Heitordp

Do you have sources for the map you added to International taxation? It might be right, but without sources (and absent time consuming verification) it's original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Please add sources, or the map may get deleted. Oldtaxguy (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I added the sources on the map's description page. Heitordp (talk) 13:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just wanted to inform you that Federative Republic of Brazil no longer requires tourist visas for citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina for up to 90 days, it is already implemented and also visible on Brazil's ministry of foreign affairs as well as Timatic database. So if you could make an update concerning Brazil Visa Policy, thanks. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.27.142 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know. I updated the list and map in the article. Heitordp (talk) 04:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

	The Original Barnstar
	Hi Heitordp, Really impressed by the world maps you have created. Specially the one for the world time zones. I was wondering if you would have the vector version of the World Time Zones map available (in .ai or .eps format). megomaniac (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! The map of time zones originally came from the CIA World Factbook, in PDF format. I and others have corrected and updated the map periodically, in PNG format. I don't know how to make a vector version of the map. Heitordp (talk) 04:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi, NY just joined the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. I would update the map in the article but I don't have any SVG editing software. Would you take a look at it when you get some time? Greg Comlish (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Swpb already updated the map. Heitordp (talk) 09:17, 20 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've seen your update in Visa policy of the French overseas departments and territories. I see that you've changed info on EU, EEA and Swiss citizens from

can enter and reside for an unlimited period without a visa in the four French overseas departments and the two French overseas collectivities of Saint Barthélemy and Saint Martin.

to

can enter and reside for an unlimited period without a visa in the French overseas departments and territories

So I was wondering if France had adopted a new law or why did you change this? Because I don't think the EU law suddenly started applying in Polynesia.--Twofortnights (talk) 23:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

The reference I added to the article (French, English), straight from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, says that. Although most French territories are not formally part of the EU, France allows EU/EFTA/Andorra/Monaco citizens to live there without a visa. So it's not EU law, but seems to be French law. However, from what I understand, this exemption is only to enter and reside. EU citizens still need an authorization to work in French Polynesia, for example, but not in the French departments. That's where being part of the EU makes a difference.

Moreover, the original text was outdated, as Mayotte became the fifth overseas department. Saint Barthélemy is no longer part of the EU. Heitordp (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

France has adopted new legislation for "le territoire de la Guadeloupe, la Guyane, la Martinique, La Réunion et de la collectivité de Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon" on June 27. Could you please take a look - [1] --Twofortnights (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the news. I found that France also made new regulations for Saint Martin, Saint Barthélemy [2] and French Polynesia [3]. I compared the tables, and the changes are:

• Moldova (biometric passport) added for GF, GP, MQ, MF, BL, PM, RE, PF
• Ecuador and Peru added for GF, GP, MQ
• Anguilla added for MF
• China added for RE, PF; up to 15 days, and only for trips organized by an approved travel agency
• India added for RE; up to 15 days, and only for trips organized by an approved travel agency

I updated the article with these changes. There may also be new regulations for the remaining territories coming soon. Heitordp (talk) 22:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, it seems that France changed the visa policy again - [4]. Could you please check if this is in force yet and if there were any other changes? Thank you.--Twofortnights (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the news. For the French territories, I consult the respective visa rulings published in Légifrance. It seems that the change mentioned in your link is not yet in effect, as Vanuatu is not yet listed in the ruling for New Caledonia. [5] I suppose that it will be updated soon, also to include other countries recently added to the Schengen visa-free list. Heitordp (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The change came into effect on 3 September 2016. [6] [7] I updated the article. Heitordp (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Good morning!

I wanted to thank you for reviewing one of my editions on the page of the Eurovision Song Contest 2018. I'm from Portugal and when I indicated the source, I had not read the whole source. I should have paid more attention. Once again, thank you for alerting me to my mistake. IntellingentMen (talk) 10:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

De nada! Heitordp (talk) 11:06, 1 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I think you might be interested in this - Template talk:Timatic.--Twofortnights (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Dear Heitordp.

I have a question about the TIM.

Did you agreed to accept the proposal about a free subscription of the TIM book? [8] --Norvikk (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

No, I didn't think that it was necessary to get the book. We can still consult Timatic through the airline websites, but cite the book, because they have the same information. Heitordp (talk) 21:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello Heitordp. First of all, thank you for contacting me. I inform you that in my file File: Standard_World_Time_Zones.png, I have already corrected those errors that you mentioned, so that in future editions, they do not happen again,

But I want to clarify, that my intention is not to erase, or belittle the work of other users, others who also delete our editions and not for that reason I criticize them, at least, me.

All my corrections are verified by TimeandDate and media of the corresponding countries or their governments through their newsletters.

Thank you very much and sorry for the inconvenience caused. :) User:UnaitoGV

No problem. Thank for your kind response and for your continued contributions. Heitordp (talk) 02:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello.

Could you fix internationally recognized borders of Ukraine and Georgia on Time Zones map, please? PashaTarsius (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@PashaTarsius: Do you mean this map? The borders are the white lines, and they are already the internationally recognized borders of Ukraine and Georgia. The red lines only show the limits between the time zones, and these should reflect the time actually used in each area regardless of political recognition. Heitordp (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes. This map. The red lines crossing Ukraine and Georgia are incorrect. The single time zone is correct for both countries (different for Ukraine and Georgia, of course).

2021.04.13 12:01 version is valid for these countries. PashaTarsius (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@PashaTarsius: Abkhazia,[9] South Ossetia,[10] Crimea,[11] Donetsk PR[12] and Luhansk PR[13] use UTC+3 all year. Heitordp (talk) 19:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is nonsense. PashaTarsius (talk) 11:27, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

The correct map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Standard_time_zones_of_the_world.png PashaTarsius (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@PashaTarsius: Why is it nonsense? Timeanddate.com is a very reliable source about time zones, and many other sources also indicate that these regions use UTC+3 all year. The map that you cited is from 2016, and several countries have changed their time zone since then.

If you insist on changing the current map, I suggest that you propose it in its discussion page to see what other users think. I'm not the only person that edits this map. Heitordp (talk) 05:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Read carefully and stop spreading false information:

Hungary regards all of its citizens as tax residents. The only exception are people holding multiple citizenships AND not having a registered address (temporary or permanent) inside of Hungary. Those to whom a bilateral tax treaty applies, of which Hungary has around 70, are still regarded as tax residents of Hungary. PERIOD. They may on the other hand be entitled to tax relief. To receive tax relief on the basis of a bilateral tax treaty, one must provide a certificate of tax residency, or its equivalent from the other contracting state.

Therefore Hungary applies citizen-based taxation to its own citizens (except to those who have other nationalities and at the same time do not reside in Hungary). The supposition that this law is enforced only rarely is nothing more than that: a baseless and irrelevant idea. The law is clear, Hungary has citizenship-based taxation for its own citizens and territory-based for all others. In addition, all income is taxable, from the very first penny - therefore the law affects any citizen who has had any income and is not a dual citizen living outside of Hungary.

The above is agreed upon by all major consultancy firms, and most importantly, by the law itself.

You must understand the difference between someone being a tax resident and being entitled to tax relief if he is a tax resident in multiple jurisdictions. This is clearly outlined in relevant international treaties that you can google yourself.

Please stop spreading false information.

According to this source (in Hungarian), directly from the Hungarian tax administration, Hungary does not tax the foreign income of individuals who are considered Hungarian residents under Hungarian law but are considered residents of another country under the terms of a tax treaty. Both the text and the flow chart on page 3 explain it very clearly. This other source (in English) says the same thing. I had added both sources to the Wikipedia article, and they are still there.

As you can see, Hungary allows the tax treaties to override Hungarian law, so although such individuals may still be legally considered tax residents of Hungary, Hungary does not tax their foreign income. Hungary may require them to provide a certificate of tax residency from the other country to apply this rule, but it is merely an administrative procedure to confirm that they really satisfy the residency terms of the treaty. Although it may sound like an exception, this relief is actually the general case in practice because more than 99% of nonresident Hungarians live in countries that have tax treaties with Hungary. I find it misleading to show in the article that Hungary imposes citizenship-based taxation in the same way as the US and Eritrea, which don't allow such relief at all. On the contrary, the US specifically adds a clause to all its tax treaties saying that it can still tax its citizens as if the treaty didn't exist. Therefore, I find it more appropriate to list Hungary in the section with countries that apply citizenship-based taxation only in exceptional cases. Do you agree? Heitordp (talk) 02:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Out-of-date information is often of historical interest. Therefore, it's typically best to clarify, rather than remove, out-of-date facts from articles. (This comment inspired by your edits to Abortion in Liechtenstein, which were otherwise very helpful, but the principle is general.) Wikiacc (¶) 03:47, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Wikiacc: I agree. I edited the article again to clarify the earlier law, and replaced the link as the others no longer worked. Heitordp (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You and I touched on this re the image at the top of the infobox in this article in Talk:Abortion law. A quick look at the wikitext there showed that to be invoking WP:Lua modules to do the map overlays. I've taken enough of a look at that to have the beginnings of a clue (think of a toddler who knows there is something more than crawling but is a long way from baby steps). If you're interested in pursuing this, you might start with Help:Lua for beginners. That demystifies e.g., #invoke:NPVIC status from that wikitext to an invocation of a Lua modlule located at module:NPVIC status, passing it some parameters. If you are well past this, just ignore that. If you're as clueless about Lua as I at this point, that may be helpful. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Wtmitchell: Thanks for the information. I know some programming languages, so Lua looks relatively easy to me. I'll try to find out how to use it with the SVG file. Heitordp (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

(added) It occurred to me that I had seen something similar to this. minus Lua, earlier. This may or may not be useful, but see Template:Football_kit and Template:Football kit/pattern list. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Wtmitchell: I found that the NPVIC module uses a separate image file for each state and color, which would be impractical for a world map with several colors. Thanks for mentioning the football template, it handles colors dynamically but it would still need a separate image file for each country. I think that the best alternative would be to pass external CSS parameters to the SVG file, but I'm not sure if that's possible. Heitordp (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Digging around a bit, I found SVG animation#SSVG animation using CSSm SVG animation#SVG animation using_ECMAScript and the SVG file here It seems to me that oart of that might accomplish what you are after. It looks like there might be enough information there and at at https://www.lifewire.com/svg-file-4120603 to get started. I have not looked at this more deeply than that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 09:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		message Sleyece (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

-- Sleyece (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Heitordp (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I am very impressed with your contributions to the Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election page. If you have an interest in these candidates, I encourage you to join the 2020 United States Presidential Election Facebook group, which has 32 actual presidential candidates (and former candidates) participating in the group. Dhalsim2 (talk) 19:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad you liked my contributions. Thanks for the suggestion, that group seems interesting. Heitordp (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

If it helps you out at all, I've been accumulating vote totals as they are being updated. Here is my spreadsheet broken down by state. I also have world-writable sheet broken down by county, that I'm using crowd-sourcing to populate. Dhalsim2 (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the message you left on my talk page! In case you were wondering about the edits I made, I reverted yours because they were not consistent with other gubernatorial elections maps, see File:2018 United States gubernatorial election results.svg and File:2016 gubernatorial election results map.svg for examples. Politicsfan4 (talk) 04:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey again,

I noticed how you changed both the colors and the shapes on the governor elections maps, and while I think that the new colors are fine, the new shapes are inconsistent with the Senate and presidential elections maps, and therefore they should be changed back. Thanks! Politicsfan4 (talk) 02:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Politicsfan4: The shapes are all in the same positions and sizes, they just have slightly more detailed outlines, like the House election maps. The difference is barely visible in the infoboxes. I don't see why all the maps have to be exactly the same down to the smallest details, especially as they include different jurisdictions (only states for Senate, states+DC for president, states+DC+territories for governors), and the presidential maps even use different colors. The more detailed outlines are an improvement, so if you really think that they must match so precisely, I'd say that it's the other maps that should be changed. At least the improvements to the territory shapes should be maintained instead of fully reverting to the previous versions of the files. Heitordp (talk) 02:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Heitordp,
I noticed you've added Guam to all the ballot access maps and the table at Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election. I know you probably did that in an effort to include all relevant information, but it is inaccurate and a bit misleading. Guam holds a straw poll concurrent with every presidential election, but that does not qualify as participating in those elections. Guam has no seats in the Electoral College, and thus cannot vote in presidential elections. Including it on the ballot access maps implies that getting on the ballot for Guam's straw poll is a necessary part of getting full ballot access in the election, but that is not the case. If you disagree, please consider WP:V. I don't think that you will find reliable sources stating that Guam participates in the presidential election, which is what that page and the maps are about. I've removed Guam from the table and the Libertarian and Green maps, and I would appreciate you doing the same for the rest of the maps. Thanks. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

I thought that Guam could be included in the national popular vote despite not having presidential electors, but it seems that no reliable source does that. I removed it from the maps. Heitordp (talk) 12:47, 20 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I just found a translation of Argentina's Abortion Law 27,610. I didn't add it to the Abortion Law article because it is not from the Ministry of Health but it seems to be from a reliable source anyway. Hope it's useful.--186.158.132.97 (talk) 22:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi! I saw you updated de NPVIC bills in Texas and Missouri as having failed because their legislatures adjourned. While I understand that the Texas legislature is not scheduled to convene anymore before January 2023, it is still possible in theory for the bill to be approved in a Special Session before then, and that whitout needing to be re-introduced. As such, wouldn't it be more accurate for it to be set as pending until then?

As for Missouri, I am not as shure, but my understanding is that though the legislature as adjourned, the bills that weren't explicitely dismissed can still be considered starting in January 2022, or in a special session before then, without needing to be re-introduced. So, again shouldn't those bills be set to pending? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8A0:7D44:4400:C1E5:EFD:D0BF:DBF9 (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Bills in Texas and Missouri do not carry over to other years,[14][15][16][17] and special sessions cannot debate bills from other sessions either.[18] In these states, bills have to be reintroduced in every session.

As a comparison, the legislature of West Virginia has also adjourned this year's regular session, but its bills in the House can carry over to the next year so I kept the bill as pending in the table. Heitordp (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! That was information I didn't have, and those were great resources. Appreciate it!

Hello, Heitordp. Sorry to bother you. I looked up but didn't find anything about editing a .svg file as a text one, as you said on Abortion law talk page. Can you, please, and if you have any time, explain me so I can edit the map? Also, I am preparing a map about conscientious objection on abortion but I do not know how to divide a country into its subdivisions... Could you give me a hand on this? Thanks. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:655C:F9BC:9C6E:EFA (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Open the file Abortion_laws.svg with a text editor like Notepad. In the beginning of the file there are several options to specify default colors, then a list of options for disputed areas, then lines of country codes for each category (on request, fetal impairment, risk to life, etc.). So for example, after San Marino legalizes abortion on request, move the code .sm, from the line for risk to life to the line for on request before 17 weeks.

You can use this file to make a new map, just change the lines of country codes and their respective colors. However, to create new shapes for subdivisions it's more complicated. I draw shapes in Inkscape, but I don't save the file there, I copy only the code of the new shapes into the file and simplify it. Which country subdivisions do you want to add? If you'd like, you can upload the file that you have so far, then let me know and I can create the subdivisions. Heitordp (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thaaaank you! I will use this file to create it then...
I'm still preparing it but I'll let you know when it's ready, the subdivision thing sounded a little complicated xD 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:28FC:6C03:4318:A6B1 (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Heitordp. Sorry again. Do you have any idea on how to archive this link[19]? When you copy the link it does not start downloading automatically but it redirects you to the same page. 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:75CC:12AB:8E75:840B (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is the direct link to download:[20] Heitordp (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I'll archive it. May I ask how did you do it? 2803:9800:9096:7ECF:843C:74F9:D38C:AEE9 (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

On the download page, I clicked with the right button, then on "view page source". In the source, I searched for "download" to find the code for the download button. There it had the direct link, I tried and it worked. Heitordp (talk) 10:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

UTC+5:30 universal coordinate time 120.18.197.87 (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

@120.18.197.88 120.18.197.87 (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

I don't know why I got so involved with this page, but in any case, your speed in adding the new polls is impressive; I would've spent way less time putting all the formatting together on doing it myself had I known someone else was already on it. Nice. Blippy1998 (talk) 21:44, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good day! Need your help for update visa policy map in Visa policy of the United Kingdom per "adding Georgia and Russia to the list of countries or territories whose nationals need transit visas in order to pass through the United Kingdom without entering while transiting to another country.". Thank you. ЖуковАФ (talk) 18:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

@ЖуковАФ: Thanks for the news. I updated the map. Heitordp (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I just wanted to draw your attention to a couple of issues that I noticed in the time zone map that you changed. The internationally recognized border between Israel and the Golan heights is missing. The borders between Morocco, Western Sahara, Ceuta and Melilla are all internationally recognized as such (i.e., their classes should be changed from d to b). In terms of claims and occupation, they are no different than the Russia-Ukraine case. The Siachen Glacier is usually shown without borders with either Pakistan or India (similar to how it's shown in the map that you replaced and the UN's map). I haven't checked the map thoroughly, but I'll let you know if I notice anything else. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 23:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@M.Bitton: My approach was to show, for every disputed area, all claims or actual control with a thin line. So for example, the map shows a thin line between Israel and the Golan Heights (Syria's claim), and another thin line between Syria and the Golan Heights (Israel's claim and actual control); in the case of Western Sahara, the map shows a thin line representing SADR's claim and another thin line representing its actual control. Thick lines are used only when both sides agree on the border. I considered only the two sides in the each dispute, not what other countries recognize. I think that this is the most neutral way of showing disputed areas. Do you think the map should use thick lines based on what most countries recognize? In the case of the Golan Heights it's clear that most recognize it as part of Syria, but what about the other cases? If we choose one line to be thick, should the other line still be shown at all?

In the case of the area disputed between India and Pakistan, the map shows three thin lines: one claimed by India, one claimed by Pakistan, and one in the middle representing their actual control. This middle line is composed of the Line of Control, defined in 1972 and ending at the Siachen Glacier, and the Actual Ground Position Line, de facto completing border since 1984. Both portions only indicate actual control, without implying a recognized border, so I don't see a reason to show only one portion but not the other. I don't find the UN map a good reference, because it shows Aksai Chin and northern Arunachal Pradesh with solid lines on all sides, as if they were separate countries. I prefer Openstreetmap, which shows actual control and is a lot more detailed.

I used thin lines for Ceuta and Melilla because Morocco claims these areas, and also because they are very small, so if I used thick lines these areas wouldn't appear at all. Similarly for Gibraltar, Hong Kong, Macau and Saint Martin; the last three are not disputed, but thick lines would cover them completely. That's why in the file, I wrote that class d was for disputed or small borders.

Initially I wanted to show the occupied portion of Ukraine also with thin lines on both sides, like other disputed areas. But there were so many complaints here already just because of the time zone boundary, so I decided to show only the border as recognized by Ukraine and most other countries to avoid more controversy.

Anyway, I don't feel strongly about any of these disputed borders, so I don't mind changing to what you prefer. Just let me know how you want each case to be shown. Heitordp (talk) 14:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, after doing a little research, it looks like the Brazil e-Visa will be implemented tomorrow without being postponed.

I visited "https://www.gov.br/mre/pt-br/assuntos/portal-consular/QGRVsimplesing08ABR24.pdf" and the update date was April 8, and the visa status for the three countries has changed to non-exempt.

I recommend you visit the link above to check it and update the 'Visa policy of Brazil' page. Lades2222 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Lades2222: Late on April 9, the president finally issued the decree postponing the visa requirement, and the visa table on the government website was restored to the previous version. I updated the visa policy page. Heitordp (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thank you for your kind and constructive attitude by contributing and stopping edit wars objectively. Respect you. 176.55.205.207 (talk) 08:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Based on recent update (as of 03/11/24), according to the average of aggregate polls in Iowa, the current lead is less than 5%. I request you to change the color pattern of Iowa in File:Opinion polls for the United States presidential election in 2024.svg to reflect this update. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The average of aggregate polls in New Hampshire and the latest poll in Maine district 2 have also become less than 5%. But other users have complained when the map showed states that were not considered "tossup" in gray, so to avoid adding more states in gray I changed the scale to multiples of 4%, which was also done by 270towin. I just updated the map based on this scale and the most recent polls. Heitordp (talk) 04:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The average of aggregate polls in Iowa is currently +3.9% which is still less than 4%. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 05:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Oh, thanks for the update. When I saw it earlier it was 4.3%. I changed Iowa to gray on the map. Heitordp (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 05:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, according to the current polls update (as of 04/11/24), the lead in the average of aggregate polls in Iowa became +4.0 (an increase of +0.1 from yesterday), but New Hampshire aggregate lead is +6.4 and Maine 2nd district lead is +6.0^[1]. Is it better to restore the multiples of 5 map as it was done before? Thank you. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article doesn't show aggregate polls in Maine district 2 or New Mexico, and in both of these the latest poll is between 4 and 5%. The map should match the article, so we should either keep the map with multiples of 4% or add aggregate polls to the article. Heitordp (talk) 12:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you to keep the multiples of 4% map because Iowa is not considered "tossup" in any major forecasts. The aggregrate poll lead in Iowa is +4.5 now. JoshuaJ28 (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply