Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MisterShiney (talk | contribs) at 23:22, 19 October 2012 (Warning: Edit warring on Looper (film). (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome!

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.124.156 (talk) 23:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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. Tiller54 (talk) 23:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

September 2010

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to The_West_Wing, as "minor" only if they truly 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. (Please note the edits in question were made on 2010-08-21.) — UncleBubba  14:37, 23 September 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)

HR 3

Hi. Is there a reason you added

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.

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? Arbor832466 (talk) 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. Tiller54 (talk) 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. Arbor832466 (talk) 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. Tiller54 (talk) 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. Off2riorob (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't you discuss then? Have you ever heard of bold revert discuss? WP:BRD or are you not interested? Off2riorob (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2011 (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)

July 2011

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Regarding your edits to Jim Nussle, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Cognate247 (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I usually do but the Budget Committee link was an accidental oversight. Tiller54 (talk) 14:05, 20 July 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)

Ben Pringle

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. Eldumpo (talk) 21:11, 9 December 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)

Recent problematic edits to Chris Grayling

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 (here), thereby giving a misleading edit summary, and then subsequently removed further content without an explanation (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 talk page 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 maintaing a neutral point of view. Thank you. ISTB351 (talk) (contributions) 21:34, 29 April 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)

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. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 13:11, 9 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)

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. Mohamed CJ (talk) 16:39, 2 July 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)

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 Bob Kerrey? 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. Ammodramus (talk) 23:33, 14 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)

Just a heads up....

I notice you have been adding the same line in Looper (film) 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 3RR. 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 talk page. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 22:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Hello, and welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Looper (film). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing 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 normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. 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 three-revert rule, 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 block. Thank you. You seem to be adding a lot of unnecessary "fluff" and padding to the article. Please stop. As per Manual of Style for Film Plots Plot summaries for feature films should be between 400 and 700 words. Which is why the extra details you included have been revmoved. MisterShiney (Come say hi) 23:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)