User talk:The Pollster

New Jersey United States Senate election, 2006
Thanks for filling in some of the missing margin of error numbers in the New Jersey United States Senate election, 2006 article. Hopefully, we can make this article as useful as possible for anyone trying to learn more about the campaign. Check out WP:NJ for other efforts at filling in the details on all things related to New Jersey. Alansohn 15:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Nigerian states by population
In January you updated List of Nigerian states by population. However, the only source you cite (http://www.guardiannewsngr.com/news/article01) doesn't seem to mention any state populations. Could you reconcile this please? Picaroon (Talk) 21:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

- I updated it. --The Pollster 05:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008
An article that you have been involved in editing, Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Austrian polls
Hey

Who would you consider the best and most reliable Austrian and Hungarian pollsters?

--Batmacumba (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the date of the polls: Schouldn't we at least state the exact period (e.g. 16-18.05.2017) and note with an asteriks that in some cases the polling period is not clear (e.g. her: http://www.oe24.at/oesterreich/politik/Sensationsumfrage-nach-OeVP-Beben-Kurz-deutlich-vorne/282469349)?


 * The polling period is usually always clear, either in the article (or follow-up article) or on the page of the pollster. I added "last day of polling" on top of the page to make it clear. --The Pollster (talk) 04:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Incomplete results category
Hello. I think you may have misunderstood the point of the category. It is to be placed on articles where the results tables are incomplete – i.e. missing information such as number of votes, seats, invalid ballots and registered voters (nothing to do with whether the results are final or not). There is no figure in the results table for the number of registered voters for the second round of the presidential election, so the results are incomplete. Cheers, Number   5  7  21:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

the official colour of the ÖVP is turquoise now
Hi Have you got a source that it is not olny for the election ? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Go to the discussion page, it is explained there. I am from Austria, I know it. Check their website, their official new colour is turquoise ! --The Pollster (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Austrian legislative election, 2017, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ORF ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Austrian_legislative_election%2C_2017 check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Austrian_legislative_election%2C_2017?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Matzka poll
Where'd you get the numbers for HC Strache? Mélencron (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * From the print edition.--The Pollster (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Next Austrian legislative election moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Next Austrian legislative election, 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 " " 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. Boleyn (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Next Austrian legislative election


A tag has been placed on Next Austrian legislative election requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"Article was recently draftified as undersourced, but an editor has done a copy-and-paste to restore it"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Next Austrian legislative election moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Next Austrian legislative election, 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 " " 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) 04:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi The Pollster, Greetings. Pls note that the article needs to significant coverage of independent, reliable sources where by the sources talk about the subject tin length and in dept for verification to pass the notability requirement to be in the main space of Wikipedia. - pls see WP:42. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Next Austrian legislative election moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Next Austrian legislative election, 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 " " 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) 08:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello The Pollster, Pls read the text above and pls provide indepdent, reliable source with significant coverage to support the content claimed. A page will be nominated for article for deletion if the subject is not notable inregardless how long the article existed in Wikipedia. Please read WP:42 and WP:Your First Article to understand the requirement and provided inline citation (sources) from newspapers or books. You page has moved to draft page serveral times by different reviewers which means you have not done what is needed. Pls do the neeful (provide sources) - see Template:Cite Web for web source inline citaion. Thank you. Cassiopeia(talk) 08:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will put some sources in there, but currently there is almost nothing there to source. Maybe a link to election results from 2019 ? Everything else doesn't need a source. --The Pollster (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Next Austrian legislative election for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Next Austrian legislative election 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 Articles for deletion/Next Austrian legislative election until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Next Austrian legislative election. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I added sources now. Keep the page intact. --The Pollster (talk) 09:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Next Austrian legislative election. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did at Next Austrian legislative election, you may be blocked from editing. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FA0"> Cassiopeia</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 09:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Active cases
Can you explain this edit? I do not know why you insist on including the number of active cases, every time that I remove it from the infobox. That number is not even indicated in the source that I am using, even if I open those individual pages that they publish every day. Can you always be certain that all of those cases that are not considered dead or recovered are still active? I also checked the sources that you placed on the talk page, and they appear to be late. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are not my sources, someone else posted them. The most important source is the Interior Ministry and yes, the active cases each day are total cases MINUS deaths MINUS recovered. As usual.--The Pollster (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That source is also what I am using. But is that formula for the active cases also used by the Interior Ministry? If no, then I do not know why that number is still there. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 02:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Every case that is not recovered or dead is an active case.--The Pollster (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Then look at Template:COVID-19 pandemic data/Australia medical cases chart. There is a certain number of cases that are not considered dead or recovered, but are also not considered active. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Australia is not Austria though. In our country, every person that is currently „active“ gets tested several times again after 1-2 weeks by the Red Cross and is then either still active or recovered. There is nothing in between. There are total cases, active, recovered and the dead. Just subtract from the total cases the number of recovered and dead when you update. You have done so for months. Thanks. --The Pollster (talk) 07:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If so, then that's what you say. Then why is the number important for you? LSGH (talk) (contributions) 10:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Active cases are important for long-term developments and there needs to be consistant updates and no breaks in the series.--The Pollster (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

ANI report
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Impru 20 talk 12:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Avoid mentioning editors’ personal attributes
Hello. For best results you should avoid mentioning other editors’ personal attributes, such as the incidents linked at this ANI thread. Things like nationality, gender, physical characteristics, and favorite ice cream flavor are completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. If you must criticize, focus on the edits and be sure to cite diffs and links with specificity. Jehochman Talk 09:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Levivich 16:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Do yourself a favor
Please don't do any more reverts, or repeating of a prior edit that somebody else reverted. If something is wrong you can explain why on the talk page, in a calm voice, with direct quotes and citations. See Graham's heirachry of disagreement. In addition, don't repeat yourself. If other editors want to be wrong, let them. Eventually somebody will notice and set things right. You shouldn't try to do too much yourself. Jehochman Talk 16:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:HARASSMENT?
At time of writing 8 editors have reported in the ANI thread about you that they have had unauthorised attempts to login to their accounts over this weekend. This is unusual. 6 of those editors supported your being made subject to a TBAN. The remaining 2 made what could be considered adverse comments abput your editing behaviour. Circumstantially, it’s reasonable to believe that this may be WP:HARASSMENT by you. I will open a separate subsection in the ANI thread about this and invite you to respond there. DeCausa (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello The Pollster. I didn't get to ping you about this, so have a FYI instead. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Question
Hej, I just thought about something: Do you maybe have an offline text of the article you work with? And then copy-paste this offline version into wikipedia? Because you keep re-introducing old changes into the live version of wikipedia. Mvbaron (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I use the old version of my updated version which gets constantly reverted, but I think reflects the current situation in Austria better than the corruption-riddled versions of impru.--The Pollster (talk) 10:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes I can see that - but you really should self-revert and don’t use your updated version anymore. You will probably be banned from editing if you don’t - this really is friendly advice. I also think that research affairs is unreliable, but we need to discuss this at RS or the talk page and you Need to stop trying to put your old version into Wikipedia. You should self-revert now otherwise this is all for nothing and you’ll get blocked in the next hour or so. Mvbaron (talk) 10:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban
Hi, letting you know that the outcome of the ANI discussion is that you have been topic-banned from articles or article content relating to opinion polling. As with most such bans this is "broadly construed" which is an elaborate way of saying it should be taken to cover the entire field of polling-related content in Wikipedia and not a specific list of articles. The ANI close is here but it is really just a restatement of this message.

Some minor bureaucracy:
 * There are some minor ban exceptions listed at WP:BANEX but important to note that a content disagreement is not usually "obvious vandalism" and misusing these exceptions will likely lead to a block.
 * Bans can be appealed at any time, and instructions on how to do so are at WP:UNBAN. As this ban is community-imposed it cannot be lifted by any individual administrator and will need to go to a community noticeboard like WP:AN. It's usual to wait some time before lodging a ban appeal, but up to you.

Obviously this isn't the outcome you would have preferred given your strong interest in polling (and obviously, your username). Hopefully there are other areas of Wikipedia editing that catch your interest. If so then all the best in editing those topics, and happy to discuss further if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Breach of your topic ban
This is a pretty clear cut breach of your topic ban. Have you an explanation? DeCausa (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I added an ADDITIONAL CHART. It has nothing to do with polls. The chart shows trendline excluding MFG, while the existing chart shows trendlines with MFG (which is not in parliament yet). Both charts must be shown. --The Pollster (talk) 15:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You’ve got to be kidding. It’s a chart of polls added to an article about polling. You can’t be serious. DeCausa (talk) 15:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.  Impru 20 talk 16:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have blocked you for one week for a clearcut violation of your topic ban on editing anything to do with polling. Please read the Guide to appealing blocks. Cullen328 (talk) 16:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)