why is NH a statistical tie..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like I was right about what a statistical tie is since New Hampshire is considered a statistical tie by reliable sources . I will update the map appropriately. Prcc27 (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the NYTimes is the only source who is calling this a statistical tie, all other news sources are calling it a lead. Please follow the republican format. Nitroxium (talk) 23:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Provide those sources then. And if we followed the republican format there wouldn't even be percentages on the map! Prcc27 (talk) 23:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you please discuss this with me and the other user @ Commons? Thank you! Prcc27 (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Better map
Sorry to bother you, but I just want to make sure that the comment on the talk page of Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 "I have preferred the system we have right now" was not made by you. Was it made by you? I know that after 30 days Wikipedia automatically logs users out so I want to make sure that didn't happen to you. Prcc27 (talk) 01:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was made by me. However, I think that rushing this vote without even letting the dispute be settled in dispute resolution seems anti ethical to me. Nitroxium (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for clearing that up! The dispute at the dispute resolution has nothing to do with the getting rid of percentages proposal. So as of now it looks like there's consensus to get rid of them. Prcc27 (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It absolutely does and you yourself pointed it out. I will be reverting until the issue is resolved, or we give more time for more editors to weigh in their opinion. Nitroxium (talk) 19:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh really...? "proposal #2 shouldn't even be considered since this dispute is about 'conflicting polls'. #2 does nothing to fix that." Sorry, the dispute on the dispute resolution is about "conflicting polls", not getting rid of percentages, and you even acknowledged that yourself! Don't delay the inevitable. If nothing changes in 24 hours I will get rid of the percentages on the map. Prcc27 (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How margin of error works — Statewide opinion polling, Democratic Party primaries, 2016
User All4peace (talk) has initiated a discussion, on the article talk page on English Wikipedia about how we present MOE.

I would very‐much appreciate your participation ! Info por favor (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)