User talk:Sleyece/sandbox

User: Sleyece; Comments, Concerns, and Feedback[edit source] I made many edits to the table. Notably, I changed the aggregate to a "frequency of position" system, in which a number of ties result, but I feel a much more accurate representation of the overall dataset is represented. What do you all think? I also limited the table to 15 positions, so that data will fit on the web page. I added, with appropriate citation, a recent "538" poll to the dataset for 2016. If possible, I think the table should be updated annually, with citation, from here on in. What do you all think about these adjustments? Thank you all for your understanding and diligence! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleyece (talk • contribs) 07:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Do not make such massive changes without discussion. Furthermore, your new table is seriously flawed. Not only does it remove the aggregate, which we already discussed and agreed to leave in, but you completely deleted Barack Obama's rankings from the table. I'm restoring it to its previous form. Feel free to add the 538 poll to the table, but don't just make such radical aldjustments without discussing it here. As for the annual update, it sounds good, though I'm concerned about the feasibility of updating it every year. Anasaitis (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The aggregate has been discussed, and it has been continually pointed out as statistically flawed. I also removed ALL incumbent ratings. President Obama is not currently ranked because he has never been an Ex-President. Sleyece 00:03, 01 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the aggregate has been discussed, and it was agreed that it would stay. I see nothing in the relevant discussion which suggested it was statistically flawed. Also, why would you remove the incumbent ratings? This table covers everything In the surveys, and some of the cited surveys included the incumbent President. You cannot just delete parts of the table like that. If it's in the cited material, then it should be included here. Anasaitis (talk) 07:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion. Let's hear from some other users. Sleyece 08:51, 01 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, "Anasaitis," I know gaslighting when I see it. The aggregate was discussed, and YOU decided it would say. I appreciate your opinion less now. --Sleyece 09:49, 01 December 2016 (UTC)

"Gaslighting"? I don't appreciate your insulting accusations. I also don't appreciate the fact that you have taken it on yourself to completely restructure the table without discussion. We do agree on one thing, however: this should be discussed with other users. I think this should be done BEFORE any radical changes are made to the content of the table. Anasaitis (talk) 22:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If we continue to have a dispute about our edits, perhaps we should seek conflict resolution, @Anasaitis:? I am adamant that all polls on the table AND that the table actually fit on the page. I think a page this important should eventually be a featured article. We can't achieve that if our data isn't even formatted to the standard page width? Can we agree on that as a baseline? --Sleyece 08:32, 09 December 2016 (UTC)

Since you asked for other users' opinions, I'm inclined to agree with Anasaitis. The incumbent rankings should remain. Obama may not have completed his term when they ranked him, but the cited surveys did rank him and you can't ignore that. The aggregate should stay at least until there's a consensus on removing or replacing it. In the meantime, I'm reverting the page to the 9 December version. 2601:3C2:8003:C920:2532:35F8:671F:D416 (talk) 03:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Sleyece reverted my edit without explaining why, and it doesn't look like anyone here agrees with him so I changed it back. I don't think his changes should be made until there's some kind of consensus for them, but I only edit sporadically so I'm not really sure how to handle this situation. 2601:3C2:8003:C920:2532:35F8:671F:D416 (talk) 06:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I apologize to you (talk) --Sleyece 13:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I honestly didn't care about your comments about me not having an account. My problem was that you made some fairly large changes (namely removing several of the included surveys/rankings, replacing the aggregate with "frequency of position," and removing the rankings of incumbents) without discussing it beforehand, and that every time another user rolls back those changes you reinstate them despite having people disagree (and no one agree) on the talk page. My biggest concern is the incumbent rankings; when several of the cited rankings include the president who was in office at the time and those presidents' rankings are removed from the table, that amounts to a misrepresentation of the cited material. I saw you removed Trump from the table in your latest edit but that was only a tiny issue. I'm rolling back your other changes again. All I'm asking is for you to wait on removing the older polls and reinstating the "frequency of position" until there is a consensus here in favor of it. If you'd like to put out a request for comment that would be fine, but you can't just keep reinstating the changes every time somebody puts the page back to the way it was before when no one else agreed with it. Regardless of what the ultimate decision on replacing the aggregate and removing older surveys is, the incumbents' rankings must be included. 2601:3C2:8003:C920:3422:1BF4:6275:9ADA (talk) 21:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

I assumed your attack on me was political in nature, but I did not have proof until your confession. Thank you. (talk) --Sleyece 17:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)