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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No problem! Tiller54 (talk) 19:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Both of the articles are specifically about Petraeus running for President, though. Tiller54 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello, Tiller54. You have new messages at Talk:New York's 26th congressional district special election, 2011.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

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

No I don't.--CumbrianRam (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Could you please weigh in here, and see if you agree: [1]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ^talk_edits 16:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Hey dude; why the removal of the date? Ironholds (talk) 15:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:[2] and here [3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Davey2010 Talk 18:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

lol no problem. Cheers Tiller54 (talk) 19:17, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tiller! Long time no talk! Could you please weigh in here: [4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Apologies, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for letting me know. Tiller54 (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

OK, I'll remember to do that in the future. Thanks again! Tiller54 (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

No problem! Cheers. Tiller54 (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

The image is hardly appropriate for an elections page. Tiller54 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

...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)[reply]

No problem! Tiller54 (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

In case you missed it, this edit is just plain funny! – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! No, I hadn't seen that! That's brilliant! "invalid category" indeed. Tiller54 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

[[

File:Farm-Fresh eye.png|15px|link=|alt=]]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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^Talk 04:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^Talk 18:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Between United States Senate election in Arizona, 2016 and United States Senate election in Wisconsin, 2016? The first you turned into a redirect[5] and the other you undid the redirect[6]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve_McClaren&oldid=575152525 80.1.149.182 (talk) 18:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Certainly, most of these candidates won't qualify for their own Wikipedia 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

My guess is that you aren't familiar with how the FEC works, or you wouldn't be treating a Form 2 as a self-promotion. It's actually required paperwork for any serious federal candidate in the U. S. Granted, it's not a news article, but it's not self-promotion, at least not in the sense that you're used to. Can we reach an understanding on this that doesn't involve arbitration? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinrexheine (talk • contribs) 21:15, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Apologies, I was going to post an explanation on your talk page but got sidetracked. Dozens of people file to run in each race but that doesn't mean they're a) actually going to run or b) notable. Only notable candidates are included and the only way to establish notability is through a reliable third-party news source. So, someone's self-declaration (ie: personal website) or something like a filing report doesn't meet that. For example, this is a link to the list of candidates who filed to run for Mayor of New York City. If you click the drop-down bar, you'll see hundreds of names. The way we sort the notable from the non-notable is by only including those who have been mentioned in a news source as running. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I do see your point. However, the sheer bureaucracy of FEC paperwork tends to discourage candidates for federal office who aren't serious. This early in the campaign cycle (at least in Michigan), very often the only indication we have of serious federal office candidates is that they've taken the time to fill out FEC forms 1 and 2; it takes awhile for the reliable third-party media to catch up to a candidate who isn't already a big name. Does someone who's filled out the necessary FEC paperwork at least count as a credible "Potential" candidate? Kevinrexheine (talk) 12:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone files and they're notable, they'll get the coverage in reliable sources. When it's some random person who files to run, they don't get the coverage. Sometimes they come on here and start edit warring to try and promote their candidacy with no sources except a piece of paper they filed and a Facebook page. Like this guy. Tiller54 (talk) 01:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I see the principle of your point, but we disagree on a specific application, as even U. S. House incumbents aren't getting any media play for their 2014 campaigns right now, though they are actively fundraising. I propose a compromise. FEC rules require a candidate to file quarterly disclosure forms once they've either raised or spent at least $5,000. IMO, a serious candidate will be able to effectively raise at least a Madison within 3 months, media coverage or not. Therefore, I propose that, in regard to federal races, the filing of FEC disclosure forms 1 and 2 rates a grace period as a credible "potential" candidate (long enough for at least one quarterly filing to intervene); but if, after four months, the candidate hasn't either drawn at least one reliable third-party media mention or raised at least enough money to merit FEC Disclosure Form 3, then we remove them from the "potential" category. Does this work as an acceptable compromise? Kevinrexheine (talk) 14:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, incumbents are getting media coverage. But that doesn't mean they're listed as running for re-election until they come out and say so. In fact, refusing to say often leads to increased media coverage. For example, Thad Cochran, Jerry Brown and Howard Coble. As for your proposal, it's not just up to me (although it would be a heck of a lot easier). The consensus always has been that unless someone has coverage in a reliable, third-party news source, they're not notable and don't get listed. Raising an arbitrary amount of money and filing a form doesn't make a candidate notable. Tiller54 (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, clearly you're seeing something that I'm missing. Could we continue this conversation over on the talk page of United States House of Representatives elections in Michigan, 2014? Kevinrexheine (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, have replied over there. Tiller54 (talk) 12:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested regarding the "Employer vs. Employee" discussion at Talk:Margin Call (film).CFredkin (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a potential edit war in the Michigan gubernatorial election, 2014 article in which an editor whose editing history indicates he is a Rick Snyder supporter removed text back by citations which state that Snyder is vulnerable. I started discussions in the article's talk page as well as the talk page of the editor in question User talk:2602:304:B0FD:19C0:90AA:941F:B0AF:76CF but he removed my posting calling it uncivil. You can read his talk page's history at [7]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. He's clearly not interested in contributing, just in trying to push his POV. I'll keep an eye on the page to see if he pops up again. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am trying to promote United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2012 to good article. I've started a peer review, if you have any available time, would you please comment on it? Thanks, Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 23:49, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You reverted an edit on Maryland gubernatorial election, 2014 citing unreferenced. Just wanted to keep you informed that I have reverted your edit as the previous update had an apt reference. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 17:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with that habit of having them there, and I don't even think that that is done for all election pages (in fact). Those links are indirect, and plainly fail our external link guidelines, starting from the intro all the way through to links to be avoided, and the pillar 'What Wikipedia is not', specifically we're not a soapbox and we're not a linkfarm. If there is any consensus that they should be on those pages, then my removal, pointing to policy, is a reason to discuss re-insertion. I am going to add to the mix that some of the external links are already used as references, another reason why the external links guideline would discourage linking. Also, I do not believe that 'other stuff exists' is a suitable argument for inclusion, for me it is even a consideration for removal of the 'other stuff' as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kelle Roos 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelle Roos until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. GiantSnowman 14:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really necessary to immediately list the article for deletion? You said in the AFD that there's no coverage of him in sources but if you'd waited, that's exactly what I've been adding. Tiller54 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And you haven't changed my mind. Nothing here that satisfies WP:GNG, it is all WP:ROUTINE. I did do WP:BEFORE you know... GiantSnowman 18:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough if you did, I just thought that you'd jumped the gun somewhat. The article had only been around for about 10 minutes before you nominated it... Tiller54 (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

38 minutes actually ;) - I have been editing these kind of articles for nearly 8 years, I like to think I know a non-notable one when I see one! GiantSnowman 19:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The two links you used as a source for William's birthday are inadequate. One is dead, the other doesn't even mention her by name. Please do not restore the information again without a source. Two kinds of pork (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That particular tweet may have been deleted but there are others on her profile from January 10 saying that it's her birthday. The other source talks about her character and says that she's "a 23-year-old actress". Tiller54 (talk) 16:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you claim, the Yugoslavian War was "an issue in New Mexico that strongly affected the gubernatorial and state senate elections", then mention it on those pages. The reference provided is dated 1999 and thus clearly had no impact whatsoever on the 1996 presidential election. Mention of the war as an issue belongs on the main page, not on the individual state elections pages. That's why it's not mentioned in any of the other state presidential elections pages from 1996. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you researched that last fact? Please create a discussion on the articles talk page, please don't just go through and delete pictures on an assumption of irrelivance. The cited areticle may be a bit after the election, but it speaks to the opposition to Clinton's actions which was a factor in the 1996 election, as I said, in New Mexico and elsewhere. Also please don't make standardized text formatting changes to just one article in a series. Thank you for your interest on this issue. --7partparadigm ^talk 22:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is completely irrelevant. Three years later is "a bit after the election"? That's quite an understatement. As I said, if it was a factor, it belongs on the main election page. That's why it's not mentioned on any other state election page. It's also why, for example, Mitt Romney's "47%" comments are on the main 2012 election page, not on random individual state election pages. Tiller54 (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't done your homework on this dude. I created this page, and I've personally created hundreds of these state election pages, and feel that I would know enough about these pages to determine if a picture is "completely irrelevant" or not. I also am a life long resident of New Mexico, and feel that I would have a perspective to share. I agree it wasn't as huge of an issue as maybe you would would like to see personally, apparently, but this page needs a picture. There has been a wiki-wide call for more photos in pages for years now. What would constitute a relevant picture in your book? The anti-war movement in Santa Fe in particular has been a very important deciding factor in presidential elections in New Mexico for years, so I think this picture is just fine.

I'm going to open a conversation about this on the relevant talk page tomorrow, and I encourage you to cite style next time to make your case about this page. I will also undo your deletion one last time in hopes that you will come to your senses and go through the proper channels for the changes you want to see here. If you continue to make large scale edits on my watchlist without going through the proper channels (ie. the talk pages) I will contact an administrator. Thanks again for your concern on this issue, but I don't like your edit choice - I think it damages the page, and is unnecessarily minimalistic for such a small page, and you are edit-warring me while I am asking you to please take this to the talk page. Thank you. --7partparadigm ^talk 23:23, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the Yugoslavian war was an issue during the campaign, particularly in New Mexico, find a source that supports your claim! The source that was provided was three years out of date! You can't go around inserting claims about the importance of issues without sources to support them. Your claim that "I also am a life long resident of New Mexico, and feel that I would have a perspective to share" directly contradicts one of the key points of Wikipedia:Verifiability: "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." The claim is not verifiable, therefore it should be removed.

As for articles needing pictures, yes they do, but not when the caption underneath them claims something that is not supported by a reference. The picture's relevance is also questionable. It's from almost a year before the election and the file description makes clear that he's not campaigning, he's visiting soldiers about to be deployed.

Finally, as to your claim that I am "mak[ing] large scale edits on my watchlist without going through the proper channels" is completely bogus. I have no idea what's on your watchlist, and that's not why I made the edits, so please don't claim otherwise. I removed it because it was irrelevant and not supported by a reference. The "proper channels" are removal, not discussion, as WP:Verifiability again makes clear: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed. I can see why this would trigger this reaction from you, but I think that (as the interwebs provide very little on the topic before 1999) the citation is sufficient. The first citation I had provided originally is a published and verifiable article that address the topic and provides the context of the importance of the issue for the nationwide election, and the second (albeit 3 years after the election) brings home the importance of the issue to New Mexico under Clinton's second term. As far as: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source" - I have provided reliable sources (the second is third-party, but the first was not), that do speak to the issue. I feel that I have made my case, and we seem to be having conflict. I will call you review note 3 on the WP:Verifiability page for how to handle situations like this. Continuing to conflict about this does not interest me, but I do take offense to the way that you have been communicating with me about this. I do agree that "campaigning" or on the "campaign trail" is not an appropriate description of what is going on, that has been rectified. I have re posted the picture as I have provided two citations to its legitimacy on the issue. Further discussion (as this has been misidentified as a unverified reference), is encouraged to take place on the talk page, where I have opened a thread. --7partparadigm ^talk 00:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are clearly not sufficient. One is a press release published three years after the election, the other is an article on whether Clinton will be primaried from the left that doesn't mention the Yugoslav Wars or for that matter, any war, conflict or military issue. The caption thus clearly fails WP:V and should be removed. As for the picture, it's not of Clinton campaigning or of Clinton in New Mexico, thus it is irrelevant to the article and should also be removed. Tiller54 (talk) 16:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for going through the talk page Tiller. Per the discussion there, I took the picture down. I thought it was relevant enough to the time period to include, but clearly there is disagreement there with the other editors. I may not agree with your style, but keep up that sharp eye regardless. --7partparadigm ^talk 00:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by my "style", I just follow WP:V. Thanks all the same though, Tiller54 (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Care to join the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Texas_gubernatorial_election,_2014&action=edit&section=2 thanks Ratemonth (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Alaska it was not a vandalism. I just saw that the PPP polling displayed a lead 41-37 against Sullivan and 43-37 against Treadwell. Isn';t that right?????--Ιων (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about you just stop editing polls altogether? Your edit history clearly shows you're only interested in deleting and vandalising polls so as to make them more friendly to Democratic candidates. STOP DOING IT. Tiller54 (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Thanks for updating/improving the Juliette Barnes article :) Your efforts haven't gone unnoticed :) Regards, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've been doing a good job. Come and check this out [8]. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 20:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks. I'll take a look. Tiller54 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Why people make a simple thing so complicated, I don't know ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. Wasn't aware it was such a controversial topic! Tiller54 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(cur | prev) 22:02, 16 March 2013‎ Tiller54 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (44 bytes) (+44)‎ . . (←Redirected page to Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back)

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

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for adding polling data to the 2014 U.S. Senate elections articles. Bearian (talk) 19:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've restored the article, please update to show notability. GiantSnowman 20:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've just done so. Tiller54 (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alright, if I had the wrong page, where's the right one?

Help me. 2obvious (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's here and it's already been done. Thanks for your help though! Tiller54 (talk) 15:59, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nooo...that's just the House candidates. I was (in the process of) posting ALL candidates (and initiatives) for the District in a centralized location. Primarily because I went looking for said information at the official source and had a beast of a time uncovering it. Which makes it really hard to place an informed vote.

I'd still like to do this. Do you see this as being objectionable, redundant, or otherwise inappropriate information for this forum? If not, as someone who's clearly more active than I, where would you propose I post such information? 2obvious (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, I see! That's really helpful of you, thanks. I think city council elections are usually a bit "down in the weeds" for Wikipedia, which usually only covers races down to the mayoral/state legislature level (not that I think anyone would really object if you were to create an article for it). However, Ballotpedia does cover municipal elections and there is an article here for DC's municipal elections. I think your best bet would be to register over there as well and see what you can add to their article, which we can add a link to somewhere on here. Thanks again, Tiller54 (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can you keep me off the D.C. mayoral election page, as I have removed myself from the race? Follow one of the citations used and you will find that it is dead. The name in my username, Bdavid, corresponds to Ben, my first name, and David, my middle name. Thank you.Bdavid1111 (talk) 13:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication That Ben Fogasher has withdrawn from the race. Even if he has, the information should not be removed. Tiller54 (talk) 16:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have undone your edit to Martin Smid again. The reason is the same as last time - the supposedly new reference is in fact Sebestyen once again, and as such my previous comments posted on your talk page some time ago (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tiller54&oldid=623139762) still apply.

edit2: Hey, you mentioned "an actual source is provided", however, if you visit the link above, you will see that my issue is not with a lack of sources, but rather with the source itself, so to speak. Additionally, this "newly" added source of yours is in fact the very same source as the other one - Sebestyen. Have you even seen the article used for the reference? It is an excerpt from the book which is already used as a source in the article.

And by virtue of basically being the same thing, my reasoning for reverting your edit is the same as a couple of months ago - Sebestyen supposedly claims that "evidence which established the conspiracy as genuine... was provided later in a commission". How is that possible when that very same inquiry report is used as a source elsewhere in the article, but actually states the exact opposite? Not to mention the discrepancy in the (previous) version of the article which devoted two huge paragraphs to the supposed conspiracy, yet retained a sourced statement directly contradicting it in a following paragraph.

So seeing as reliable, well respected, NPOV sources (e.g. Czech TV, parliamentary report) offer no support for this particular conspiracy, and in fact directly contradict Sebestyen's findings that might support it, I have removed it (again). Keeping it would not only provide undue focus on content which is highly dubious and debatable at best, but the article would directly contradict itself as explained above. 89.176.87.169 (talk) 10:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can you explain why there are no articles to suggest there's nothing notable? There are a number of articles I can continue to put in more citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subphreeky (talk • contribs) 19:48, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article you restarted contains even less content than the one that was redirected. The coverage that does exist is routine coverage and as such he fails WP:POLITICIAN. Tiller54 (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why you delete this categories of Léa Seydoux ? she lesbian ,watch last film blue is warmest color --Muhib mansour (talk) 22:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]