Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RicoCorinth (talk | contribs) at 04:56, 7 December 2009 (→Try it again and we go to ANI: r). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Birnbaum article

Hi - hope you don't mind I threw in a few things on your new article. KConWiki (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, thanks alot! I need all the help I can get! Moogwrench (talk) 05:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

edits to 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

Thanks for your work. Just a comment: For right now, I think that most edits to the umbrella "constitutional crisis" article should be focused on trimming. Substantive additions should probably go to the sub-articles (at least, they should go there first; and hopefully, only there, as they can be included in trimmed summaries on the umbrella page). Homunq (talk) 19:47, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Reflinks toolserver

When creating or editing articles where templates arent in use may I suggest using the Reflinks toolserver. I suggest that you don't just take the results given verbatim, but make corrections to clean them up. The results need some manual help; sometimes author names and dates don't get added, and links to publishers are to the website which is not really useful, so link to the wiki article if one exists, sometimes the title is way too long including parent section names that can be removed, etc.

I also found and use an edit counter on my page which shows the main articles edited etc. and graphs them, Just passing on what other people have told meCathar11 (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Election Returns

There is no error in the AFP report. Hagamos Democracia conducted exit polls which agree with the lower figure.

The the TSE measured participation against a different electoral roll that was adjusted for emigration, deaths, etc, that the TSE did not share with them. Bú said that Hagamos Democracia was not adjusting the electoral roll for deaths and emigration because it did not have reliable enough information to do so. Since this was an arbitrary figure that cant stand up to scrutiny they will have to use a similar basis to earlier elections.

In 2005 the TSE website said 2,190,398 people voted, from an electoral roll of 3,976,550 voters. According to Hagamos Democracia, 2,162,000 voted in 2009 from an electoral roll of 4.6 million. That's approximately 28,000 fewer people voting than voted in 2005, while the electoral roll increased by some 600,000 persons. The size of the electoral roll was supplied to Hagamos Democracia by the TSE prior to the election, and was the same number supplied to the press.

The initial 60% was disengeous to say the least, knowing the attention span of international audiences.Cathar11 (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Its simple maths TSE changed what it was a % of by adjusting arbitrarily the figure.

Hagamos Democracia was accredited by the TSE as election observers. They are an NGO, funded by various governments, including the United States.

Their methodology was to select a sample of 1173 mesas electorales from around the country based on criteria like their history of participation in previous elections and other criteria. In each of these mesas electorales, they established an observer who was present the whole time, from the time the polling place opened until it closed, and did not visit other mesas electorales as many election observers do. After the polling place closed, their election observer sent them the statistics from that mesa, including the tallied vote counts, and participation from the official "actas" that the TSE has reported to it to tally. Their observers also send in their own statistics gathered from their observations during the day.

Hagamos Democracia told Tiempo that the TSE measured participation against a different electoral roll that was adjusted for emigration, deaths, etc, that the TSE did not share with them. Bú said that Hagamos Democracia was not adjusting the electoral roll for deaths and emigration because it did not have reliable enough information to do so.

The TSE has obviously decided to abandon its arbitrary electoral roll (which dissapears 600,000 voters?).Cathar11 (talk) 17:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I know the count isnt finished but its now 85/90% complete. I dont know why there not updating their wensite. If you note that on it they show the Hagamos Democracia % which are in line with theirprojections and note that all the figures agree with the exception of participation. The cpmfidence level on that is 99+% with a 1% margin of error. Whether it has anything to with the 6.5% spoiled vote rate or not I dont know. Final results may take weeks so well just have to wait and see.Cathar11 (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Law Library of Congress report

Why dont you put details of the report now that its in HTML into the Honduran Coup d'etat article as counter balance and I'll add details of the specific weaknesses of the report into the critism. section.

Sure, or we could switch roles. ;-) I think that there is valid criticism of the LLoC report, but I did add a little bit noting the more recent decree which gave the power to Congress to interpret the constitution in Article 205(10) after the ruling against the Congress's logic vis-a-vis Article 218(9) and 205(1). So I think the critics of the LLoC report might be out on a limb, depending on an older ruling, instead of the newer, ratified change to the Constitution which established a right on the part of the Congress to interpret the Constitution. Moogwrench (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Try it again and we go to ANI

Only post where you're allowed. -- Rico 03:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't post in the middle of my posts, and don't insert posts into the middle of threads where they're not allowed.

You may not insert a post in between a post and its reply by adding another colon, and you mayn't insert your posts into the posts of other posters, ever. -- Rico 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, your last edit to that was at 3:06 after my original reply at 3:03, and so I replied again at 3:17. Why did you move it? Moogwrench (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You really don't understand it, or are you playing dumb? Lo0ok at ALL the time and date stamps. You trieed to slip in a post, in the middle of a thread, in between a post and its reply. -- Rico 04:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, let review those stamps:

3:03 I respond to your 2:59 comment
3:05 you change your 2:59 comment
3:17 I reply to your changed 3:05 comment

What is confusing and why I am I wrong to reply to a comment again after it was finished? (even though you didn't update the stamp) Moogwrench (talk) 04:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I made a minor change only to clarify a vague reference. It wasn't clear that "that", referred to, "your supposed newness." My minor edit didn't change the meaning of what I had written in any way -- because I had already written about your supposed newness (in that same post) when I wrote, "newbie you supposedly were." My edit was purely a minor grammatical one for enhanced readability.

One thing you could have done might have been to have changed your reply, if you honestly thought I'd written something new. You're obviously familiar with strikeout formatting.

However, I hadn't changed the meaning of anything I'd written in any way.

Regardless, you may not insert a post in between a post with four colons, and a reply with five colons, just because you want to.

It's just that simple.

I'm not going to discuss it ad nauseum, especially if you're going to ignore the obvious. I'd rather just go to AN/I. I'm ready.

As far as I'm concerned, we can just move this discussion to AN/I. You can develop your defense there.

I reserve the right to do that in response to your next reply, especially if you ignore that a six-colon reply doesn't get inserted in between a four-colon post and a five-colon reply.

I consider you a thoroughly disruptive editor, and I'm not going to spend all day providing you with stimulation you can't or won't go out and get in the real world. -- Rico 04:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)