User talk:173.238.207.7

November 2024

Hello, I'm R0paire-wiki. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Rasmussen Reports seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Content had cited WP:RS R0paire 00:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rasmussen Reports. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. R0paire 02:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Rasmussen Reports, you may be blocked from editing. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is very prominently at the end of the paragraph you're deleting from. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also refer to Wikipedia's policies on edit warring and assumption of good faith, as you have now violated both. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to be missing the source where any republican bias in Rasmussen's numbers is proven. 173.238.207.7 (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The page doesn't say that Rasmussen has pro-Republican bias. The page says that it has been accused of pro-Republic bias. That statement is sourced. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These accusations are unproven, and it is imperitive to mention that. Reporting this without that important distinction is incredibly irresponsible. Anyone can be accused of anything. This is a biography, not a tabloid. 173.238.207.7 (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a source for that, you're welcome to add it. But to use your own analysis to say the accusations are unproven would be a violation of Wikipedia's original research policy, not to mention the aforementioned edit warring. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that "anyone can be accused of anything", but when those accusations are both made by a reliable source (538) and then reported in another reliable source (WaPo) they are plainly notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how it works. There is no proof cited for the accusation, so it remains unproven. That's how the burden of proof works.

I am simply trying to add a factual distinction that it is unproven. This isn't up for debate, it's a fact that its unproven.

This will be taken as your admission to refuse adding factual information to a bio. 173.238.207.7 (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia deals in what's in reliable sources. There are many things that are factual that are not on Wikipedia, because they are not in reliable sources. That is exactly the point of the original research policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a groundless accusation is okay But pointing out that there is no proof given for it is not? There isn't proof for any bias in their numbers whatsoever in the sources given. Weird how you don't hold the same standards for the accusation itself, as you do when you tell me something as silly as "prove that its unproven"But no need to prove the accusation itself? What kind of circus is being run here?

I suppose I'll leave the edit as is, since this site is clearly obsolete in regards to presenting factual information when it's being run with zero concern for facts or accuracy. Clearly the issues go far beyond simply correcting 1 false claim. 173.238.207.7 (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia is about what's in reliable sources. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmussen is more accurate than both 538 and WaPo, and the accusations remain unproven no matter who is making them. 538 has an issue with the topics Rasmussen covers, not the accuracy of their numbers. 173.238.207.7 (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok AntiDionysius (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

538s model had Harris winning the Elecriral college and a 5.5 popular vote miss, Rasmussen only missed by 0.5 percent. 538s numbers have a proven left wing bias here. Yet Rasmussen are the ones with a bio defaced by minformation citing bias. Check your sources please. Rasmussen is more accurate. Citations: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-harris 173.238.207.7 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Rasmussen Reports. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those who added false accusations to this bio with no proof of their validity would be the "disruptors". Glad to clear this up for you 173.238.207.7 (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How ever will I get around this impenetrable ban? Oh no! 173.238.207.7 (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could do it by, as ToBeFree explained below, starting a discussion on the article talk page and getting consensus for any changes you'd like to make. AntiDionysius (talk) 00:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Content vs. conduct

Hi 173.238.207.7, the content of the article about Rasmussen Reports can be discussed at Talk:Rasmussen Reports; other pages are unsuitable for reaching a consensus about the content.

User conduct, on the other hand, can be discussed on user talk pages, such as here. This just doesn't lead anywhere for the article. It's mostly unproductive and doesn't help you do change the article's content.

As soon as a consensus has been found, it can be implemented (and the implementation can be requested using {{edit semi-protected}}).

Further discussion about the article content here on this page is pointless, and discussion about user conduct on the article's talk page would quickly be removed. Separate both properly, please. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.