Difference between revisions of "User talk:Leslie Graves"

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Concerned about the objectivity of some of your writers)
m (Concerned about the objectivity of some of your writers)
Line 147: Line 147:
 
:::In case you wanted an example of imbalance, I noticed in the Texas Attorney General's race between incumbent [[Greg Abbott]] vs. [[Barbara Ann Radnofsky]], Barbara Ann Radnofsky has a Controversies section, but Greg Abbott did not. Ironically, the issue under Barbara Ann Radnofsky's section could probably have applied to Greg Abbott as well. I did a 2 min Google search and found a couple of potential controversies for Greg Abbott and put them on [[Talk:Greg_Abbott#Some_articles_for_a_Controversies_section|his talk page]].
 
:::In case you wanted an example of imbalance, I noticed in the Texas Attorney General's race between incumbent [[Greg Abbott]] vs. [[Barbara Ann Radnofsky]], Barbara Ann Radnofsky has a Controversies section, but Greg Abbott did not. Ironically, the issue under Barbara Ann Radnofsky's section could probably have applied to Greg Abbott as well. I did a 2 min Google search and found a couple of potential controversies for Greg Abbott and put them on [[Talk:Greg_Abbott#Some_articles_for_a_Controversies_section|his talk page]].
 
:::Objectivity should be of particular concern for candidates in big influential states such as California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Texas, etc. You might want to point your writers to candidates in states like that to be extra careful about balance. --&nbsp;[[User:Fandyllic|<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted; cursor:help;" title="Disgruntled voter">Fandyllic</span>]]<small> ([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contr]])</small> 6:56 PM PDT 8 Nov 2010
 
:::Objectivity should be of particular concern for candidates in big influential states such as California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Texas, etc. You might want to point your writers to candidates in states like that to be extra careful about balance. --&nbsp;[[User:Fandyllic|<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted; cursor:help;" title="Disgruntled voter">Fandyllic</span>]]<small> ([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contr]])</small> 6:56 PM PDT 8 Nov 2010
::::Speaking of which, I just decided to look at the Attorney General candidates for the states mentioned about and noticed an imbalance in the Illinois race also. [[Lisa Madigan]] has a large Controversies section and [[Stephen H. Kim]] has none. You could go through [[wikipedia:List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population#States_and_territories|states based on population]], I suppose. --&nbsp;[[User:Fandyllic|<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted; cursor:help;" title="Disgruntled voter">Fandyllic</span>]]<small> ([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contrib]])</small>
+
::::Speaking of which, I just decided to look at the Attorney General candidates for the states mentioned about and noticed an imbalance in the Illinois race also. [[Lisa Madigan]] has a large Controversies section and [[Stephen H. Kim]] has none. You could go through [[wikipedia:List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population#States_and_territories|states based on population]], I suppose. --&nbsp;[[User:Fandyllic|<span style="border-bottom:1px dotted; cursor:help;" title="Disgruntled voter">Fandyllic</span>]]<small> ([[User talk:Fandyllic|talk]] &middot; [[Special:Contributions/Fandyllic|contr]])</small> 7:05 PM PDT 8 Nov 2010

Revision as of 21:05, 8 November 2010

We'll be tweet-a-propping. Thanks! Maxbnorton 15:46, 3 June 2010 (CDT)

Awesome, thanks Leslie! BaileyL 12:30, 3 February 2010 (CST)

Page turner just made easier

{{pt1}} [[2012 ballot measures|2012]] {{pt2}} [[2010 ballot measures|2010]] {{pt3}}

This equals this:

2012
2010


Great for many articles.

--Johnwynnejr 10:06, 13 March 2010 (CST)

Embedded picture

Is it possible to embed a photo on Ballotpedia? This would mean that clicking on the photo would do nothing at all.--Johnwynnejr 23:48, 16 May 2010 (CDT)

Front page news

Breaking-news.jpg Something like this picture is needed on the front page of BP. I don't believe that the Recent news sections is clearly notated enough to generate traffic.

Response to "Link to template question"

See User_talk:Fandyllic#Link_to_template_question. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8:50 AM PDT 14 Jun 2010

"discussion" "talk"

Please do help.

It is my impression that the top of this page says "discussion" "talk", & that I have offered twenty edits.

Have I, in any fashion, violated what is implied by "discussion" "talk"?

Is my identity obscure? Which regulation have I violated?

Further, is there a complete list of last week's results?

Thank You,

hopiakuta DonFphrnqTaub Persina 18:00, 14 June 2010 (CDT)

Top and total coloring for partisan table templates

Okay, I update the {{partisantop}} and {{partisantotal}} templates so they would change color given a 2nd parameter I call "lean".

Here are examples:

{{Aksenatepartisan}} Bipartisan{{partisantop|B}} and {{partisantotal|B}}

Party As of July 2014
     Democratic Party 7
     Republican Party 13
Total 20


{{Alhousepartisan}} Democratic{{partisantop|D}} and {{partisantotal|D}}

Party As of July 2014
     Democratic Party 38
     Republican Party 65
     Independent 1
     Vacancy 1
Total 105


{{Azhousepartisan}} Republican{{partisantop|R}} and {{partisantotal|R}}

Party As of July 2014
     Democratic Party 24
     Republican Party 36
Total 60


{{Inhousepartisan}} Weakly Democratic{{partisantop|wD}} and {{partisantotal|wD}}

Party As of July 2014
     Democratic Party 31
     Republican Party 69
Total 100


{{Akhousepartisan}} Weakly Republican{{partisantop|wR}} and {{partisantotal|wR}}

Party As of July 2014
     Democratic Party 14
     Republican Party 26
Total 40


I hope that's what you wanted. My threshold for weak was <10% margin, but it's really up to whoever uses the templates. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 8:05 PM PDT 28 Jun 2010

Scope of site

It's clear from looking at this site its focused wholly on the US. Nothing wrong with that, but it would be good to state so explicitly, on the front page, "About Ballotpedia" page, etc. A related issue is, obviously current contributors are primarily interested in the US; but, are contributions about non-US ballots welcome, or are they off-topic for this site? You need to make that editorial decision, and then document it. --SJK 18:58, 17 August 2010 (CDT)

Mismatched colored dots

The colored dots don't match in List of political parties in the United States vs. Political parties with candidates in state senate elections in 2010.
List of political parties in the United States
Constitution_Party#Independent_American_Party_of_Nevada: Independent American Party
Political parties with candidates in state senate elections in 2010
Constitution_Party#Independent_American_Party_of_Nevada: American Independent Party
This is bad. These are not the same parties. This is like the people who get Independent confused with Independent American or American Independent and register for the wrong party. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:29 PM PDT 24 Aug 2010

Article about silly WA state candidates

The Lower Taxes Party and the Neither Party By Jordan Schrader on June 7, 2010 at 2:39 pm

This is how one writer sees these "political parties" and I was suprised at how closely it matches by sentiments. Do you really want Ballotpedia to be seen as associated with this silliness? -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 1:13 PM PDT 26 Aug 2010

In the interest of providing a comprehensive list of the candidates for state legislature in 2010, I want to acknowledge the existence of these State of Wash candidates, and include the party preferences they have chosen. I'm happy to also include commentary such as the article you link about the fluffiness and even the absurdity of the situation or the non-realness/seriousness of the parties; that seems like a notable perspective and one that ought to be referenced. Leslie Graves 16:18, 26 August 2010 (CDT)

Main Page update

Total views up to 26M--Johnwynnejr 23:28, 30 August 2010 (CDT)

Thanks for link to article about Florida man making frivolous parties

I don't feel vindicated, because I should have found that story and given it to you. I wasn't "right," but I think I was on the "right track." We should be more careful about verifying the validity of things we put on this wiki, since the truth is paramount. People game the system all the time. We should be wary of it. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 4:00 PM PDT 14 Sep 2010

Editing ballot endorsements template

Have you considered adding an edit link to templates like this one to make it more obvious to new users how to edit them when they are embedded in pages like this? This would be similar to the many Wikipedia templates that have "v.d.e" (view, discuss, edit) links, like this one. --Paizourrar 13:08, 19 October 2010 (CDT)

Well, on Wikipedia it's done with Template:Navbar. I guess Template:Navbox exists on this wiki, but Template:Navbar doesn't. I don't know why. On a related note, it seems like all these ballot measure endorsement wikitables ought to be done with the help of a common template. I don't think my wiki-foo is up to the task, though. --Paizourrar 17:22, 19 October 2010 (CDT)

Endorsement charts

I thing most of them are a good width, but the November 2, 2010 one could be broken up into 2 tables, since it is much wider than the others. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:53 PM PDT 20 Oct 2010

I split up the table into 2 parts. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 3:54 PM PDT 20 Oct 2010

History in partisan comp boxes

Looking at Partisan composition box sandbox, I like Version 8. ;-)

Do you want me to make some templates after the look is decided on?

-- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 5:50 PM PDT 25 Oct 2010

Using new templates...
Mythical State Senate
Party As of November 1, 2014 After the 2010 Election
     Democratic Party 37 30
     Republican Party 24 32
     Vacancy 1 -
Total 62 62
wikicode...
{{partisantopbeforeafter|width=55%|title=Mythical State Senate
|datebrefore=November 1, 2010
|dateafter=the 2010 Election
|leanbefore=D
|leanafter=wR
}}
{{partisancountbeforeafter|D| '''37''' | 30}}
{{partisancountbeforeafter|R| 24 | '''32'''}}
{{partisancountbeforeafter| | 1 | - }}
{{partisantotalbeforeafter| '''62''' | '''62''' }}
-- Fandyllic (talk · contrib)

Concerned about the objectivity of some of your writers

I don't want to name names, but I've noticed some of your writers have some obvious partisan bents. I think for the sake of objectivity, you should require your writers to state their party affiliation, so readers like me can at least understand where a partisan perspective might be coming from. I try not to involve myself in the editorial content of articles, but I've noticed several candidates and office holders have "Controversies" sections and several do not. I doubt this is because the ones without those sections are without controversies. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:37 AM PDT 5 Nov 2010

On further review, the problem is not as bad as I thought, but there is still some room for concern. A "Controversies" section should probably stubbed for all candidates and office holders. Also, if a partisan person has a controversies section filled in, their counterpart should probably have one also. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 12:56 PM PDT 5 Nov 2010
Thanks for the response. As long as you're aware of the issue, I trust it will get better. I'll try to add my feedback where I can. I will do a few Candidate A vs Candidate B comparisons and add comments to the talk pages of candidates who seem to be lacking a Controversies sections where there probably should be something. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 11:47 AM PDT 8 Nov 2010
In case you wanted an example of imbalance, I noticed in the Texas Attorney General's race between incumbent Greg Abbott vs. Barbara Ann Radnofsky, Barbara Ann Radnofsky has a Controversies section, but Greg Abbott did not. Ironically, the issue under Barbara Ann Radnofsky's section could probably have applied to Greg Abbott as well. I did a 2 min Google search and found a couple of potential controversies for Greg Abbott and put them on his talk page.
Objectivity should be of particular concern for candidates in big influential states such as California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Texas, etc. You might want to point your writers to candidates in states like that to be extra careful about balance. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 6:56 PM PDT 8 Nov 2010
Speaking of which, I just decided to look at the Attorney General candidates for the states mentioned about and noticed an imbalance in the Illinois race also. Lisa Madigan has a large Controversies section and Stephen H. Kim has none. You could go through states based on population, I suppose. -- Fandyllic (talk · contr) 7:05 PM PDT 8 Nov 2010
This discussion page has been protected from further postings.