User talk:Tillerh11

Thank you

Thank you for your watchfulness on Lucas Black. I've blocked the vandal. Bishonen | talk 20:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC).[reply]

April 2018

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thanks for your hard work in Recent changes patrol reverting vandalism. You're doing a great job. Just remember to warn the editors using the warn button on their user-talk page. Enough ignored warnings will eventually lead to blocks. Minima © (talk) 15:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SurveyMonkey

Hello, For the SurveyMonkey polls, I think it would be better if we chose just one state instead of the 3 or 4 so it's not listy. Also, maybe say "SurveyMonkey (for Axios)". Thanks. Benwitt (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Conrad Murray: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. - zfJames Please ping me in your reply on this page (chat page , contribs) 22:35, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please tell me how to create a Wikipédia page cause our University teacher give us a homework or should I use a project is to create a Wikipédia page on a random subject so can you please tell me how

Thanks Cattynoir4545 (talk) 22:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning Jack

I have no idea why you reverted my edits on Lightning Jack. They were not vandalism. I put a lot of hard work into researching the additions I made and sourcing them. I didn't go through 8 pages of Google results and adding nearly 30 references and typing up summaries from sources I couldn't copy so you could revert my additions without explanation and undo all my hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.182.82.104 (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback granted

Hi Tillerh11. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
Rollback should never be used to edit war.
If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 19:01, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bishopbriggs Academy

I think you made a mistake here. It's okay, we've all done it but I would recommend removing the warning you placed on their page. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@HickoryOughtShirt?4: You are correct, simple mistake, the user reverted the vandalism, and I didn't catch their reversion. My mistake. I have apologized to the user. Tillerh11 (talk) 19:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:TrentonDaniel2003

Hello. I suggest you remove your final warning to them since users are allowed to remove warnings they get from their talk pages, the only thing a registered user isn't allowed to remove is a declined unblock request. Cheers, - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:32, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone and done it for you. Removing warnings from their own talk page does not count as vandalism on the English language Wikipedia. It does on several other language versions of WP, but not here. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to warn users ;-)

Thanks for working to patrol recent changes and revert vandalism! It's a thankless job and I can use all the help I can get ;-). Just remember that after you revert disruptive or questionable edits, you need to warn the user regarding the behavior. Otherwise, I won't be able to block the user if the disruption continues; no warnings mean that they haven't been talked to and given a chance to stop. Thanks again for everything, keep up the excellent work, and I wish you happy editing. Cheers ;-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind! I saw that you left a warning... sorry if I stepped on any of your toes :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 11:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

TonyBallioni (talk) 01:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My intentions.

As per your inquiry into my new membership and curioof my involvement with recent edits and vote, I assure I am not a puppet or scammer. I am a avid Kash Jackson supporter and a seeker for truth and honesty. When I look up on a reference sight for information about a(n) election I would hope all candidates on the ballot that my vote may go to would appear on an informative media outlet such as Wikipedia. My intention is honest and to also speak for your other inquiry, my fiancé April, she supports me and we share a computer as well as a common goal. I do understand the basis of your interest and wanted to remedy any possible conspiracy theorist that may ensue. Thank you. Endurrance (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also I officially deny being a sock Endurrance (talk) 01:39, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion on Alfons Tracki

I was correcting a translation error by previous user. Please restore. Thanks. Jmar67 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmar67: It's possible I made a mistake. Changing something to "pro-fascist" or those kind of descriptions is often done as vandalism, so that's why I reverted, because that's what it looked like. I don't really know much about the person or topic (I was just reverting vandalism) and looking closer at it, a translation error is entirely possible in this case. You can restore, I won't revert again. I apologize if I made a mistake. Tillerh11 (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I have restored. Jmar67 (talk) 17:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Tillerh11. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, I'm Tillerh11. I noticed that in this edit to 2 Days & 1 Night, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tillerh11 (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

My reply: Hi, I'm sorry I didn't add the reason why I removed the content. I just moved it to the Former's section from the Current's section. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mutcx (talk • contribs) 03:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Us (2019) Edit

I already provided an edit summary in which I explained the reasons for my edit. If you had an issue with one of those reasons, please address them instead of falsely claiming I didn't provide any. As for the reasons themselves: first, the plot section is plagiarized word for word from Monica Castillo's review of the film on RogerEbert.com. Second, it wasn't a complete plot summary and thus was redundant to the existing "Premise" section. Finally, due to the preceding point, the plot summary was written in a fashion poorly suited to summarizing a plot. For instance, it mentions minutiae like Janelle Monae playing in a particular scene. This is because, as stated previously, it was written by a reviewer to give readers a sense of the film, not to describe the plot. I will be restoring my edit. 206.45.7.58 (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism is a valid reason to remove content. 206.45.7.58 (talk) 03:48, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@206.45.7.58: Yes, it is. I do not really know about the film, I was just reverting vandalism, and that's what your removal of the plot summary looked like. Plagiarism, however, is a valid reason to do that. I don't know anything about the film itself, so I will not revert again. Sorry about that. Tillerh11 (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Namik Paul

Hard to see what that IP editor is trying to achieve isn't it? 🤔 220 of ^Borg 08:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC) any[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]