Talk:Papineau (electoral district)

message: Is it really the poorest riding in Canada?  Because the average household income listed on this page is higher than those of all four Prince Edward Island ridings.CaptainCanada 19:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: poorest

message: The following template was removed from this page:
2011 federal election redistributed resultsPundits' Guide to Canadian Elections	2011 federal election redistributed resultsPundits' Guide to Canadian Elections	2011 federal election redistributed resultsPundits' Guide to Canadian Elections	2011 federal election redistributed resultsPundits' Guide to Canadian Elections
Party                                                                          	Party                                                                          	Vote                                                                           	%
                                                                          	Liberal                                                                        	17,047                                                                         	37.93
                                                                          	New Democratic                                                                 	13,625                                                                         	29.47
                                                                          	Bloc Québécois                                                                 	11,421                                                                         	24.89
                                                                          	Conservative                                                                   	2,314                                                                          	5.04
                                                                          	Green                                                                          	868                                                                            	1.89
                                                                          	Others                                                                         	357                                                                            	0.78
I think that because of the Canadian federal electoral redistribution, 2012 and the increased number of ridings, these templates are useful to show how the current riding would have voted in the last election. They have been used all across Canadian riding pages. I don't see why this riding should be any different. FUNgus guy (talk) 00:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously you were in the right here. I've re-added the table. If the editor in question wants to remove it, he is going to have to discuss it first with the community, as these tables exist on most of the riding pages now. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignoring the concerns of other editors with whose edits you disagree on the one hand, while incessantly citing "the community" on the other, is wholly inconsistent.  Like you, I AM THE COMMUNITY!!!  When you deign to act like an adult and give a reason for the chart staying not only on the page, but in that exact spot, let me know.  Oh, and incumbency is not a reason. HuntClubJoe (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Redistributed results

message: ====Policy====
While not getting into the issue of reverting edits without first reaching out to the original editor to understand their motivation (in this case, the deletion of a table), Earl Andrew justifies the reversion of my deletion by pointing to other articles with the same flawed table...which he created!
Examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Papineau_%28electoral_district%29&diff=prev&oldid=654041277 - the above article
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ottawa_South&diff=prev&oldid=593333525 - Ottawa South
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edmonton_Strathcona&diff=636097681&oldid=622403799 - Edmonton Strathcona
While we're on this topic, I found an identical table with identical formatting and citation in Toronto Centre...but added by Fungus Guy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronto_Centre&oldid=670004225
This strikes me as possible sock puppetry.  I'm hoping a more sophisticated WP editor can either confirm or deny my hypothesis.
Earl Andrew already admitted to working as a polling firm employee in Ottawa. It seems likely the same user is responsible not only for adding the content cited, but actually generating it in meatspace.  This in itself wouldn't make the content non-NPOV, though one has to wonder why Earl Andrew guards Canadian electoral district pages so jealously (including the "Political Geography" sections which he invented, the topic of our last edit war).  Articles about Canadian electoral districts are not Earl Andrew's soapbox and should not be treated as such.
Further, in the edit history of every single article mentioned above (only a handful, but statistically, that makes the following more damning), Earl Andrew and Fungus Guy are responsible for the lion's share of edits. While I understand that topics as specialized as Canadian politics may have only a handful of active editors, this appears to be a suspicious pattern and should be treated with all due seriousness.
*move from results It's not a result, it doesn't belong in results. It could be interesting to a discussion of the redistribution but labelling it a result is misapplication of the source. SPACKlick (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't make baseless accusations, there is no sock puppetry here. The reason the tables are nearly identical to each other is because it's much easier to copy/paste from other articles. It also leads to better consistency across the pages. Yes I've made contributions to pretty much every riding page, but you said it yourself, "topics as specialized as Canadian politics may have only a handful of active editors." As for the use of aggregated data, maybe you have a point. IMHO I think the ref tag linking to Pundits' Guide is enough to say it's not from Elections Canada, and I don't think it misinforms readers, but I'm open to discuss it civilly. As for editors stifling your edits? Trust me, when I first started I was reverted many many times until I learned how things worked. I still get reverted now and again. You shouldn't let that frustrate you, and if you disagree, then discuss it. Maybe tone down your language a smidge, you might get better results :) FUNgus guy (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking of Pundit's Guide, it might be wiser to cite Elections Canada, as it is the original source of the redistributed results. Also, I find the accusations of sock puppetry to be amusing. I think my administrator status would've be revoked a long time ago if I were guilty of that.  Anyways, if there is consensus to move the table somewhere else, then so be it.  But I think they belong in the list of election results, as they are still election results compiled by an official government agency, and they will have to be used to calculate swings on this year's election results. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are fine where they are, it makes logical sense to place the template between the last election and the next. And I think they are vital contextual tables because of the massive redistribution that occurred. Maybe to allay HuntClubJoe's concern about confusing readers, we could change the ref to a footnote saying something along the lines of "These results are taken from Elections Canada's 2011 poll-by-poll results and transposed using Pundits' Guide". FUNgus guy (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Ok, this conversation seems to have died. So, to address the concerns of HuntClubJoe and SPACKlick, I propose changing the title bar from "2011 federal election redistributed results" to "2011 election poll-by-poll redistribution". No mention of "results". If anyone has a better, more encyclopaedic way of wording that, please suggest it. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

text: DoneFUNgus guy (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose it's too late, but I oppose this change. There are no reliable sources that use that phrase. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of any reliable sources that use the phrase "redistributed results" either. Pundits' Guide uses the term "transposed". If you can think of a better way of phrasing the title bar, then by all means change it. Thus far, I have only changed the template on this page and Ajax. FUNgus guy (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: (Policy) Using bad practices from one article to justify another and possible sock puppetry; and (Politics) Acceptability of aggregated data in "Election Results" section 

message: While not getting into the issue of reverting edits without first reaching out to the original editor to understand their motivation (in this case, the deletion of a table), Earl Andrew justifies the reversion of my deletion by pointing to other articles with the same flawed table...which he created!
Examples:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Papineau_%28electoral_district%29&diff=prev&oldid=654041277 - the above article
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ottawa_South&diff=prev&oldid=593333525 - Ottawa South
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Edmonton_Strathcona&diff=636097681&oldid=622403799 - Edmonton Strathcona
While we're on this topic, I found an identical table with identical formatting and citation in Toronto Centre...but added by Fungus Guy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Toronto_Centre&oldid=670004225
This strikes me as possible sock puppetry.  I'm hoping a more sophisticated WP editor can either confirm or deny my hypothesis.
Earl Andrew already admitted to working as a polling firm employee in Ottawa. It seems likely the same user is responsible not only for adding the content cited, but actually generating it in meatspace.  This in itself wouldn't make the content non-NPOV, though one has to wonder why Earl Andrew guards Canadian electoral district pages so jealously (including the "Political Geography" sections which he invented, the topic of our last edit war).  Articles about Canadian electoral districts are not Earl Andrew's soapbox and should not be treated as such.
Further, in the edit history of every single article mentioned above (only a handful, but statistically, that makes the following more damning), Earl Andrew and Fungus Guy are responsible for the lion's share of edits. While I understand that topics as specialized as Canadian politics may have only a handful of active editors, this appears to be a suspicious pattern and should be treated with all due seriousness.
*move from results It's not a result, it doesn't belong in results. It could be interesting to a discussion of the redistribution but labelling it a result is misapplication of the source. SPACKlick (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Policy

message: I could have done a lot more editing in the past 4+ years, but instead shied away from larger and more time-consuming edits and rewrites because I felt the end result might be another "100,000 Edit Man" coming out of the woodwork to stifle me.  When more voluminous editors are allowed to browbeat others into submission because they generate a lot of "content" or have a page full of barnstars, it necessarily degrades the quality of WP by reducing the number of editors.  It's hard enough to fight the paid corporate trolls on here, dammit!
Please advise. HuntClubJoe (talk) 05:54, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't make baseless accusations, there is no sock puppetry here. The reason the tables are nearly identical to each other is because it's much easier to copy/paste from other articles. It also leads to better consistency across the pages. Yes I've made contributions to pretty much every riding page, but you said it yourself, "topics as specialized as Canadian politics may have only a handful of active editors." As for the use of aggregated data, maybe you have a point. IMHO I think the ref tag linking to Pundits' Guide is enough to say it's not from Elections Canada, and I don't think it misinforms readers, but I'm open to discuss it civilly. As for editors stifling your edits? Trust me, when I first started I was reverted many many times until I learned how things worked. I still get reverted now and again. You shouldn't let that frustrate you, and if you disagree, then discuss it. Maybe tone down your language a smidge, you might get better results :) FUNgus guy (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Speaking of Pundit's Guide, it might be wiser to cite Elections Canada, as it is the original source of the redistributed results. Also, I find the accusations of sock puppetry to be amusing. I think my administrator status would've be revoked a long time ago if I were guilty of that.  Anyways, if there is consensus to move the table somewhere else, then so be it.  But I think they belong in the list of election results, as they are still election results compiled by an official government agency, and they will have to be used to calculate swings on this year's election results. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are fine where they are, it makes logical sense to place the template between the last election and the next. And I think they are vital contextual tables because of the massive redistribution that occurred. Maybe to allay HuntClubJoe's concern about confusing readers, we could change the ref to a footnote saying something along the lines of "These results are taken from Elections Canada's 2011 poll-by-poll results and transposed using Pundits' Guide". FUNgus guy (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Ok, this conversation seems to have died. So, to address the concerns of HuntClubJoe and SPACKlick, I propose changing the title bar from "2011 federal election redistributed results" to "2011 election poll-by-poll redistribution". No mention of "results". If anyone has a better, more encyclopaedic way of wording that, please suggest it. FUNgus guy (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

text: DoneFUNgus guy (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I suppose it's too late, but I oppose this change. There are no reliable sources that use that phrase. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:09, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of any reliable sources that use the phrase "redistributed results" either. Pundits' Guide uses the term "transposed". If you can think of a better way of phrasing the title bar, then by all means change it. Thus far, I have only changed the template on this page and Ajax. FUNgus guy (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsorted