Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
|archive = User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
|archive = User talk:The Four Deuces/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
}}
}}
{{archive box|search=yes|
{{Archivebox}}
{{nowrap|'''2008''': {{Archives by months|2008}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2009''': {{Archives by months|2009}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2010''': {{Archives by months|2010}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2011''': {{Archives by months|2011}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2012''': {{Archives by months|2012}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2013''': {{Archives by months|2013}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2014''': {{Archives by months|2014}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2015''': {{Archives by months|2015}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2016''': {{Archives by months|2016}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2017''': {{Archives by months|2017}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2018''': {{Archives by months|2018}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2019''': {{Archives by months|2019}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2020''': {{Archives by months|2020}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2021''': {{Archives by months|2021}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2022''': {{Archives by months|2022}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2023''': {{Archives by months|2023}}}}
{{nowrap|'''2024''': {{Archives by months|2024}}}}
}}
== Antifs ==
== Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion ==
]? ] ] 17:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello, The Four Deuces. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}}<!--Template:WQA-notice--> Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 12:21, 14 April 2012</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:Perhaps hold off for a while and see if we make any progess. ] (]) 00:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
== Notice of Cultural conflicts noticeboard discussion ==
== Invitation to participate in a research ==
Hello, The Four Deuces. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}}<!--Template:CCN-notice--> Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:44, 30 July 2012</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
Hello,
== AN/I WIKIHOUNDING by Collect? ==
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this ''''''.
Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:26, 29 May 2013</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
== Alger Hiss ==
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its ] and view its ] .
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at ] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
* ];
* ].
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Thanks,<!-- Template:Arbcom notice -->
Kind Regards,
] (]) 13:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
]
== Request for Arbitration case declined ==
<bdi lang="en" dir="ltr">] (]) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC) </bdi>
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a {{oldid2|563280462|Alger Hiss|request for arbitration}}, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see {{oldid2|563280462|Alger Hiss: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter|the Arbitrators' opinions}} for potential suggestions on moving forward.
<!-- Message sent by User:UOzurumba (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=UOzurumba_(WMF)/sandbox_Research_announcement_list_for_enwiki_Potential_Admins&oldid=27650229 -->
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message ==
For the Arbitration Committee, — ]] 20:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I think thanks to the reliable sources board we have made progress, but was hoping to get your input as well if you have a minute. ] (]) 23:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small>
== Elizabeth II ==
</div>
The question posed at the ], at which you commented, has been amended to clarify a ]. Please re-visit the question and your comment and amend if necessary. Thanks. ] (]) 17:05, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1258243447 -->
Sorry, I can't reply you and ] there on RSN as the thread has exceeded my edit box limit. It is my mistake that I didn't post links for my sources in RSN itself for easy access. For the sake of chronology I searched sources from 2002 to 2013. UN, HRW, US etc sources published in 2011, 2012, 2013 still talk about muslim involvement. The gang is not telling me which sources are primary or unusable because they know I have recent sources and I can bring more. Their tactics is to run around trees to frustrate me. (2) Academic books are good but not every user has access to library in real life and also google books doesn't work on some browser. The gang is using academic sources for their side. I don't have access to any academic book. As I (and some users on wikiproject India) can tell other side only through web sources, they try to discredit ALL web sources. And other users also say that academic sources are better, and as users like me don't have access to academic books hence article end up showing only only one side of story. This is the trick of the gang. And combined with 'academic sources' insistence, when gang is pushing POV, it becomes almost impossible for other users to balance the side. Thank you. ] (]) 18:59, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
:A problem that has no real solution is that academic books and articles are often the best sources, yet they are often difficult to obtain. Basically, you need to trust the people who do have access to those academic sources. You can always come to RSN to ask "is this source represented correctly". There is also the resource exchange. Official sources post 2011 are likely to be reliable for that article. Bring individual cases to RSN. ] (]) 20:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" |
----
'''Hello The Four Deuces, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br />
] (]) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}''
:I agree with Itsmejudith. If you do not have access to the best current sources, then it is usually not possible to know if they are being presented consistently with policy. While you may question them on talk pages or noticeboards, the people most likely to reply are those who were responsible for developing the articles.
|} ] (]) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:Even if you find sources that help show an article is biased, you need to persuade editors not already involved in editing the article to participate. In the case of ] that may be difficult because few people who are neutral on the topic would have any knowledge or interest in the story.
:On the other hand, it may be that the article accurately reflects sources, but the scholarship is biased. In that case there is little you can do, since articles are supposed to give greatest weight to majority views.
:] (]) 16:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
== Statistics on Education and Jobs, with home-made graphs ==
== Formally added as party to an ArbCom case ==
]
Just so you know, you have been to the ] as an involved party.
]
Instead of us getting into the Misplaced Pages-equivalent of ], I'm going to make more statistical plots and graphs. My goal is to understand the American workplace as it relates to education.
I'm working on taking statistics from the BLS (]) and making them into plots. Fundamentally, my goal is to analyze educational attainment as it relates to labor, with graphs I make myself. '''This is a work in progress.'''
For the Arbitration Committee, - ] | <sup>] and ]</sup> 18:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
:Hello The Four Deuces. We've never been introduced before, so I am Hahc21, a clerk for the Arbitration Committee. I added you as a party following a request by one of the arbitrators, thus my actions were not personal. I don't know why an arbitrator requested that you be added as a party, and if you want more information about it, you may ask so in the talk page of the Tea party movement case. Cheers. — ]] 01:18, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
These graphs do explain why Kamala Harris won high-income voters, and Trump won low-income voters this year. Median weekly earnings systematically increase as educational attainment increases. It may seem obvious, but the graph here really shows how thorough it is.
== Edit request at MkuCr ==
'''Note''': I graduated this year with a Bachelor's in mathematics & statistics, and one of my skills is making plots in ]. ] (]) 02:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
I just posted a notice about not finding the institution for Dinyu Sharlanov online. It would be nice to know, but I don't think it would change the situation for citing him either way. I will be posting the edit request tomorrow. ] (]) 04:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
:(cross-posted from my talk page) You're welcome. I have no problem with using a better source when we find one, but Tourbillon presented this source and we have no good reason to exclude it. ] (]) 06:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
::The book ''Dissent And Opposition In Communist Eastern Europe'' (], 2008) has a chapter on Bulgaria with sections about repression during various periods of Communist rule. I am sure other sources would not be difficult to find. ] (]) 07:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
:::This is not an either/or proposition. If you propose a sentence for inclusion from that source, I will also support it. ] (]) 07:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
:Your perceived correlation between higher income and voting Democratic is a ]; "a mathematical relationship in which two or more events or variables are associated but not causally related, due to either coincidence or the presence of a certain third, unseen factor." Education is the ] variable. It explains why your hypothesis breaks down for both the highest 1% and lowest 20% of voters. Furthermore, there are other variables that influence voting which may also help explain the false finding.
== gun control DR ==
:In order to test your hypothesis, you need to test it.
:Could you please provide linear regression analysis with three variables: party, income and education level. Then tell me what the correlation income and party is. Since you have already entered all the data to determine correlation between party and income and party and education, this should be simple.
Gun control DR. I created a gun control DR, but missed your name to add you to it. Please feel free to add yourself if so inclined. ] ] (]) 18:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
:Once you factor in religion, race and urban/suburban/exurban/rural, you should see strong relationship between income and party preference, with Republican voting correlating to higher levels of income.
:Let me know your results! ] (]) 05:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Responding here as to not clutter the DR.
::'''Challenge accepted, to show that I really do know linear regression.''' These were my three variables: Trump & Harris vote share, median income by state, and percentage Bachelor's by state, for all 50 States and D.C. I first did income. The massive outlier for both is the District of Columbia.
::]
You said that you thought fringe groups outside the US did not have any interest in this topic. I do not think any of the following are fit for inclusion based on the reliability of sourcing (except ''possibly'' the first, which would be borderline), but it is evidence that the trope crosses international boundaries (but I do freely admit it is concentrated in the states)
:::Second, I did education. This time the correlations were much stronger, as you can see visually. Again, the District of Columbia is a massive outlier.
::::Third, I did 3-D plots for both, comparing vote share to both education and income. I'll give you the correlations next.
::::]
:I said, "I do not think that notable fringe groups outside the U.S. take any interest in this...." The ] and the ] are not "notable fringe groups." People in High River, Alberta being irritated that the police force their provincial government chose removed guns from their abandoned homes is not a "notable fringe group." ] (]) 01:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
::::] ] (]) 16:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Here are the sets of correlations for income and education each. For full transparency, I'm just copy-and-pasting the R code:
== 2A RFC/DR ==
:::::'''# Calculate correlations for income and vote share'''
I have speedily closed the Second Amendment RFC, so that the DR can proceed. GP opened the DR, which I take to be an implicit !vote that he finds DR acceptable, and if you and I are agreeing on a course of action here it seems fairly obvious that it is the correct decision and should move in that direction. So far everyone to comment on the RFC seems to think the RFC would not work. But I thought I would make you aware to be transparent. ] (]) 18:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::> print(cor_trump_income)
::::: -0.7457374
:Also, I just noticed that you are listed in the DR as TFD, you might want to fix it so that any automatic stuff correctly routes to you. ] (]) 18:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::'''# Calculate correlations for education and vote share'''
I think that you might have put your RfC comment in the wrong place (in a subsection about the sources, rather than in the RfC itself). I don't feel right moving it myself, but I want to let you know. --] (]) 19:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
== Tea Party movement case - final decision motion ==
:::::> print(cor_harris_bachelors)
::::: 0.79985
This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a '']'' (which affects you) has been proposed to close the ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ''']''' (] • ] • ]) 01:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
:::::'''For the 3-D model there are two ways to do it. I bolded the relevant correlations for you.''' The first is to do it by calculating the correlation between predicted and actual vote share. The second is to do it for the multiple regression model using the summary() function. I did both, but I'm not showing all the summary() data to save space.
:::::> # Add predicted values to the original data
:Same boat. ]. Also ] if you do not mind me using my own apt essay. Cheers. ] (]) 11:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 Misplaced Pages 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.
Hello The Four Deuces, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Happy editing, Abishe (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
Statistics on Education and Jobs, with home-made graphs
Percentage of jobs by minimum educational attainmentEducational attainment and income
Instead of us getting into the Misplaced Pages-equivalent of flame wars, I'm going to make more statistical plots and graphs. My goal is to understand the American workplace as it relates to education.
I'm working on taking statistics from the BLS (Bureau of Labor Statistics) and making them into plots. Fundamentally, my goal is to analyze educational attainment as it relates to labor, with graphs I make myself. This is a work in progress.
These graphs do explain why Kamala Harris won high-income voters, and Trump won low-income voters this year. Median weekly earnings systematically increase as educational attainment increases. It may seem obvious, but the graph here really shows how thorough it is.
Your perceived correlation between higher income and voting Democratic is a spurious relationship; "a mathematical relationship in which two or more events or variables are associated but not causally related, due to either coincidence or the presence of a certain third, unseen factor." Education is the confounding variable. It explains why your hypothesis breaks down for both the highest 1% and lowest 20% of voters. Furthermore, there are other variables that influence voting which may also help explain the false finding.
In order to test your hypothesis, you need to test it.
Could you please provide linear regression analysis with three variables: party, income and education level. Then tell me what the correlation income and party is. Since you have already entered all the data to determine correlation between party and income and party and education, this should be simple.
Once you factor in religion, race and urban/suburban/exurban/rural, you should see strong relationship between income and party preference, with Republican voting correlating to higher levels of income.
Challenge accepted, to show that I really do know linear regression. These were my three variables: Trump & Harris vote share, median income by state, and percentage Bachelor's by state, for all 50 States and D.C. I first did income. The massive outlier for both is the District of Columbia.
Trump Vote Share vs. Median Income in all 50 States and DC
For the 3-D model there are two ways to do it. I bolded the relevant correlations for you. The first is to do it by calculating the correlation between predicted and actual vote share. The second is to do it for the multiple regression model using the summary() function. I did both, but I'm not showing all the summary() data to save space.
