If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Green Party of the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC News.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; could you please restore the paragraph on 2004 United States election voting controversies that you removed? [1][2]

I initially didn't realize this myself, but the page is under WP:1RR, and you reverted the content twice in 24 hours (added by two different editors). JSwift49 14:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize this either, but I’m not sure what the solution is? Does it need to be added or removed? Toa Nidhiki05 15:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The solution to avoid violating the rule is to self-revert (ie. re-add it). Since a third editor agreed it should be added, we can discuss more in Talk. JSwift49 19:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They also need to self-revert, as the page clearly states reverted content needs consensus to be re-added. Toa Nidhiki05 19:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The talk page notice was wrong, which I fixed (as a non-privileged uninvolved editor). Per WP:CTOP#Enforcement of restrictions an editor may not be blocked for violating a page restriction unless an uninvolved administrator has placed editnotice in the article. I.e. when you click the edit button, the editnotice should enumerate the restrictions. That being said, please avoid edit-warring, folks. Thank you. Politrukki (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accordingly, I've reverted the deletion. The words in place on the 2004 United States election voting controversies page are remain relatively short, hopefully satisfying comments from @Muboshgu. Chumpih ^t 18:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting; per WP:BRD, you should ne be re-adding disputed content during an ongoing discussion you're a part of. Toa Nidhiki05 19:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Chumpih ^t 20:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I need someone to blame when Trump inevitably destroys the country in the next four years. If you're not around, I won't have anyone to point the finger at. Viriditas (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't blame me lol, I didn't vote for him - or the black Nazi guy, either. Toa Nidhiki05 22:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I guess it's back to blaming the DNC again. Thanks for nothing! Let me guess, you voted for Kodos? "Twirling, twirling, towards Freedom!" That's my all-time favorite line from The Simpsons. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, not quite. You'd be surprised who I did vote for, though, let's just leave it at that heh. Toa Nidhiki05 22:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2024 presidential election results shocked my expectations for educational polarization. The phenomenon appears to have spread to nearly all voters, not just Whites. Except for New Mexico, every electoral jurisdiction won by Harris had above-average educational attainment. I also did the computation for Trump, and the correlation for him was only slightly weaker.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 23:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a worthwhile observation, JohnAdams1800. What are your thoughts on New Jersey's shift? That's a very highly educated state. Toa Nidhiki05 14:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• My best guess is it was due to a surge in support from Hispanics to Trump, which could be seen nationwide and in individual majority-Hispanic counties in states. New Jersey is 21.6% Hispanic, the most of any Northeastern state. Educational polarization appears to have spread to all voters except for African Americans. It is clearly strongest among Whites, but comparing the diploma divide among just Whites to all voters, as well as the following table for educational attainment by race, it appears most likely that lower rates of educational attainment among Hispanic and Native Americans contributed to Trump's surge in support. See the table below.
• I am seriously considering doing a full, in-depth statistical analysis comparing educational attainment by race and the extent of the diploma divide. No other factor seems to be as strong as education, aside from race, in affecting voting behavior.

It's difficult to extrapolate conclusions, but the surge in support from Hispanics and Native Americans to Trump could just be caused by educational polarization.

Table from Issues in higher education in the United States.

• The National Center for Education Statistics and the American Institutes for Research have released a report on college participation rates by race between the years 2000 and 2016.^[1]

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

It just hit me that educational polarization is the inverse of what it was in 1948, when Truman defeated Republican Dewey in an upset. The Northeastern states have always been the most educated, and Dewey won all of them except Massachusetts and Rhode Island. Harris won all of them except for Pennsylvania. The trend is the exact same, though the percentages do vary a bit. (Also almost all voters have a high school diploma, whereas in 1948 only about 37% did.)

• When Democrat Harry S. Truman won the presidency in an upset in 1948, he won about 60% of voters with less than high school, about 50% of voters with high school diplomas, 30% of voters with a Bachelor's, and about 25% of voters with a graduate degree.
• Republican Trump won 62% with high school or less, 51% with some college, 57% with an Associate's degree, 45% with a Bachelor's degree, and 38% with a graduate degree.

JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two editors on the Killing of Brian Thompson page want the page to portray the idea that a majority of Americans support the alleged killer. I'm not sure what should be done in a case like this. They've just reverted the introductionary paragraph back to this claim and have alleged that Emerson and a few other opinion polls are "too few" and "too inaccurate".

What should be done here? This seems ridiculous to me. RomanianObserver41 (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happened here: https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_Brian_Thompson&diff=1263660520&oldid=1263659953 RomanianObserver41 (talk) 23:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]