User talk:PotvinSux

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, PotvinSux! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

March 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Zoich has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R926UJw7Kac. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 04:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames[edit]

I'm sorry, your username is unacceptable. You've been a useful contributor up to now, so I strongly suggest that you file a request at Wikipedia:Changing usernames to have your name changed -- preferably to one that's less hostile and rude.

Sorry for the inconvenience; this is just to make things go more smoothly for everyone. DS (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tyler Olson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jose Serrano. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jerry Green. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MWW. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt McCoy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: List of Democratic Party Superdelegates, 2016 has been accepted[edit]

List of Democratic Party Superdelegates, 2016, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 06:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Jim Messina and National Economic Council. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City National Bank. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raul Ruiz. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summary[edit]

I noticed you've made a number of recent edits to the article Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, your edits are appreciated, however please use the Edit summary box in future to briefly describe your changes. It is there for a good reason, as it helps other editors. When not using it, unreferenced edits with no edit summary are likely to be seen vandalism and reverted. Sgcosh (talk) 13:28, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 page editing disagreement[edit]

Hello, I saw your edits for Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 and are wondering why you are making those edits. I can somehow understand why you are making them, but no other media outlet or company are reporting those numbers. They as of now, are reporting Clinton and Sanders at 394 and 44 delegates, respectively. They don't have it at 452 or 50 delegates for Clinton and Sanders respectively at this moment in time. I know that you are doing it based on the individual sources that we have made out for the superdelegates page, but I feel that we should wait for a media outlet like AP to check the overall numbers in a survey first to make them official before we wiki users make up our own numbers based on these individual sources. As of now, we're like the only website that has these numbers and I think that may make people think that we are an unreliable source (Speaking of Wikipedia obviously). I just feel that we should go with what the media has said and stick with the truly official numbers first than making our own with no overall source to make of these numbers; which is why I (It was me) reverted your edits. So, if you can just tell me why you are making these edits despite the circumstances with a reasonable response I'll understand and keep the edits in place. Thank you! And please remember to respond on my talk page, that would be highly appreciated along with a quick response! Have a great day! Nike4564 (talk) 02:45, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Superdelegates[edit]

A few questions, since you seem to know about Wikipedia's coverage of superdelegates: Was there a page on superdelegates for 2012? Were there superdelegates in 2014 (a non-presidential year)? Is there any Wikipedia coverage of Republican superdelegates? – Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Philosopher: There was (is) a page for the last competitive Dem. primary, in '08. I don't think there has ever been one for Republicans, likely because there are considerably fewer unpledged delegates on the GOP side and they bear less influence on the outcome.PotvinSux (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 13:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a research project[edit]

PotvinSux,

I am currently working on a research project with several professors at the University of Virginia on the effect of celebrity endorsements on political campaigns, and I am hoping to enlist your help. I see that you are one of the main contributors to Hillary Clinton's endorsement page, and I would love to speak with you about your contributions further. If you are willing to chat, please let me know.

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatsonWahoo (talk • contribs) 17:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with a research project[edit]

PotvinSux,

I am working on a research project with several professors at the University of Virginia, and I am hoping to enlist your help. We are studying the effect of celebrity endorsements on political campaigns, and I see that you are a major contributor to the Wiki pages regarding endorsements for current candidates. If you have time and are willing, I would love to speak with you further about your involvement on these pages.

Best --WatsonWahoo (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I think this is an important research question - I'm happy you're taking a look at it. I certainly can't make an informed claim that celebrity endorsements matter all that much. I've helped curate these lists because candidates will invariably claim the support of all sorts of individuals who might carry some kind of clout or cache, so it seems reasonable that there should be a comprehensive accounting. I'm not exactly unwilling to speak with you - I'm just having a hard time imagining how I could be useful beyond the product we have collectively created here.PotvinSux (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rutland, Vermont. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not change "Trump" to "Drumpf"[edit]

Several of your recent edits have changed the word "Trump" to "Drumpf". Here is one example. I assume that this is unintentional and caused by having the Drumpfinator extension enabled. To prevent it from happening again, please disable the extension before editing any page that mentions Trump. Thank you. —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oy-thx!PotvinSux (talk) 04:29, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call my work vandalism[edit]

The billionaire supporters of the presidential candidates is not vandalism; it is newsworthy, relevant, verifiable, and neutral. I have made sure to list the billionaire supporters of every active presidential candidate - Trump, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, Clinton, and Sanders. Please do not revert or call it vandalism. --The Cunctator (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When one insists on a politically loaded classification that does not fit a clearly established schema (categorization by occupation for those not holding elected office) that has been in place since the creation of the page, particularly without discussion on the appropriate talk page and without bothering to pay attention to formatting (i.e., alphabetization of sections), it stretches the imagination to interpret this as anything other than an attempt to damage the encyclopedia to make a cheap point: there is notably one candidate that uses "billionaire" as a slur, and one candidate that was not affected by your change (made on an election day; a similar change previously made on an earlier election day). I will be reverting your changes on the other pages as well - they do not fit the schema for those pages. If you categorize people by how much money they have, the only way this can be consistent is to start categorizing actors by how many Oscars they've won, etc., etc. I apologize for labeling this "vandalism" if that characterization offends you. That was not constructive on my part. I am having a very difficult time interpreting your edits as the product of good faith, but it is my responsibility to try. If you feel this is an important change that should be made, please open discussion sections on the talk page for the relevant pages.PotvinSux (talk) 17:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not vandalism. I'm not offended by your use of the term; it's false and fails to assume good faith. My work is properly referenced and neutral. If you are offended by the formatting, I trust that you can fix it! I genuinely believe you are influenced by some personal bias. I am not the one introducing the concept or importance of billionaires into the election. It seems like you feel you "own" these pages -- instead, why don't you trust that I'm a fellow Wikipedian and *edit* my contributions instead of deleting and attacking them? --The Cunctator (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Cunctator: You are fairly obviously offended. It's okay to be offended - you have a perfectly reasonable claim to have taken offense. My terminology was not in keeping with guidelines as you are an editor in good standing; I acknowledge that and apologize (once more). I assumed bad faith because, as I said, "billionaire" is more readily used as a slur than a descriptor in the discourse of this Democratic Primary and because the change was made on an election day (that is when we get the most vandalism on related pages). I tell you this not to justify my terminology but rather by way of explanation so that you might accept my apology if you are so inclined.

I don't feel I "own" anything. I certainly do feel responsible for maintaining the quality and consistency of pages I edit (as, I can only assume, do other users who contribute to the encyclopedia). Per WP:LEADEMBEDDEDLIST: "The criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent. Just as a reader or editor could easily assume that the headings A, B, C would be followed by D (rather than 1903), more complex systems should be just as explicit. If a list of Australians in international prisons contains the headings Argentina and Cambodia (organization by country), it would be inappropriate for an editor to add the heading Drug trafficking (organization by offense)." The system of categorization that we have developed over time is occupation/sphere of competence. Including a "Billionaires" category would require sorting by wealth instead of occupation. Yes, you can provide me with a listing of articles that describe donors/supporters as billionaires, and I can provide you with a list of articles that describe donors/supporters as, say, "feminists" (e.g. 'candidate Y endorsed by feminist X') or, say, "African Americans" (e.g. 'Candidate X picks up important African American supporter') - I am not advocating, though, that we create a "feminist" category or an "African American" category because that would be inconsistent with the system of categorization, nor do I think we should reorganize the list by ideology or race (because either would be problematic, in ways similar and different to a categorization based on wealth). I don't think the role of the wealthy in our politics is any more or less worth covering than the role of ideology or minority communities. I just don't think these endorsement lists are the place for parsing that. I think a much more apt place to touch on the issue would be a stand-alone article (which I really encourage you to create because I think it would be fascinating) or, if you don't have the time or desire, to add a paragraph or two at Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Campaign finance comparing different candidates' fundraising models.PotvinSux (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What stand-alone would you recommend? Dem primaries doesn't seem to be the correct only place because this is about all of the candidates. Do you have any objection to the Forbes ranking being added to the endorsers in their businesspeople category? BTW "billionaire" isn't a slur - it's a quantitative descriptor! It's just a policy difference. --The Cunctator (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having a hard time coming up with a title because "Political Influence of the Wealthy via Campaign Contributions," actually sounds more like a PoliSci paper than a Wikipedia article now that I think about it. This may be worth brainstorming though. Alternatively, I think Campaign finance in the United States is very heavy on the regulations and very light on how things work in practice. I think adding a section on different fundraising models and the potential sociopolitical consequences of the most prevalent ones would significantly improve that article.
As for the Forbes ranking, I have mixed feelings: On one hand, I do not think providing the Forbes ranking is necessary. I was about to propose deleting the "representing XYZ" at the end of the labor unions because it takes up space and forces entries onto a second line without providing any information that wouldn't be available by clicking the page-link. Similarly, we don't include how many albums artists have sold or how many Golden Globes people have won although I would argue that these are helpful in evaluating the significance of an endorsement. Frankly, it's immaterial to me whether folks' Forbes rankings are included. What is important to me, on the other hand, is drawing a reasonable principle or set of criteria according to which we can judge across all the different situations whether a given type of supplementary information is necessary. Do you have any ideas in this respect? If we can come up with a set of criteria not specific to this individual situation that would dictate including these rankings I would have no objection. Should probably move that conversation over to the article's talk page.
A slur can be a descriptor (e.g., "gay"). I'm defining "slur" as word used in a pejorative context to stigmatize a population. I've now wrapped my mind around that you're using it purely in the descriptive sense, but when the words "millionaires and billionaires" elicit hearty boos at politically rallies, I think it's pretty clear that in the context of this campaign it is commonly used as a slur. This is to the extent that I automatically imputed bad faith without thinking too hard about it.PotvinSux (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, "gay" is not a slur. It's troubling you would say that.--The Cunctator (talk) 18:06, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The Cunctator: When it was hurled at me across the high school cafeteria, for example, it sure felt like a slur as opposed to an objective description unmotivated by the intent to shame me. See the third paragraph here: Gay. Whether or not something is used as a slur relies on whether it reflects a desire to stigmatize a person or a group as an object of scorn, not the objective worth of the target.PotvinSux (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NOW. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manny Díaz. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic delegates accounting[edit]

In this edit you adjusted Hillary Clinton's total delegates:

  • Pledged -2 to 1300, matching The Green Papers current total
  • Unpledged +1 to 474, matching The Green Papers current total and Wikipedia's full list (wow, agreement from two sources, rarely seen!)

I was wondering why the pledged TGP estimate now differs from the comprehensive Template:2016USDem table (1302), and I found that TGP recently changed their projection for Arizona yielding 42-33 for Clinton instead of 44-31. So we could edit our table to match this, however the same TGP page includes a results table by district which still adds up to 44-31 total pledged delegates, and they don't provide another clue why they changed the count. Press sources do not mention a recent change and are mostly inconsistent as usual; some mention fraud allegations. Besides, if we accept the new 42-33 split, then we must also add two delegates to the Sanders total, yielding 1085 instead of 1083 (you only updated the Clinton side). Therefore I would suggest that we keep the total pledged as is (1302 for Clinton, 1083 for Sanders) and either look for more recent sources for Arizona or ask Mr. Berg-Andersson of TGP for an explanation. What do you think? Meanwhile I'll gladly update the unpledged total in 2016USDem (looks like Bill Clinton's allegiance was flipped back and forth in the tracking list). — JFG talk 13:34, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Hi there, I'm not sure why I missed Sanders. It should have been 1300-1085. I believe the reason that Green Papers adjusted their AZ total has to do with the final results of the election having been certified by the Secretary of State - if you go to the AZ Secretary of State elections website, both candidates picked up like 30,000 or so votes from the totals reported on election night so Sanders picked up two and half percentage points which changes the math... this is probably the product of provisional ballots being certified. My guess is that TGP redid their calculations based on this but did not update their table. I don't think this is an error. And, yes, Clinton should be at 474. The reason that TGP agrees with the Wikipedia list is that TGP uses the Wikipedia list as their source - they update maybe daily so it sometimes lags in the very short term.PotvinSux (talk) 14:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like somebody reset the totals in the meantime. Interesting info about AZ, so we should quote the official results, double-check TGP's calculations and update the big table. Looking into it now. — JFG talk 17:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: All done. — JFG talk 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syracuse. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Janet Bewley. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Clinton endorsements[edit]

Potvin sucks!, every one of the Twitter and Facebook references violates WP:TWITTER policy. The reason is simple – the tweets and Facebook pages involve a third party. The tweeters and Facebook posters can say "I like pop-corn", but we cannot use their posts when they say "I like Clinton" because she is the third-party. I'm going to restore the SPS hatnote and then I'm going to cull the Twitter, Facebook, and campaign-candidate-based references from the article. – S. Rich (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977: Ah, you're right, consolidating references is not considered minor. Thank you for pointing that out.PotvinSux (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm not watching the election articles right now. – S. Rich (talk) 23:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cristina Garcia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign primary endorsements, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Garcia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016[edit]

You really messed up the ==‎Mayors, county executives, and tribal leaders== section. Please fix.

I and other have been fixing alot of mistakes you are making. Could you please be more careful

@Todd Vierling: - I think this may have been your comment per the log on the page. That section got messed up again since your fix and I have been out of town for two days, so I don't think it was me. I did leave some brackets open in changing the citations to manual format in the hopes that if I do that for all 1500 of them they will start loading again. I'll try to be more careful with those.PotvinSux (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Current Events Barnstar
For many helpful edits to (and consensus building efforts at) Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. Guy1890 (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centre Party. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jessica Bennett. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton Endorsements article[edit]

Hi PotvinSux -- Are we going to restore the endorsements that were deleted by S. Rich? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Hillary_Clinton_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016&diff=737492385&oldid=737488282 He/she doesn't appear engaged in the discussion anymore... -- MrVenaCava (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody but the folks below have been re-added. I'm still trying to find sources for the following:

PS: The source for Timbaland is not the one you intended, I think.

-- MrVenaCava (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MrVenaCava:, why were these removed again? WP:SELFSOURCE does not require verified accounts.

Disambiguation link notification for September 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Hillary Clinton presidential campaign endorsements, 2016, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Anthony. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 29 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, PotvinSux. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 10 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, PotvinSux. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, PotvinSux. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PotvinSux&oldid=1076543748"