User talk:Skye93

Need your help on Maduro's site, they are removing all of the criticism even though it has sources and was vetted in talk first. Myself and two other editors are being called sock puppets.

If the criticism was broad, then it may be considered biased, even if it has tons of sources (that may also be considered biased, especially lapatilla.com. I'll see what I can do regarding to that page. Also, remember to sign your posts! --

talk) 16:07, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.252.50.93 (talk) 04:12, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I answered correctly. I fail to see why you considered my edit an attack. --

talk) 21:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at

Hey, don't just revert edits and use a .Doc file from Dave Wasserman as the only source. If you have a better, more official source than the

I just wanted to reflect that the FEC are not updated, while the Wasserman results are. Specially considering it's supported by the fact that, for example, the Official election comission from the state of New York has updated the results from its state, something that has to be changed in the "Results by State" section, and therefore, something that should be reflected in the General results. But it's ok, perhaps we can wait until the FEC updates the results. For the 2008 election they did it during August I believe. Just wanted to show that if we update the results in a state, and not the in the final results, it will be incongruous. --

talk) 20:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I understand. I would rather just use the Wasserman results, because they are correct. But when another editor challenges them with a more reliable source, I was forced to use the FEC because it was closest to Wasserman. Sooner or later, they will match. But at least this way, the percentages and such match. Thanks and good luck.

talk) 21:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I only read the "Dissemination" section, and I must agree that it is extremely biased - even if I agree with the contents. I'll have to read the whole page thoroughly and then I'll place my vote. --

talk) 03:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah93, with all due respect your WRONG. that picture you keep posting is Obama when he was a STATE SENATOR from Illinois and that's why IT DOESN'T FIT WELL with 2008. For example, in the 1980 and 1984 presidential wikipedia pages, Ronald Reagan's presidential portrait is on both 1980 and 1984 election wikipedia pages. Same with Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996. Cerretalogan13 (talk) 05:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is from 2005, when he was already a US Senator from Illinois. --

talk) 13:21, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Request for Comment now live on the Template talk:User WikiProject United States presidential elections. Your involvement in WikiProject means you may wish to consider commenting on your preferred outcome for this userbox. Spartan7W § 19:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could possibly find more polls from July 2015 because ICS threw my graph off considerably. If you find polls from November 2014, December 2014, January 2014 and April 2015 it would be greatly appreciated as well. Thanks for the help you have given already!--ZiaLater (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From the looks of it Datin Corp may release their July 2015 polls for free soon.--ZiaLater (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to find many when I submitted the first polls, but I failed to do so. Maybe I'll do a more through research, though I don't think we need so many polls from that far back. --

talk) 01:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok. I was just trying to find some for my graph so we wouldn't have months that just have one poll. I also like having more than just one poll and ICS in one month so it doesn't throw off the data (if I remove ICS in July 2015, the trend remains similar to other months).--ZiaLater (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is DatinCorp's July poll. I'll let you add the data to the article if you would like to.--ZiaLater (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I already did it. --

talk) 00:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

So I noticed that the La Patilla source and another source from Prodavinci may have different numbers. Prodavinci looks like it actually cites the September 2015 Venebarómetro (page 41 of 50 on bottom of La Patilla link) while La Patilla maybe uses an older poll. Can you check this out too?--ZiaLater (talk) 07:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

I hope you know that the election results are not fully finalized right now. Just saw your edit on the article and wanted to make sure you knew.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I guess we'll have to wait for the full results. But for now, let's leave those there, since they clearly show the MUD won. --

talk) 13:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the here !

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yeah 93. 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

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]

Regarding this edit, please make some change. Your edit makes it look like this is the final vote number. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 17:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Yeah 93. 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

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]

A strange comment to make in your edit summary. If you'd have changed the source when you changed the figures, it would have been fine. However, changing sourced information without changing the source can appear to be falsification. I'm not sure why you having a source is unfortunate for me though – perhaps you could elaborate? Also, whilst you changed some of the results table and the source, you didn't correct the figures for all candidates or the invalid votes and left the table as a mixture of the two sources, meaning it didn't add up (I've now sorted this out). The moral of the story: Please be more careful when changing results tables. Cheers, Number 57 12:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it was more of a joke than anything. I'll check the numbers again to see if there is any other error left. --

talk) 14:16, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Yeah 93. 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

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]