User talk:The Pollster

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

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)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

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 57 21:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Pollster. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Have you got a source that it is not olny for the election ? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited

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)[reply]

Where'd you get the numbers for HC Strache? Mélencron (talk) 12:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the print edition.--The Pollster (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Pollster. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Pollster. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

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

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

talk) 04:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello The Pollster, Pls read the text above and pls provide

talk) 08:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia: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.

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

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

Yes. Every case that is not recovered or dead is an active case.--The Pollster (talk) 07:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then look at

LSGH (talk) (contributions) 04:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Impru20^talk 12:37, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. For best results you should avoid mentioning other editors’ personal attributes, such as the incidents linked at this ANI thread. [1] 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)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TBAN proposal: The Pollster. Levivich 16:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, letting you know that the outcome of the ANI discussion is that you have been

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)[reply]

This is a pretty clear cut breach of your topic ban. Have you an explanation? DeCausa (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Impru20^talk 16:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply

]

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

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

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]