User talk:Ontlib20

November 2021

Hello, Ontlib20. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Mainstreet Research, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 04:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Hello, I'm Yeeno. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mainstreet Research without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Yeeno (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yeeno, thanks for writing. Are you Canadian and familiar with the Public Opinion Research industry here? I ask because your restoration of this section is inconsistent with Wikipedia entries related to this space, I would ask you to research this before you restore this section.

This is a summary page of the polling industry in Canada, https://338canada.com/pollster-ratings.htm

Here are wikipedia entries for most of the polling firms listed there.

- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/L%C3%A9ger_(company)

- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nanos_Research

- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Forum_Research

- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Abacus_Data

- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ekos_Research_Associates

All these firms have faced criticism over the years for major polling misses.

- https://calgary.citynews.ca/2012/04/24/pondering-the-reliability-of-political-polls-following-alberta-vote/

- https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/alberta-election-results-2012-why-were-the-polls-so-wrong-and-w_n_1448602

- https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/conservative-polling-firm-censured-campaign-against-liberal-mp-175149579.html

- https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/why-were-polls-so-wrong-about-the-b-c-election-1.1411026

- https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/alberta-s-election-polls-miss-the-mark-1.1206411

- https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/pollster-frank-graves-apologizes-denies-anti-tory-bias/article4352832/

- https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-pollsters-painful-reckoning-how-could-i-have-screwed-up-so-badly/article595633/

And yet, despite this long history of major misses by every firm, only one firm has a section dedicated exclusively to two polls it missed, why was this Section ever created is the better question? In my opinion, it is a smear against the firm itself. Please refer me to a Canadian editor who can properly understand the context. Thanks. Ontlib20 (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mainstreet Research. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 22:22, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are not disruptive, I posted quite clearly to the first editors note citing links to every single other page and to relevant links. After reviewing them, that first editor did not revert the changes, since my edit is perfectly reasonable and within the guidelines of consistency that I understand is the cornerstone of Wikipedia policy. Subsequent editors have insisted to not read my original post. Ontlib20 (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for dispute resolution as you suggested and have added content to the page, everything is cited and linked. Ontlib20 (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Hello Ontlib20. A section has been created on the Mainstreet Research Talk Page so that we can begin to address concerns with the section on the page you have been editing. Please consult WP:COLLAB and provide comments to help all those who edit Mainstreet Research better understand your position. Thank you. HamOntPoliFiend (talk) 03:22, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reply button on the Mainstreet Research talk page so I will post it here.

I have already posted my rational reasons in response to Yeeno above.

Here is a summary of Canadian Polling Firm Wikipedia Pages.

This is a summary page of the polling industry in Canada, https://338canada.com/pollster-ratings.htm

Here are wikipedia entries for most of the polling firms listed there.

- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/L%C3%A9ger_(company)

- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Nanos_Research

- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Forum_Research

- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Abacus_Data

- https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Ekos_Research_Associates

All these firms have faced criticism over the years for major polling misses.

- https://calgary.citynews.ca/2012/04/24/pondering-the-reliability-of-political-polls-following-alberta-vote/

- https://www.huffpost.com/archive/ca/entry/alberta-election-results-2012-why-were-the-polls-so-wrong-and-w_n_1448602

- https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/conservative-polling-firm-censured-campaign-against-liberal-mp-175149579.html

- https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/why-were-polls-so-wrong-about-the-b-c-election-1.1411026

- https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/alberta-s-election-polls-miss-the-mark-1.1206411

- https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/pollster-frank-graves-apologizes-denies-anti-tory-bias/article4352832/

- https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-pollsters-painful-reckoning-how-could-i-have-screwed-up-so-badly/article595633/

And yet, despite this long history of major misses by every firm, only one firm has a section dedicated exclusively to two polls it missed, why was this Section ever created? In my opinion, it is a smear against the firm itself.

If the content of the Calgary polling failure is so prominent, surely it belongs on the 2017 Calgary Mayoral election page (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2017_Calgary_municipal_election) and not on this corporate reference page, it is inconsistent with every other polling firm profile on Wikipedia. Ontlib20 (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should also note that both the individuals who created these Sections are no longer available to comment.

In the History, user Mikalra first posted the Section later called "Controversies" as "2017 Calgary election poll debacle", mere days after that election.

Then user SpaceDude21 added the Nanaimo poll reference in 2019.

You don't think it's suspicious that anonymous users would create these unique sections just for this one firm and ignore all the other polling firms? Point me to a single similar section for any other research firm. Ontlib20 (talk) 04:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history please, I have cited reasons, logic and relevant links multiple times going back to 2020 about this page and this specific issue with consistency, nobody has bothered to look at the links, you and your friends just take the original (now anonymous) section creators at their word. Ontlib20 (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]