| Revision as of 02:10, 28 October 2012 editTiller54 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,770 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:17, 2 November 2012 edit undoTiller54 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users34,770 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| |} | |} | ||
| ==Dont Delete or ALTER polling information== | |||
| When information is referenced from an outside source, you can click through and verify it is posted correctly but you cannot alter the information to your liking. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 23:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :I did no such thing. When you write on someone's talk page, please post at the BOTTOM of the page and remember to sign your comments. ] (]) 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Opinion needed! == | == Opinion needed! == | ||
| Line 81: | Line 75: | ||
| :Both of the articles are ''specifically'' about Petraeus running for President, though. ] (]) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | :Both of the articles are ''specifically'' about Petraeus running for President, though. ] (]) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == September 2010 == | |||
| ] Thank you for ]. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to ], as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with ], 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 ] of clear-cut ] and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-minor --> ''(Please note the edits in question were made on 2010-08-21.)'' — ] <b><sup>( ] ] ] )</sup></b> 14:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Peschisolido stats == | == Peschisolido stats == | ||
| Line 93: | Line 83: | ||
| Please comment for discussion about the possible addition of ] to the page.--] (]) 01:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC) | Please comment for discussion about the possible addition of ] to the page.--] (]) 01:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC) | ||
| == HR 3 == | |||
| Hi. Is there a reason you added | |||
| <blockquote>In 2011, he co-sponsored HR 3, the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act, which would change the legal definition of rape, to exclude remove incest and statutory rape, with regards to publicly-funded abortions.</blockquote> | |||
| to the 10 or so Democratic co-sponsors of the bill, but not the ~100 Republican co-sponsors? Also, why is this particular co-sponsorship notable enough to include in any openly anti-abortion legislator's entry? ] (]) 16:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Because I hadn't gotten round to it yet. Are you volunteering to do so? Note that I did add it to Chris Smith's profile, the Republican who introduced it. ] (]) 23:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::No, I'm not volunteering because the fact that a pro-life legislator, R or D, took a pro-life position isn't notable enough to include, except perhaps in the case of Smith, who is the lead sponsor. It just caught my attention that you had added the line to only Dem cosponsors. ] (]) 15:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Well, I noticed that most of the Democrats who did co-sponsor the bill didn't have anything on their profile indicating their views on abortion. ] (]) 21:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == spineless dithering == | |||
| Is not actually cit-able - and word press is not a reliable citation, please consider using the talkpagre, thanks. ] (]) 19:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Don't you discuss then? Have you ever heard of ''bold revert discuss? ] or are you not interested? ] (]) 20:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Re. polling table in reverse chronological order== | ==Re. polling table in reverse chronological order== | ||
| Line 116: | Line 90: | ||
| No I don't.--] (]) 21:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC) | No I don't.--] (]) 21:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == July 2011 == | |||
| ] Thank you for ] to Misplaced Pages. Regarding your edits to ], it is recommended that you use the ] button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces ]s, and prevents clogging up ] and the ]. Thank you. <!-- Template:uw-preview --> ] (]) 01:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks. Yes, I usually do but the Budget Committee link was an accidental oversight. ] (]) 14:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | == ] == | ||
| In you added a reference called "latimes" that was about Glenn's "Gold Mothers" speech, the reference is malformed at the moment. Would you mind fixing it? Thanks, ] (]) 03:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | In you added a reference called "latimes" that was about Glenn's "Gold Mothers" speech, the reference is malformed at the moment. Would you mind fixing it? Thanks, ] (]) 03:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi, regarding the recent changes you made to this article, please can you cite the text added, and also update the career stats/infobox with the date. Thanks. ] (]) 21:11, 9 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Hawaii 2012 Senate Primary== | ==Hawaii 2012 Senate Primary== | ||
| Line 166: | Line 132: | ||
| Hello there! I would like to ask you to weigh in, as a frequent editor of election related articles, to a dispute over the way an editor has changed the format of the external link candidate websites. See here: and here . The editor made changes that are contray to how all the other election articles are formatted, and although not a big deal, when I tried to revert the changes, the editor keeps reverting, and has accused me of disruptive editing, even though I am changing it back to the normal way to match all other websites. Mind weighing in, regardless if you agree with me or not? Thank you, and all the best! ] (]) 20:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC) | Hello there! I would like to ask you to weigh in, as a frequent editor of election related articles, to a dispute over the way an editor has changed the format of the external link candidate websites. See here: and here . The editor made changes that are contray to how all the other election articles are formatted, and although not a big deal, when I tried to revert the changes, the editor keeps reverting, and has accused me of disruptive editing, even though I am changing it back to the normal way to match all other websites. Mind weighing in, regardless if you agree with me or not? Thank you, and all the best! ] (]) 20:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :Hello, thanks for the notification. I agree with you as it happens and I've added my thoughts to the talk page. Thanks again, ] (]) 21:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) | :Hello, thanks for the notification. I agree with you as it happens and I've added my thoughts to the talk page. Thanks again, ] (]) 21:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Recent problematic edits to ] == | |||
| Although you are to be commended for removing the nonsense section on the page, when you made that edit, you also took the opportunity to remove sourced content ({{diff2|489550334|here}}), thereby giving a misleading edit summary, and then subsequently removed further content without an explanation ({{diff2|489839745|here}}). This style of editing could be considered disruptive. Please always give a proper edit summary when removing content, or preferably raise the matter on the ] first. Given that the dubious removal of content concerned in both cases material that could be considered favourable to Grayling, I will also direct you to our policy on ]. Thank you. <span style="font-family:Times">] ] ]</span> 21:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Lauren Socha edits == | == Lauren Socha edits == | ||
| Line 177: | Line 139: | ||
| ::Hi Tiller54, Okie dokie thanks for that, I best go & edit Mel Gibson too lol, I would still revert it but I really cannot be bothered to have an argument over something petty lol so i'll just leave it anyway thanks ] ] 19:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC) | ::Hi Tiller54, Okie dokie thanks for that, I best go & edit Mel Gibson too lol, I would still revert it but I really cannot be bothered to have an argument over something petty lol so i'll just leave it anyway thanks ] ] 19:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::lol no problem. Cheers ] (]) 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC) | :::lol no problem. Cheers ] (]) 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2012 == | |||
| Hi Tiller. On the talk page of the above referenced article we have decided to only post one Rasmussen poll per week, roughly. Please note this when adding new material. ] (]) 13:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Intrade in election articles== | ==Intrade in election articles== | ||
| Hey Tiller! Long time no talk! Could you please weigh in here: about including intrade predictions in an election article. Just would like to see what other editors feel. Thank you! ] (]) 21:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC) | Hey Tiller! Long time no talk! Could you please weigh in here: about including intrade predictions in an election article. Just would like to see what other editors feel. Thank you! ] (]) 21:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == BBC Media report == | |||
| Hey, you recently added the BBC media report results to the Bahraini uprising article. Do you mind adding another interpretation of the report ? Thanks. <b>]</b> ] 16:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == User:Juragraf == | == User:Juragraf == | ||
| Line 207: | Line 162: | ||
| ::: I don't see why the polling order matters. When an editor uses the section edit feature, it's nice not to have the hypothetical polling code in the way.—] 21:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | ::: I don't see why the polling order matters. When an editor uses the section edit feature, it's nice not to have the hypothetical polling code in the way.—] 21:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Well, when the most recent polling is at the top, the hypothetical polling isn't in the way and you don't have to scroll down to edit it, either :) ] (]) 19:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | ::::Well, when the most recent polling is at the top, the hypothetical polling isn't in the way and you don't have to scroll down to edit it, either :) ] (]) 19:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| ==Edit summaries== | |||
| If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could I encourage you to include edit summaries when you edit articles on politicians, particularly on those who're currently in office or campaigning, such as ]? As you've probably noticed yourself, these articles draw lots of problem edits from vandals, POV pushers, and the like. For us article-watchers, an edit without a summary is a red flag. Thanks. ] (]) 23:33, 14 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I usually do but sometimes I forget or accidentally hit the save button and then realise I forgot to include a summary. ] (]) 23:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == restore deleted == | == restore deleted == | ||
| Thanks good catch, I totally missed that, a quick look and thought it was the same person changing their vote didn't realize they had deleted someone else's vote. -- ] (]) 16:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC) | Thanks good catch, I totally missed that, a quick look and thought it was the same person changing their vote didn't realize they had deleted someone else's vote. -- ] (]) 16:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :No problem! Cheers. ] (]) 23:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC) | :No problem! Cheers. ] (]) 23:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC) | ||
| == Just a heads up.... == | |||
| I notice you have been adding the same line in ] about "Old Joe has killed one of the children and arrives at Suzie's house to kill her son but walks into a trap" I'm sure you know this, but its getting close to the ]. The line really isn't needed and it does expand the plot unnecessarily, which is why it does keep getting undone by different users. Feel free to come discuss it in the ]. <span style="background:Yellow">] ]</span> 22:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == October 2012 == | |||
| ] Hello. You appear to be engaged in an ] with one or more editors  according to your reverts at ]. Although repeatedly ] another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the ], and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a ] on the ]. | |||
| If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be ]. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> ''You seem to be adding a lot of unnecessary "fluff" and padding to the article. Please stop. As per ] Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. Which is why the extra details you included have been revmoved. '' <span style="background:Yellow">] ]</span> 23:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Uh... right. Well, I haven't edited the article since you posted your first message on my wall so I'm not sure what this is all about. Not only did I not break the 3 revert rule, I wouldn't exactly call a ''single'' extra line "a lot of unnecessary fluff and padding". It would seem a consensus has been reached and that's fine. I only added it back in a second time because no reason was given for its removal. The first time it was removed, another editor put it back in so I wasn't sure what was going on. I appear to have stumbled into an ongoing argument over what should or shouldn't be included without realising it. Apologies. ] (]) 00:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: No need to apologise. You may not have broken the 3 times rule but looking at the time stamps/article history,I can see that you did edit it twice and no other editor added that line back in (that I could see, but I could be wrong). You did undo that edit again after I first posted it, which was why I posted this friendly warning. I have only been around a little while, but I generally look at the article history and see what has been changed and moved around etc before editing, just so I can see what is being discussed. If you're unsure, write something in the edit summary box, its good for leaving a short "why was this reverted?" and when/if it gets reverted again, someone will explain why its being reverted. See you around :) <span style="background:Yellow">] ]</span> 00:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: FYI, the line was put back in by another editor . My last edit on the article was at 22:25 and your first post on my talk page was at 22:33. ] (]) 00:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Stop removing valid citations from ] entry == | |||
| On numerous occasions you have removed valid citations from the ] entry following a request to delete the entry entirely. | |||
| One such change included changing the wording from "writes a column" to "has written an article" when the WP from the reference provided has clearly written over 20 articles for ] newspaper. Equally you have changed wording from "policy pamphlet" to "article" referring to a policy document of over 9000 words. | |||
| Aside from this you remove a variety of valid information from this entry several times a day, alongside your ongoing request to delete it. | |||
| It can only be read as severe bias and consistent vandalism of the article. | |||
| :As I and ] have pointed out when we have removed the content, it is because it is not supported by the references provided. For example, the citation provided for "a column" in the Spanish newspaper links not to a column but to a single article, hence the edit. Also, the claim that Harris-Quinney "courted controversy in May 2012 when he challenged the decision of the UK Government to ban a debate on gay marriage from taking place at the QE2 Exhibition centre" is completely unsupported by the citation provided which only mentions Harris-Quinney in passing, to say that "Ben Harris-Quinney of the Bow Group... Cameron would have squirmed at Harris-Quinney's reminder that... he had voted to retain Section 28". There is nothing in the citation about either Harris-Quinney "courting controversy" himself or his "challenging" the government over the "banning of a debate". Finally, listing MPs and MEPs who may have contributed to an "alternative manifesto" published by a think tank is completely irrelevant. The Spectator citation simply says "Bernard Jenkin has an article in Crossbow magazine". This has nothing to do with Harris-Quinney and doesn't establish his notability. Working with people who are notable and then having them all listed here does not make Harris-Quinney himself notable. | |||
| :Removing claims, such as the ones listed above, that are unsupported by the citations provided is not vandalism. Continuing to re-add them is. Thanks, ] (]) 16:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Citations in the ] entry support information in the article very clearly, and several new citations have been added to further support claims made. On what basis do you persist in removing relevant citations e.g you consistently copy "Harris-Quinney has written an article for La Razon"?, which in itself is an odd fragment, and from the citations listed and/or in searching the La Razon website via the link provided in the listed citations it is clear that Harris-Quinney has written over 20 articles for La Razon. Desist in this practice, your constant edit warring is biased, unfounded and unhelpful to public record. ] (]) 20:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)Bluese7en | |||
| :As I have explained on your talk page, the "new citations" do not support the claims, particularly the claim that he "courted controversy" at a gay marriage event. The new citations say nothing of any "controversy" he "courted" and in fact only mention him in passing. As ] clearly says: "Contentious material about living persons... that is unsourced or poorly sourced... should be '''removed immediately and without waiting for discussion'''." As I have already pointed out, removing unsourced claims is not vandalism but consistently re-adding it is and I am again asking that you stop re-adding unsourced claims. As ] says, "The burden of evidence for any edit on Misplaced Pages rests with the person who adds or restores material." Trying to claim that I am vandalising an article because I am removing unsourced material in line with Misplaced Pages's policy on biographies of living persons is patently false. Do you understand why I am removing the unsourced material? Please stop re-adding it. Thanks, ] (]) 21:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:17, 2 November 2012
Welcome!
|
Opinion needed!
As a frequent editor of American politics, I would appreciate if you put your two cents into the debate over the conservative support for President Obama in Talk:Public image of Barack Obama. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Tommy Smith (footballer born 1980)
Hey there. I'm normally skeptical about people that primarily do cleanup edits, but I just wanted to say that the edit you made there (as well as on other Watford players I have watchlisted) was top notch. Keep up good work! Regards, WFC (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
- No problem! Tiller54 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
2012 election
The articles do not mention explicitly that both candidates could run for president in 2012, but rather said both have political ambitions, which could mean anything.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Both of the articles are specifically about Petraeus running for President, though. Tiller54 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Peschisolido stats
Hello. Was wondering what your source was for changing Paul Peschisolido's Derby appearances from 91 to 92? Soccerbase says 90, but they're known to be one short. Neil Brown says 91, and Derby County say 94, but that includes his 3 playoff appearances, consistent with the FLPTV sites' house style. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- My mistake, I was adding his career totals and added up Soccerbase wrong, and added 1 to it for the missing game, getting 92. Have corrected it now. Tiller54 (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012
Please comment here for discussion about the possible addition of Phil Davison to the page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Re. polling table in reverse chronological order
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Regards-- KeptSouth (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Re, Ben Pringle
No I don't.--CumbrianRam (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
John Glenn
In this edit you added a reference called "latimes" that was about Glenn's "Gold Mothers" speech, the reference is malformed at the moment. Would you mind fixing it? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 03:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Hawaii 2012 Senate Primary
Hey there. Could you please weigh in here, and see if you agree: . The editor is putting in unreputable sources for self-promotion. It seems other edits per past edits agree, but I suppose that's not enough. Thank you! America69 (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello. I agree with you, I've never heard of that source being used before and it's clearly nothing more than self-promotion. He seems to have given up now, though. Happy to help! Tiller54 (talk) 15:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Gallup poll with or without Bachmann
Can you provide a link showing where you get the number for Bachman for the Gallup poll with the Dec 28-Jan 4 dates? For that polling period, it looks like they moved her into the "other" category, which jumped from 2% to 6% all of a sudden. I don't think having the "other" category at 6% and her at 5% is correct. I can't find her with 5% in that date range anywhere. Thanks. —Torchiest edits 16:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- 5% is the figure Gallup originally gave. If you go back to my original edit you'll see she was at 5% and other was at 2%, which were the numbers they gave. For whatever reason, they decided to remove her numbers from that poll even though it was taken when she was still in the race, although I don't know why her numbers only moved the "other" category from 2 to 6. I can only assume it's because of rounding.Tiller54 (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Misplaced Pages and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation. |
Patrick Hastings
Hey dude; why the removal of the date? Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- I believe it's common practice not to repeat the year if someone served in an office in the same year: 15 January - 28 November 1991 as opposed to 15 January 1991 - 28 November 1991. I might be wrong though. It's not a big deal either way, really. Tiller54 (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- Argh, you're right; sorry, I looked at it in the diff view and saw the two dates on different lines (in which case it'd be useful to note the year), but the template displays them next to each other. I'll revert now :). Ironholds (talk) 15:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
election polls
Hi, I know that you add polls to a lot of the election pages and I was wondering what your view is with regards to partisan polls. There is currently a discussion at Talk:United States Senate election in North Dakota, 2012 about it. Rxguy (talk) 03:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hilda Solis update
Greetings, Tiller54!
Thanks for the update to the Hilda Solis page. Even though it was very minor it is undeniable that "debate" was not the best choice of wording for the massive protests. What they had in Wisconsin was a hand full of corrupt corporate criminals committing treason against our country lined up against millions of citizens who turned out when time and circumstance allowed to oppose the Wall Street corporate criminals and traitors that Scott Walker works for.
Solis has been one of the very few, one of the extremely rare politicians that has advocated policy that actually benefits the citizens of our country which did not merely divert more of our taxes to already wealthy corporate criminals. I can't stand politicians, I don't vote, they're all criminals and traitors but some of them on rare occasion throw citizens a bone with some usable meat on it. Damotclese (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Maryland 2012 Senate Race Websites
Hello there! I would like to ask you to weigh in, as a frequent editor of election related articles, to a dispute over the way an editor has changed the format of the external link candidate websites. See here: and here . The editor made changes that are contray to how all the other election articles are formatted, and although not a big deal, when I tried to revert the changes, the editor keeps reverting, and has accused me of disruptive editing, even though I am changing it back to the normal way to match all other websites. Mind weighing in, regardless if you agree with me or not? Thank you, and all the best! America69 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hello, thanks for the notification. I agree with you as it happens and I've added my thoughts to the talk page. Thanks again, Tiller54 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Lauren Socha edits
Hello , I know Misplaced Pages doesn't censor but if I were to walk up to someone and say "Fuck off ya Paki bastard", I'd probably get done in ... So why should it be allowed on here ? ... Everyone of different natures visit Misplaced Pages and to see what she said I'd imagine would offend people? ... Waffle over haha Davey2010 Talk 18:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Davey, I'm sure some people might be offended by it but that's not really the point. Mel Gibson's article contains his various racist quotes too and I'm sure people might be offended by that too. However, WP:NOTCENSORED details that if content that some might find objectionable is included because it is relevant, then it is not censored. In this case, as in the case of Mel Gibson etc, the quote is relevant and so it is included, uncensored. Something being objectionable is not in itself reason to remove it or censor it. Cheers. Tiller54 (talk) 18:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Tiller54, Okie dokie thanks for that, I best go & edit Mel Gibson too lol, I would still revert it but I really cannot be bothered to have an argument over something petty lol so i'll just leave it anyway thanks Davey2010 Talk 19:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- lol no problem. Cheers Tiller54 (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Tiller54, Okie dokie thanks for that, I best go & edit Mel Gibson too lol, I would still revert it but I really cannot be bothered to have an argument over something petty lol so i'll just leave it anyway thanks Davey2010 Talk 19:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Intrade in election articles
Hey Tiller! Long time no talk! Could you please weigh in here: about including intrade predictions in an election article. Just would like to see what other editors feel. Thank you! America69 (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
User:Juragraf
Hi, I see you've run into this user's additions. I've opened a thread at ANI about them. N-HH talk/edits 10:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Ιων
I've blocked this editor, but please don't revert them if they blank their own talk page: they are perfectly entitled to do so. Drmies (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Apologies, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for letting me know. Tiller54 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I was kind of grateful since it allowed me to see the content they deleted without having to click through the history, but that's between you, me, and the lamp post. Let me give you one more piece of advice. It is very helpful (for admin schmucks like me) if there are clear indications given as to why something is vandalism--edit summaries are a good tool for that. "Revert vandalism" means little, esp. since not everyone uses the definition (WP:VANDAL, which basically requires that it's clear there's an intent to disrupt) correctly. So, "Revert vandalism: repeated changes to numbers without any kind of verification" is better. That makes it easier on us, which makes everything easier--then we know what to look for. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll remember to do that in the future. Thanks again! Tiller54 (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- No, thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll remember to do that in the future. Thanks again! Tiller54 (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- Well, I was kind of grateful since it allowed me to see the content they deleted without having to click through the history, but that's between you, me, and the lamp post. Let me give you one more piece of advice. It is very helpful (for admin schmucks like me) if there are clear indications given as to why something is vandalism--edit summaries are a good tool for that. "Revert vandalism" means little, esp. since not everyone uses the definition (WP:VANDAL, which basically requires that it's clear there's an intent to disrupt) correctly. So, "Revert vandalism: repeated changes to numbers without any kind of verification" is better. That makes it easier on us, which makes everything easier--then we know what to look for. Happy editing, Drmies (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012
That edit you just made— what changes did it make? The "Difference between revisions" isn't clear, unfortunately.—GoldRingChip 00:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi there. I just moved the hypothetical polling to below the Brown/Warren polling, like it is on all the other election pages. Tiller54 (talk) 16:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. I moved it back up because: a) it allows the reader's eyes to skip down to the active polling; and b) it lets editors edit the section of the active polling alone.—GoldRingChip 18:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, b) is the problem when the polling table has the most recent poll at the bottom. The other pages have the most recent polls at the top so it's not an issue. Tiller54 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why the polling order matters. When an editor uses the section edit feature, it's nice not to have the hypothetical polling code in the way.—GoldRingChip 21:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Well, when the most recent polling is at the top, the hypothetical polling isn't in the way and you don't have to scroll down to edit it, either :) Tiller54 (talk) 19:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see why the polling order matters. When an editor uses the section edit feature, it's nice not to have the hypothetical polling code in the way.—GoldRingChip 21:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah, b) is the problem when the polling table has the most recent poll at the bottom. The other pages have the most recent polls at the top so it's not an issue. Tiller54 (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
restore deleted
Thanks good catch, I totally missed that, a quick look and thought it was the same person changing their vote didn't realize they had deleted someone else's vote. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
- No problem! Cheers. Tiller54 (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)