Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 107.214.30.15 (talk) at 23:43, 2 November 2013 (→Tipton: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

--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 _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)

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)

Indiana gubernatorial election, 2012

Why did you remove the image I put there?--94.65.12.42 (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The image is hardly appropriate for an elections page. Tiller54 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 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)

Virgina Gubernatorial Elections Refocus -

I'm writing on your wall in response to an undo you did on the Virginia Gubernatorial Elections page. I would like the page have its focus at eye level on the individuals currently running.

I also see that you are not participating in talk, could you elaborate on this?

The page currently contains data and analysis on 80% republicans. I recognize this is apparently a hotly contested election, and I am curious why you reverted an attempt to add balance and seemingly clarity to the people running.

This reformatting is much cleaner and easier to understand. There is a page for the republican primaries, I suggest you place those data in that place, or much less pair the input with independent and democratic (which would bloat the article more-so than the primary statistics already do.

The goal here is a simple, clean page for the users to drill into other content.

A good example, even at a textual level, is the comment that former republican A does not support current republican governor elect B. That should be placed on governor elect B's wiki page, not on the elections page.

It's simple, and obvious. abstergo abstergo accendo (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the message. I'll reply to you in a little while on the Virginia gubernatorial election page. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I have replied now. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Caroline Lucas comment on the Thatcher page

As Leader of the Green Party, shouldn't her comment go alongside Nigel Farage's? I'm not allowed to edit the page for a few days due to an earlier edit war! --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose so actually. I only put her comment at the end because it was from the same source that reported many MPs boycotted the debate in the Commons, Lucas being one of them. I'll move it up there now. Tiller54 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2013_April_14

I removed the template you added as it links to a seven year old discussion that is permanently closed and cannot be reopened. It can be renominated for deletion, but that was not the right template. TimL • talk 17:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have replaced it now. Tiller54 (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources on Florida gubernatorial election, 2014

Hello. I noticed you have reverted some edits on this page because sources do not "expire". However, sources do expire after six months on United States presidential election, 2016, and for the sake of uniformity, I suggested on Talk:Florida gubernatorial election, 2014 to have the same for statewide elections. Is there a reason why you believe sources should not expire after six months? --Vinnyvinny2 (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. The "six-month" expiration was created for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 page. It's not that sources "expire" as you said, but on that primary page, candidates were was broken down into four categories - declared candidates, currently speculated candidates, formerly speculated candidates and declined. So, once a speculated candidate was no longer being speculated about, he or she wasn't deleted, they were simply moved to the "formerly speculated" section. Because Senate, Congressional and Gubernatorial elections pages make no distinction between "currently" and "formerly" speculated candidates, it doesn't apply. Not in this cycle, in the 2014 cycle, in the 2012 cycle or 2010 and so on. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

LePage

I won't revert the edit again, but I would appreciate your input on the talk page. Thanks 331dot (talk) 02:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Election order

Why does the incumbent's party come first? It seems arbitrary especially when the incumbent isn't running (Mass. U.S. Sen. 2013)—GoldRingChip 13:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Because if it was alphabetical order, Republicans would complain that it was an "unfair advantage" for the Democrats if they were always listed first. Alphabetical order would probably be the most arbitrary, imo. Tiller54 (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I mean alphabetical order by candidate's name, not party.—GoldRingChip 20:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

In that case, which party is listed first before the candidates are nominated? If it's done alphabetically by party, it'll descend into arguments about "fairness". If it's done by incumbency, as it is now, what's the point in changing it after the two parties nominate their candidate? Tiller54 (talk) 22:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2013#Polling

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2013#Polling. —GoldRingChip 02:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

Charles Lollar

Hey, I've started a discussion at Talk:Charles Lollar#Support for Mitt Romney regarding whether the fact of Lollar's support for Romney belongs in the article; your input's welcome. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Decliners

Some people who in the end did not run in an election should absolutely still be mentioned in an election article. Major examples from this year for Senate include Ashley Judd, Steve King, Brian Schweitzer, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Brenden Johnson. They seriously considered running, were courted by the national party, and did affect the run-up to the primaries and condsiderations of other candidates. Of course, no one would know that when they're just a bullet point. I also kind of like what was done in United States Senate election in Ohio, 2010 with background sections. Reywas92 04:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the Ohio page is a great example. I just spent some time cleaning up the Minnesota gubernatorial election page and that's done in the same way: lists and a lengthy campaign section. It's preferable to just having three lists of declared, withdrawn and declined candidates without any explanation for what happened but doing so for every election page would be time consuming. But, why should some people be listed and others not? You can't invent criteria for notability or decide arbitrarily. Taking Steve King for example, what about the myriad other Republicans who declined to run for the Senate? The Iowa GOP has had well-documented problems recruiting a top-tier candidate for the race and the fact that they all declined to run is "part of the process". In fact, Steve King certainly wasn't courted by the national party - they would have preferred Tom Latham, Kim Reynolds, Matt Schultz, Bill Northey or a number of others who all said no. Adding a few paragraphs explaining that wouldn't take very long, but it would take a long time when in this cycle alone there are dozens of Senate races to do that for, and gubernatorial races, and mayoral races... etc. So, in the meantime, as has been agreed upon before, can the lists just be left alone? Tiller54 (talk) 14:13, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say they were all courted, those were just possible reasons. You really can invent criteria: some people are courted by the party, others are not; some give significant consideration and make an official statement, others simply say 'no' when asked by a reporter; some just don't run. Do you get what I meant by those two examples in Indiana? They didn't even decline, they simply didn't run, just like everyone else in the state. Doing nothing or just going for a different office is not part of the process. I can compromise for now to include actual physical decliners, as the section headers say, but some people truly have nothing do with these elections. Reywas92 18:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation

You are invited to participate in discussion on Talk page for Bill Haslam, related to the CFredkin effort to eliminate all references to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) analysis of all US Governors. Excellius (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC) You are invited to participate in discussion on Talk pages for Mary Landrieu, Tom Corbett, Rick Snyder, and Pat McCrory.CFredkin (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Paul

There is no drone section in his article and the content belongs in his political positions article. You are actually putting this in the filibuster section. This paragraph does not any relevance in his biography. Truthsort (talk) 19:19, 29 August 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)

"Sample size"

I've opened a discussion on the Scottish independence referendum, 2014 talk page regarding your edit: Talk:Scottish independence referendum, 2014#"Sample size". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcbeaton (talk • contribs) 19:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

What's the difference?

Between United States Senate election in Arizona, 2016 and United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2016? The first you turned into a redirect and the other you undid the redirect. You say other articles exist. Other redirects exist. So I opened an AFD. There is plenty of precedent for 2016 events being WP:TOOSOON....William 17:07, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

In Arizona, McCain might run. Or not. So there's not much to say there. In Wisconsin, Johnson's running, Feingold will probably seek a re-match and there's plenty of polling of the race. Sure, if there's nothing to say other than "the incumbent might run again", it doesn't need its own page but in cases like the presidential election, in NH, NC etc, there are confirmed candidates, opponents and polling. Tiller54 (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Whether an incumbent is going to retire or not is WP:CRYSTALBALL. As is who is going to run for an election 3 years away....William 17:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

How on earth is that WP:CRYSTAL??? When Ron Johnson comes out and says, "I'm running for re-election in 2016" or Tom Coburn says "there's no way I will run for re-election in 2016", what part of that is "unverifiable speculation"? Tiller54 (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Steve McClaren

Hi, I was just wondering why you reverted my edit on the Steve McClaren article when it was factually accurate?

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Steve_McClaren&oldid=575152525 80.1.149.182 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Because it wasn't. He hadn't yet been confirmed. Tiller54 (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Not confirmed but I had my very reliable sources which also caused me to change the Paul Simpson article at the same time! 80.1.149.182 (talk) 19:00, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

If you have sources, please provide them. At present there is nothing concrete about Simpson's move to Derby. Tiller54 (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Starting XI's

Starting 11 should be removed per consensus already reached on WT:FOOTY. 188.221.116.26 (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

reliable source

Is there a policy you can point to for this assertion? I think the official secretary of state's website qualifies as a reliable source for candidate registration in the same way that it is used as the source for election results in practically every election article. Many fringe candidates who have no chance will never be covered in election news articles even though they are candidates who will appear in the results. --Esprqii (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not that the site isn't reliable but that, as the link shows, hundreds of people file for office. Most of them aren't notable at all and don't campaign or even end up qualifying for the ballot. So, only candidates who appear in a news source are included. Tiller54 (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, most of these candidates won't qualify for their own Misplaced Pages article, but for the election itself, we should list all candidates, and provide whatever source we can for their candidacy. We could certainly wait until the filing deadline for those that don't qualify, but in the case of Goberman, he runs every year and will qualify and campaign in his own inimitable fashion. --Esprqii (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I've just found a source for him. Which is what we need for every candidate. Tiller54 (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Glad you find another source. The more the merrier! I still think the SOS site is plenty though. --Esprqii (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

If we just used SOS sources, we'd have articles filled with dozens of "candidates" who've done nothing more than self-declare for office. We only list the notable ones. There was quite a discussion on Talk:New York City mayoral election, 2013 because some guy called Walter Iwachiw wanted to be listed as a candidate on the page purely based on the fact that he'd filed with the NYC board of elections... along with literally hundreds of other people. He was no more notable than any of them and had no sources to indicate his notability. So, he and all the others were not listed. It's the same principle here: if they're not notable, we don't list them. Tiller54 (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't really seem like the same issue. That guy was listing his whole bio on the page. A strict listing of candidates who qualify for the ballot seems legit to me, and it could certainly be trimmed after people get thrown out. Many times, people claim to be running and then never file. The SOS site is good for filtering out those people. If things get nutty there's always a notability filter like was done in California gubernatorial recall election. We're still so far away from this election that it's not worth worrying about yet anyway. --Esprqii (talk) 23:35, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

It's the same principle. Listing everyone who qualifies for the ballot, regardless of whether or not there's any information about them running anywhere else is pointless. Tiller54 (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Clyde Holloway

As an FYI, I took the Clyde Holloway reverters to WP:SPI: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Louisianaruralhistory

-- ferret (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Tiller54 (talk) 11:01, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

VA 2013 Election, Polling

Are polls supposed to be ordered by end date, then? My mistake. JoshMcCullough (talk) 17:08, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, they are. If they've got the same end date, they're sorted by start date eg 25-27 comes before 23-27. I didn't mean to imply that you'd got it wrong but that there were a couple lower down that we'd all missed as well. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Tipton

November 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did at Scott Tipton, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you.

Do your own research and stop your tendentious editing. 107.214.30.15 (talk) 23:43, 2 November 2013 (UTC)