User talk:Tiller54

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
--Regards-- KeptSouth (talk) 06:27, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Re, Ben Pringle
No I don't.--CumbrianRam (talk) 21:30, 16 June 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 talkedits 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia and to see what she said I'd imagine would offend people? ... Waffle over haha Davey 2010   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 Davey 2010   Talk  19:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * lol no problem. Cheers Tiller54 (talk) 19:17, 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)

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)

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)

Request for comments
As a major contributor the article United States presidential election, 2016, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.--JayJasper (talk) 05:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...
...for this edit, which undid my mistake. I must have been looking at the wrong date formats when I made my edit. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem! Tiller54 (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply (Statewide Polling for the Republican 2016 Primary's)
Just wondering, what is the "criteria" for a candidate to be listed in red & thus to appear as the front runner, also should I put a note by the Harper Poll due to the leader in the other 3 polls Mike Huckabee being excluded as it may be confusing for readers to see him going from 1st to 1st to nowhere then back to 1st from 4 different polls. Thank You Guyb123321 (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. No, it's not necessary to include a note. Polling companies will include various speculated, confirmed and possible candidates. It doesn't matter which ones they include or don't include because no-one has any idea who will actually run. All we do is record the information, regardless of which potential and possible candidates they include and don't include. Thanks! Tiller54 (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Ha!
In case you missed it, this edit is just plain funny! – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hahaha! No, I hadn't seen that! That's brilliant! "invalid category" indeed. Tiller54 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Treblinka
Hi, Tiller54. You asked in your Treblinka edit summary: "Any need to mention names of sources in brackets during a sentence?" The article is controversial; some details may sound extreme (or even obscene) if mentioned so matter-of-factly. Statements were made during Treblinka Trials by both, Holocaust survivors, as well as convicted war-criminals, trying to influence the perceptions of others. I think it makes sense to separate who said what, by mentioning their names at the end of a sentence. Please let me know, if you have a better suggestion. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 18:13, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Perhaps the sentences could be re-worded? "In his testimony, Guard x said..." or "according to survivor x..." The way it was made it look really odd and some might find it more confusing than helpful, particularly if it's just a surname eg: "It was a horrible sight (Wiernik)..." In this case: "he would be called "clepsydra" (water clock) in the camp language (Max Bielas)", some might assume that "Max Bielas" is the name of the camp language. If re-wording isn't an option, perhaps footnotes? Tiller54 (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see what you mean. In my research I noticed that opposing witnesses focus on different things. I was trying to make a note of it, without the momentary interruptions which can derail the train of thought, or words like "according to such and such" which create the aura of ambivalence... as if there was anything wrong with what they said. – Perhaps footnotes would be the best answer; I don't know. The actual names would probably require a direct quote which isn't needed either. Poeticbent talk 21:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the best thing to do is to just modify the references so that it's clear who said what. That would negate the need for lengthy footnotes. Tiller54 (talk) 13:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Godfrey Bloom
Thanks for the RFPP. Know of anymore sources for that bit? Might help to have others. Cheers Jim1138 (talk)
 * Sure, I'll add some references tomorrow. Tiller54 (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Clarity Campaign
Out of curiosity, since I don't know the standard, is it standard to include "leaners" in the final numbers of how a poll is reported here on Wiki? I ask, because I posted the poll, but pushing leaners seems as if this wouldn't be standard for how polls are added to wiki. Just curious. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. It's what Clarity did in their press release and it's how the numbers are reported on other sites like HuffPost Pollster. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Illinois Gubernatorial Election
Re this edit, thank you for putting my change in the main body. Though your "completely unnecessary" comment is a bit dickish, since you took the content I added and moved it into a different section. I think providing the date of the primary wasn't completely unnecessary. --Stacecom (talk) 18:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * By "completely unnecessary", I was referring to your adding of another heading of "==Primaries==" on top of the Democratic and Republican primaries. But yes, thanks for providing the primary date. Tiller54 (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

American politics arbitration evidence
You've been doing a good job. Come and check this out. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks. I'll take a look. Tiller54 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit at California gubernatorial election, 2014
Hello, and thank you for all your hard work maintaining articles about elections! This is a valuable service you provide at Wikipedia. But I have a quibble with regard to your recent edits at the California gubernatorial election article, where you restored two reference citations I had removed. Please see my comments at Talk:California gubernatorial election, 2014. I am not as familiar with this type of article as you are, and really need guidance how to proceed. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 16:53, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sellers
Why people make a simple thing so complicated, I don't know ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. Wasn't aware it was such a controversial topic! Tiller54 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Good Will Hunting 2
I see what you did ... --  chulk90 / discuss / contributions 20:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC) Haha, yep! Tiller54 (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks very much! Tiller54 (talk) 21:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Chad Grimm redirect
Hello, Tiller54. You recently changed Chad Grimm to a redirect without discussion and without merging the information into the destination page. Could you point to the policy about political candidates that led you to make that redirect? Third-party US gubernatorial candidates intuitively seem notable to me, but I want to check before I make hasty reverts. Otherwise, a fair portion of the article I created would be good to have on the destination article anyway, so I am going to begin the merge either way. Fishal (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't think there was really anything worth merging, to be honest. The policy is WP:POLITICIAN, which he fails as an unelected candidate. Tiller54 (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Understood. The information that concerned me is about the court case and Board of Elections decision, which is not currently covered in the destination article. Fishal (talk) 02:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess that could be transferred over, but it doesn't seem that consequential really. I wouldn't object if you were to do it, though. Tiller54 (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Nessa Jenkins
The article did have a reference. But isn't it normal to add a template requesting more to be added? If you think the character herself is wholly non-notable, and no supporting sources could be found, wouldn't it be more appropriate to raise an WP:RFD where a merge could be discussed. No strong views, personally, and the article looks a bit lightweight, but just asking. The article has been there for over four years? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference was to IMDB, which isn't a reliable source. Isn't WP:RFD more about deleting redirects than merging things? Tiller54 (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Some kind of discussion, somewhere, might have been useful? Why did you not re-direct to List of Gavin & Stacey characters where there is a substantial description of the character? Evenso, what's now been lost? It's hard to tell. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

2014 Mass Gov Race
Hi, you recently changed the polling for the 2014 Mass Gov Race. Your numbers are incorrect. You used the Coakley 37%, Baker 46% undecided 8% which is from the 400 sample (initial topline). This must be accompanied by a change to the margin of error placing it at 4.9%. The supplemental topline pdf has the numbers associate with the additional 100 respondents (4.4% MOE) which are the numbers from which you changed (36 45 11). Personally, I would like to see both toplines reflected in the graph but if only one, I must insist that the numbers are associated with the corresponding MOE. Thanks. TreebeardTheEnt (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, so they are. Corrected. As the only difference between the samples is 100 extra respondents and the numbers are almost identical, I don't think it's worth including both sets of numbers. If it was the difference between LV and RV, yes, but between 400 LV and 500 LV, it doesn't seem worth it. Tiller54 (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

United States Senate Election in Arizona, 2016
Please explain your deletion of almost all my edits on this page. As you now have it, the page seems to lack proper summary. Regarding your contention that candidates should be listed alphabetically, I can see now that your way correct, but shouldn't the incumbent be listed either first or separately? Finally, I re-inserted Sarah Palin as a potential candidate based on a more specific citation. There is legitimate speculation that she moved to Arizona to run for Senate, and just because she didn't run in 2012 doesn't mean she's not running in 2016, especially since she went on the record two days ago saying that she hopes to run for office again in the future. After reviewing your editing history, I can see that I've benefited (as a reader) from your work on these election pages in the past. Thank you for your contributions. I am a relatively new editor on here and would appreciate any advice or tips you might be able to offer. Makeitobjective (talk) 00:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. First of all, thanks for your kind words. I removed the summary of the polls for two reasons: I think it's too specific for the lead of an article and I think it lends undue weight to a single poll, particularly the Republican primary poll, which was conducted for "Citizens United Political Victory Fund", which doesn't exactly like McCain. I actually meant not to remove what you added about him facing opposition from the Tea Party, so I'll add that back in now. As for listing candidates, per MOS:LISTS, they're all alphabetised, though we do put the incumbents first in polling tables, for ease of access. I looked for a reliable source for Palin but couldn't find one and unfortunately SodaHead.com isn't a reliable source. It's a website where people publish their opinions and other people vote on them. Thanks for your contributions, particularly to the 2016 Senate elections page, that was very helpful. Tiller54 (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words as well. Thank you also for re-inserting the Tea Party opposition sentence. I do think that helps, although I'm still not totally satisfied with the summary section. I will continue to monitor the race and add content as more concrete media coverage is published. Just a note, based on your feedback about Sarah Palin as a candidate, I am removing the reference to her in the Arizona section of United States Senate elections, 2016. Again, I will continue to monitor media coverage and as soon as her potential candidacy is covered by a reliable source I will re-insert in both articles. It's only a matter of tim. Thank you for your assistance and patience, and I look forward to future collaboration. Makeitobjective (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I missed that she was still on the main 2016 page. I don't expect there'll be as much speculation about her running as there was in 2012, but it's always worth keeping an eye out. Tiller54 (talk) 13:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please consider
…supporting me in the reversion of the text that prematurely declared victory in the Rauner article, which was based on evening news reports/projections, and not on official election results. While the outcome reported will likely prove correct, it was, as it appeared, completely unsourced, based only <100% precincts reporting, and in a context of an opponent who has not yet conceded. Thank you for reviewing the matter. Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see this in time, but yes, you're correct in saying that Wikipedia shouldn't pre-empt official results. Tiller54 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar
Belated thanks for the barnstar! JamKaftan (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Tiller54 (talk) 00:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. Attorney General election, 2014
I've nominated this article you created to appear on the main page in the Did you know? section, see Template:Did you know nominations/Washington, D.C. Attorney General election, 2014. I encourage you to nominate any other articles you create or expand significantly, that meet the criteria, yourself, and thank you for your work on this and many other election articles! Cheers, &mdash;innotata 03:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for that and the kind words. It's something I've never done before but I might have a go at it with this election. Thanks again! Tiller54 (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Washington, D.C. Attorney General election, 2014
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
I removed a legal threat.

Bearian (talk) 18:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC) 
 * Thank you! Tiller54 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014
Harrias talk 12:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Spurs 3-4 Man City
Hey. Thanks for the comment. I'll be straight up with you - the reason that that page even exists on my user subspace is because I salvaged it right as the original article was being deleted. The reason that there are not one or two but thirteen individual citations for the claim that it was (one of) the best cup comebacks ever is because of a last-ditch desperate attempt to prove the article's validity that I eventually gave up on. You'll notice that User:Stevo1000 and I both have near the exact same article for this match saved on our subspaces, and also this one, because they were both removed from Wikipedia at about the same time and we both wanted to keep them for a point in the future when people were more willing to accept them.

The problem is that there exists on Wikipedia a powerful lobby of Deletionists who believe that Wikipedia should only contain articles that can unquestionable justify their presence there, especially with regards to individual football matches, and their interpretation of WP:SPORTSEVENT is that matches doesn't just need to be notable, they need to be continuously cited by the press or reliable sources in order to prove its lasting notability. This means that games involving United, Arsenal, Liverpool and to a lesser extent Chelsea have a number of articles about them because the national press will dedicate thousands of hours and pages to studying absolutely anything they do, but a smaller club like City will always have trouble proving notability for any match that doesn't already involve those clubs - especially when the match happened before our rise to success a few years back.

Now you've raised it, and I realise it's been more than four years since it was last deleted, I'm tempted to try again. At the very least I'll work on the article and expand it somewhat to make it more presentable. But I have to say that I have suspicions over whether it won't just be hit with another AfD notice.

Incidentally, I'm curious as to how you found that page. I don't advertise my subspace except on my own user page, and I tend to believe that no-one but me ever reads what's in there. Falastur2 Talk 13:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah OK, I see. Bradford's comeback win against Chelsea seems to have resulted in more coverage of this match, for example here/. I came across it on Google. Search for "Spurs 3 Man City 4" and it's the first result that comes up. Tiller54 (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Me and Falstur created the article a few years back but it was swiftly removed for not being notable enough bizarrely. As Falstur says, there are a powerful group of "deletionists" (or vandals as I have come to call them) who delete what they want. It's the reason why I (mostly) quit editing a few years ago. It's not a democracy at all - Wikipedia has become a backwards dictatorship led by a untouchable minority who don't have the project's best interests at heart. Stevo1000 (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Missouri gubernatorial election, 2016
It really doesn't matter if "Former" is used as a heading elsewhere, as it is a rare occurrence that an announced candidate dies before the primary. I'm sure it could be found, but that's not really relevant. "Removed" is used in election articles, for candidates who are removed from the ballot for failing to get enough signatures or some other reason but did not "withdraw", so your statement that "just declared, withdrew, potential and decliend" (sic) is used is incorrect. I did correct the problem with the heading's format, but the fact that "Former" is rarely used as a heading in election articles does not mean it should not be used when it is appropriate.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the precedent, as established here is to mention declared candidates who died before the election at the top of the section. This also means that when more information becomes available, it can be added. Tiller54 (talk) 19:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Date sort
Thank you for your efforts in keeping Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 up to date. I would be a great addition to have the date column to sort properly. Possible? -  Cwobeel   (talk)  00:54, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Tiller54 (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

2015 Dallas municipal election
Hello Tiller54,

Dallas is the rare large city in the U.S. that has a Weak mayor form of government. The Dallas mayor is one of 15 city council members elected. Though only the mayor is elected citywide and the other 14 council members by district, the mayor has much less power than in other big cities. Acoordingly, I believe that the entire municipal election, both mayor and the other 14 seats, should be covered in a single article. What do you think? Cullen328  Let's discuss it  02:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Hillary Rodham Clinton
Thanks for your consideration, and please note that joining this project is in no way an endorsement of HRC or her political positions. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, 2016
<b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 21:18, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Deleting Declared Candidate
Hello Tiller54-

Wondering what your rationale is for deleting declared independent candidate Mikelis Beitiks from the "United States Senate election in California, 2016" page is. I can infer from your edit that you don't think a candidate's website declaring himself a candidate is a valid source, but I am wondering what facet of citation etiquette would dictate this. Thanks in advance. TheDefendingChampion (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * A self-published source is not a reliable source. Please familiarise yourself with that policy, which lays out what is deemed a reliable source and what isn't. Cheers. Tiller54 (talk) 21:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. I respectfully disagree with your assessment. I believe that in the context of this article, Beitiks' website declaration meets all five criteria for validation under the Self-Source exception for questionable and self-published sources. That being said, you seem to be somewhat of a moderator for this page and I acknowledge that such a citation would be an aberration, so I won't go to edit war, I'll just ask you to reconsider. Best wishes. TheDefendingChampion (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Philadelphia mayoral election, 2015
Oh whoops didn't even see the sequence was in the Philadelphia mayoral election, 2015 infobox. Should articles covering previous years be in the same format, or is that something unique for the current year article? For example, Philadelphia mayoral election, 2011 has the sequence at the bottom of the page instead of in the infobox.

chsh (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there should be an infobox. A lot of mayoral elections pages are barely more than stubs though. Tiller54 (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

New question raised regarding Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton/April 2015 move request
Some opposers of this move have now contended that there is a "Critical fault in proposal evidence", which brings the opinions expressed into question. Please indicate if this assertion in any way affects your position with respect to the proposed move. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Brenda Lawrence
Tiller54 I know you had nothing to do with it, but Brenda Lawrence (D) (Michigan's 14th Congressional District) had uploaded an official public domain portrait, but was removed for some reason. It should not have been removed since it was from the office of Brenda Lawrence. I was just wondering if you could upload the photo back to her page, I really appreciate it. I asked you because you're an experienced Wikipedia editor. Have a nice day, and a good Memorial Day weekend. -Spongebob1944
 * Hi Spongebob1944. I'd help out but I don't really upload photos, and I wouldn't know where to go to get an official one to be honest! Thanks for the note though. Best, Tiller54 (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Opening sentence, re Darryl Powell
Hello. I was always taught that the opening sentence of an article about a former footballer should contain what made them notable. Then any non-notable jobs that they do after finishing with notable footballing activities go in the prose. I wouldn't write "Fred Bloggs is a shoe salesman and former footballer who made 300 appearances in the Football League and played 13 times for Wales", and I suspect you wouldn't either. So why force "sports agent", another non-notable job, in there? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Honorifics in lists of politicians
Hi Tiller54. Since you've edited one or more of List of current members of the British Privy Council, British Government frontbench and Official Opposition frontbench in the last six months, I'd like to invite you to a discussion about the use of honorifics in those lists. The discussion is happening here, and I look forward to a helpful and robust discussion. DBD 21:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Robert Gray
I noticed you redirected the page Robert Gray (American politician) to Mississippi gubernatorial election, 2015. We already had a debate about whether the article should be kept, and the result was keep. The debate can be seen here. Please do not erase articles without consensus on the talk page. MB298 (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoops, didn't see that on the talk page. Tiller54 (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
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) 14:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How margin of error works — Statewide opinion polling, Democratic Party primaries, 2016
User All4peace (talk) has initiated a discussion, on the article talk page on English Wikipedia about how we present MOE.

I would very‐much appreciate your participation ! Info por favor (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to JJC, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Unilateral removal of the entire article without going through a proper deletion process is inappropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Monica Wehby
I have been watching this page which looks more like an attack page. The content I removed - which you just added back - is not what the source says. Adding this type of content to a BLP is damaging to the subject and to Wikipedia. If you are going to add content, please keep in mind WP:UNDUE. Also, please refrain from stating something that is not in the reference you cite. You can also use the talk page for discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, quite a bit of that content needs removed. There is more on her page about the election than the election page itself. As soon as I get the time this week I will take a closer look and would welcome your feedback on the talk page of the article. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 00:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Hurricanehink and thanks for reviewing. I'll reply to your comments and suggestions later today. Tiller54 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014
The article Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hurricanehink -- Hurricanehink (talk) 17:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ben Sasse
During the 2014 U.S. senatorial elections, you took an interest in Ben Sasse, and made several constructive edits to the article. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, could I ask you to pay some attention to that article again? I won't describe the situation (apart from noting that I unthinkingly violated 3RR), lest I seem to be pushing my point of view; but another editor's input would be useful. — Ammodramus (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Mourinho on Balo
Please do not alter his quote, which are his own words. You cannot alter a person's words, no matter if it is wrong or not. This is why I have put the note in place to make it clear. Thanks. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 21:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The quote is not being altered, we're just choosing not to include some of it. Hence the ellipses. See MOS:ELLIPSIS. Tiller54 (talk) 21:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, fair enough. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 21:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Re-elect vs reelect
Just so you know, reelect without the hyphenation is normal American usage. It looks weird, but it is what it is. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Sean Haugh
The sources provided in the article and those available which weren't listed, as per WP:NEXIST, are more than enough to show notablity for Sean Haugh as per WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Even more so, the only discussion about changing the Sean Haugh page to a redirect took place in 2014 when the page was completely different and lacked proper sourcing. Being that this article is significantly different than before and is very arguably notable I am restoring and suggest you put the page up for a deletion discussion or a discussion of some sort to bring a consensus to the argument as per WP:XFD and WP:CON. Acidskater (talk) 01:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Apology
I woke up and logged on this a.m. to find a note from GAB that I'd posted to a closed SPI discussion. Somehow, the closed discussion had popped up on my watchlist as if it were current. I wrote this to GAB and will include MelanieN and the other editors whom I'd pinged on my edit. Thanks. I somehow didn't realize that the discussion was closed. I apologize. Activist (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Activist (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC) (One last note to write.) Activist (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

New Page Review needs your help
Hi ,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted. Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected
AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! User:HopsonRoad 16:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Howdy. If you're no longer interested in participating in the discussion at the page-in-question, or don't want to participate at the Dispute board. Then, perhaps you shouldn't be reverting anymore. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Hi Tiller54, I offer my sincere congratulations on the work that you did to bring Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014 to GA status.

I would ask, however, that you continue to engage at Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014, in a manner that guides us towards consensus, which probably will require compromise. It would be good, if you left your summary of the issues in the space provided under your name at: Dispute resolution noticeboard—it is a forum for mediating disagreements among editors, not a court where one passively awaits a judgment.

In the meantime, I ask you to ponder Mississippi gubernatorial election, 1999, where the Reform candidate with 1.07% of the vote represented the margin that the winner of a plurality needed to obtain a majority—also forcing the matter to the legislature. Do you see a difference between that situation and the one under discussion? If not, it would seem that you would either concur with the Mississippi model and agree to it for Vermont or protest it at that article's talk page. Your reply would be most helpful at Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate, where the Mississippi model has already been mentioned. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 14:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Peoria election articles deletion nomination
I am informing you that the articles on municipal elections in Peoria, Illinois, have all been nominated for deletion I am informing you because you appear to have made a number of edits to at least one of these articles. SecretName101 (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Vernon Parker for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Vernon Parker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Vernon Parker until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. You made some edits in 2014, but you are one of the few people who has edited in the past 7 years so just reaching out.Mpen320 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Charles Lollar for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Charles Lollar, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Charles Lollar (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2022 (UTC)