User talk:Toddst1/Archive 3

edit count | edit summary usage

This editor was formerly known as Toddstreat1. Previous archives of this user's talk page can be found here (before Nov 2007) and here (Nov 2007).

John A. Trese

Hi, Thanks for the nice comments and removing the notability tag!I have been working on citations and cleaning up some external links. I think I'm done with the citations for now. Can we now remove the citation tag? Or is this done by a bot? --Peggy Brennan 23:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am working on the John A. Trese page, and you have tagged the page, citing notability requirements. I'm working on them, with more 3rd-party references, and will be working on citations. If you can, let me know if I'm moving in the right direction. Thanks! --Peggy Brennan 20:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, how do we remove the in-text citations tag? I do have citations added now...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peggy Brennan (talk • contribs) 12:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Peggy, You've made great progress on the article. Nice work. I removed the global {{nofootnotes}} tage and replaced it with two {{nofootnotes}} tags for the sections that need footnotes the most.

In general, you can remove them yourself, but it's always good to discuss it on the talk page explaining why you've removed them and leaving an edit summary.

Keep up the great work! Toddst1 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

ProCurve Training

Hi,

thanks for review topic "ProCurve Training". You added the Advertisement tag. Please be more specific and give example how to make it better. Thanks haegi

It appears to be a catalog of HP services. See Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory Toddst1 (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Gustave Le Rouge

I have been writing the pages for most Categories: "French_science_fiction_writers" and "French_fantasy_writers" spun off from the French science fiction and Fantastique pages, which I also wrote. On these, we do have the following source:

French Science Fiction, Fantasy, Horror and Pulp Fiction by Jean-Marc Lofficier & Randy Lofficier ISBN 0-7864-0596-1.

It wasn't deemed necessary to recopy the same info on each and every author page. If you have time to do it, you are however welcome to do so. JMLofficier 16:27, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You're a true Defender of the Wiki

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to you, Toddst1, for all of the fine work you have done combating vandalism and spam on the Wikipedia. Kudos, and keep up the good work! Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Rolf Solli

hi, I added 3 refs and removed the tag. Looks ok? Pundit|utter 15:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Thanks! Toddst1 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Morgenthaler

Glad you nominated both of them. I don't see why they can't be referred to in an article about that congressional district. Mandsford 21:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and I agree. It seems that the primary race in Illinois is getting pretty heated. FWIW, I have nothing to do with Illinois or politics. Toddst1 (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Boucher

Would it be better just to keep the short quotation from the final sermon in the Wikipedia entry, and move the full version to the Boucher page on Wikiquote? David Trochos (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't familiar with wikiquote. It seems like the perfect place for it. I'll move it now. Thanks!! Toddst1 (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Raphappy

Hello, I am new to creating articles in wikipedia, and you nominated my first article on raphappy.com for speedy deletion. Then it was deleted. Considering this as a critique for myself, I revised the article and added more references to prove its notability. Since two weeks, it is active and also stub sorted. I wanted to have your feedback on this issue. Do you think that my revision made the difference for the article to stay, or do you think is this article still not suitable for wikipedia? In my first trial, I was hoping other people to put in some words, references, etc.. so that the article could grow by itself. Is it not a good approach to create an article? Should the first posts always include as much detail/references as it can?

Thanks, Msinan (talk) 00:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't remember the article from early November. I'm sorry, but I've had about 3,000 edits since then. Looking at the article as it is now, it seems like you've not only asserted notability but demonstrated it. Great work! I can't imagine anyone tagging it for a speedy deletion now.

I've taken the liberty of converting your manual footnotes to more wiki-styled ones. The ones that weren't numbered in the text, I've moved to external links. If you want to tie them to statements in the article, move them back. Take a look at how I've done them, and you might want to take a look at this handy reference. I use it all the time. Happy editing! Toddst1 01:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

very short articles

According to WP:STUB, short articles are acceptable , as long as it is clear that the subject is notable. According to WP:CSD, db-context is meant only. for articles where there is so little information that it is impossible to tell what the article is even talking about. One sentence is enough, if it says what is necessary as in Royal Belfast Hospital for Sick Children, so i declined the speedy. DGG (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Chipeşii River

I don't understand why you singled out the Chipeşii River. It is part of the Wikiproject Rivers and there are several thousand similar articles. For the time being the structure of the hydrographic network is being entered. Other information will follow once the network is complete. This is valid also for the Chipeşii River. Afil (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy. Right now it's just a statement that the river exists which should probably be deleted under Afd per Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory. I'll leave it alone and hopefully more relevant info will be added. Toddst1 05:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

List of people from Maryland

As a rule of thumb I generally consider all "list of X in Maryland" articles to have top importance in the Maryland project, unless X is an overly specific or obscure topic, which "people" is definitely not.-Jeff ^(talk) 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, it seemed way too broad to be a top priority when I looked at it. Toddst1 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

St. Barnabas Church, Upper Marlboro, Maryland

Hi, thanks for your message. The affiliation should be the present or in the alternative it could read Church of England original; Episcopal present, or something to that effect. Each national church in the Anglican Communion today is an independent church or denomination. The Church of England in Canada now calls itself the Anglican Church of Canada, for instance. The present usage pertains to governance. St. Barnabas is subject to the governance of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington, which in turn is subject to the governance of the ECUSA. The ECUSA, while a member of the Anglican Communion, is independent and is not subject to its governance. Keep up the good work. St. Barnabas is a very interesting article. clariosophic (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Italic text

Thanks! Toddst1 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Wissot

I just saw that you're trying to delete this page. I realize that you're trying to protect the integrity of wikipedia, but I'm going to lose my job if this person gets removed (as a result of my own negligence). If you want it cleaned up, then that's fine ... I'll find someone who has more information. But it's been on Wiki for quite some time. And there are much more sources. I'd appreciate it if you'd remove these tags (for deletion) and I'll work on getting it fixed. But there is considerable notability here (than is currently shown)... I just don't have the validate info at my disposal. The bots have not had a problem with the page at all. Please show some compassion here. Thanks. --User:yardalestep 12:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles D. Metcalf

You flagged Charles D. Metcalf article with a notability and verifiability tags. Metcalf's 2-star military career is interesting; achieving an equivelant rank in the Federal Government's Senior Executive in his second careeer is more interesting, but what makes him "notable" is fact that he now runs one of the largest mueseums in the world--larger than the Smithsonian's Air and Space Museum. Nevertheless "notability" is somewhat subjective so here are similar wikipedia biographies to compare notability. Current director of Smithsonian's Air Space Museum is John R. Dailey. Note the Dailey biography is rated as a Start level article, and the sources cited are official government biographies (same as Metcalf article). Also, every Secretary of the Smithionian has biography in wikipedia--even thoughs who are far less accomplished than Gen Metcalf (e.g. Robert McCormick Adams). Regarding verifiability, Metcalf article is based on official Air Force biographies which were cited in Reference section. Here are ten examples of ther Air Force Generals who's wikipedia articles are based solely on the official biographies. James Alan Abrahamson Air Force Bio ; Ronald J. Bath Air Force Bio ; Gregory A. Biscone Air Force Bio ; Dana H. Born Air Force Bio ; Trudy H. Clark Air Force Bio ; Roger E. Combs Air Force Bio ; John B. Conaway Air Force Bio ; Susan Y. Desjardins Air Force Bio ; Frank Drew Air Force Bio ; Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. Air Force Bio ; and there are many/many more. In the case of Gen Metcalf, he actually has two official biographies--one for his military career (Major General Charles D. Metcalf, and a second from his Senior Executive Service career (Charles D. Metcalf, SES). Respectfully request you remove the tags from the Metcalf article.--Orygun (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

You raise a very good point on the notability and I've removed the tag. Thanks for pointing that out. However my concern remains that all the sources are U.S. Government sources. They're clearly not third-party sources. I think the {{primarysources}} tag is appropriate. That being said, it's a really interesting article. The guy has had a heck of a career. Toddst1 (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Have added a good number of non-Gov sources to support various aspects of the article. Please take look see if it's enough to clear the tag.--Orygun (talk) 04:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the template. Nice article, BTW. Toddst1 (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Great--thanks for your help!--Orygun (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Is this guy really worth his own page? I read the whole thing looking for anything to indicate that he did more than work diligently at his job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrick Neylan (talk • contribs) 03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag officers tend to be notable. Toddst1 (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Parchise

No problem about the delete - I just followed a link to a stub and thought I'd redirect it to a more appropriate place. Sharikkamur (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Culiseta

Hello! Right before I ended my day, you put a couple of very funny templates on a page I set a layout for (I thought the outline there would make my next day go better). I saw the templates right before I quit -- actually, I added the commonscat thingie which pointed to a gallery that did not exist, had a lite laugh and proceeded to end my day.

I have 'fluffed' the page out with information since then. I was going to just leave the templates there and you alone because they provide useful links to where to get the citation information here quickly, but I just realized the extraordinarily useful fact that you can just paste the empty template and preview it -- a better url is delivered (along with a warning). So, now I am bothering you, friendly like but without a template....

I think it should be you who removes the templates on that page Culiseta and perhaps at the same while, peruse the information and make sure it is up-to standards and whatever. I feel like I am taking a refresher course for high school biology, except for the fact that I did not have a course in high school biology. Also, I just pasted the text from Walter Reed, it seemed to be good as it was and most of the interesting words there were easily wikilinked. I mentioned the paste-job in the summary and learned how to seriously cite a reference at that point -- so, if it needs to be reworded, let me know or reword it for me.

That was fairly painful reading about the species which is pictured there -- it should be the journal citation on the page. A few days later, I got to read how creepy some of Carl Linnius classifications were. It has all been relatively interesting in spite of the fact that it is about the one critter I have killed the most often. Do mammals swat at a mosquito that is biting as a reflex and not as a premeditated slaughter? Needless to say, I am sorry I did not take biology now in high school (my school had a loved and very respected teacher for it) but I still probably wouldn't because of the dissections. Eek! -- Carol 12:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the article with {{subst:tl}expand}} and {{unreferenced}} as part of Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol. The goal of the process is to improve new pages and ensure that new pages are slanderous, copyright infringement, etc. The tags were left as a clue to the next editor on ways to improve the article. While some may call things like citations fluff (I don't), it's the only way Wikipedia can ensure that it doesn't become a repository for garbage, neologisms, and myths.

I took a look at the article and it looks much better. I've removed the "funny templates". I FWIW, you seem like an experienced editor - I can't tell if your note is sarcasm or not. I'm assuming good faith either way. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh -- I had some demanding teachers long ago, well, I thought they were demanding. Also, I worked with some fishery biologists and some (let me invent a word for this) macrozoobenthoticians. Most of them loved their work and the science so while I moved data from online sources to here, there is always the threat that they might check in to see what has been done here, find my name and not like it. The woman at the laboratory who was in charge of getting their papers published was also the most exacting and picky thing that she could possibly be. All I have to do is think a little bit about her and suddenly citations are easier to complete and facts deserve a lot of checking. That blue mosquito was a problem as there was very little mention of it and even that made me think think think about those biologists.

The tags were warranted in that the page contained no information whatsoever just the ==headings== and the taxobox. I was actually mentally tired after my first foray into the world of taxonomy. I studied physics, eventually and I was only so-so at it. So sarcasm is just present and when the delivery vehicle is justified it gets to be not sarcasm. At the point that the justification is no longer present, it is a shared funny. Or, I didn't mind and I laughed and perhaps verbally cursed. I wrote something that I considered to be as sarcastic as your tags on the empty pages were. I think we have a classic win-win situation here! Yay! Thanks for taking the time to look at the blank page and the fluffed one. I appreciate a before and after eye any day. -- Carol 17:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Southern Maryland#Notable Southern Marylanders

What sort of reference would you expect in this section, since most of the entries link to specific topics that give associated references? Tedickey (talk) 20:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the references in the associated articles should be easy to use. Toddst1 (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected: I looked at the first one in the list, and nowhere in the article does it say Steny Hoyer is from Mechanicsville. I'm sure the refs are out there, if that's where he's from. I think that was my point in the first place Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see - I've generally checked with google to see if the updates look valid, and remove or put a 'fact' on the ones that aren't. It's possible to overlook missing details in the person-topics (unless I was watching those topics). Tedickey (talk) 21:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Oden Bowie

HI! I noticed that my biography for Oden Bowie was finally accepted at findagrave! I'm not sure if you had anything to do with that, but if so, THANKS! I had gotten so frustrated and had lost faith. Thanks so much for any and all help you gave! Quarterczar (talk) 01:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Liburnicon

Hi Toddst1. I am new to wikipedia so sorry if I ask too much silly questions. I really tried to read all available articles about "speedy deletion" and I don't know how to improve my article any more. After hours and days of trying my artice was deleted. Can you please help me to improve my article? Thanks! Chaoticgood (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Unio College, Tellippalai, Sri Lanka

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Unio College, Tellippalai, Sri Lanka, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Unio College, Tellippalai, Sri Lanka is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Unio College, Tellippalai, Sri Lanka, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User: marktherufftheryder

you recently pressed a case against me (marktherufftheryder) as being a sockpuppet of james brown1605. despite the fact that i have been banned i just wish to inform you that i was not his sockpuppet. i have read the literature on meatpuppets on wikipedia and whilst i am aware that i might be classified as a sockpuppet according to the fact that wikipedia makes no disinction between the two i disagree wholeheartedly with the label you have given me. james brown1605 is a friend of mine who told me that his article was listed for deletion and so i went to his discussion page where i felt that people were not looking objectively at his page and disagreed with a number of points that were raised against it and so spoke in favour of it and edited it to meet the standards requested by other editors. james brown1605 in no way asked me to go onto the page and argue his case. i feel that as the afd page was not a vote i do not see in any way how simply adding another voice to the discussion can be so grossly going against the rules that you would list the user for a ban, it is not as if you can get 'shouted down' on a forum, but then again maybe you were only trying to get your edit count up. i am sure you can drum up some wikipedia technicality that proves you right and me wrong, bravo to you. the fact that you considered me or james brown1605 to be experienced editors is a joke since i have only ever done minor deletions on other pages and to my knowledge he has done no such editing on wikipedia before his article, but perhaps you were annoyed that an article you listed for deletion did not bamboozle its creators and was judged to be valid and met with support from other editors which might be why you only accused me of sockpuppetry after the case had been resolved in our favour. you probably do not care that you were incorrect about me as im sure getting another edit under your belt takes you one step closer to that much coveted adminship because godforbid you could actually achieve something in the real world but i just wanted you to know that some other people actually want to contribute to wikipedia despite your best attempts to stop them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Markruffryder (talk • contribs) 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Significant coverage not significant publisher

Trivial coverage goes to the description of the coverage itself, not who publishes. This mention is small, you claim it satisfies criterion 1 but that clearly states a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site do not count, which this is. #3 doesn't offer any significant coverage of the site, so regardless of whether or not they think the creator is an expert on the subject, WEB doesn't make an allowance for "if the owner of the subject is an expert it makes it notable". Hence why I referred to these as pieces of trivial coverage.--Crossmr (talk) 02:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Article EncSpot

hi, I noticed you have had recommended speedy deletion of the Article EncSpot, citing it as webcontent. I would like to point out that EncSpot was a "requested article" on Wikipedia. Encpost is about a software application and not web content. Additionally how come it got into the requested articles list? Thanks in advance for your comments. Aandu (talk) 09:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As a web-distributed application, I considered it in the same category as a web site. It certainly asserted no level of notability, making it eligible for speedy deletion. I can't comment on the requested articles list. Toddst1 (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of San Diego CityBeat

Hi, Toddst1, Curious why CityBeat is slatted for removal when other publications are accepted. What do I need to do to qualify this as a post and not an ad? CityBeat can be linked to Southland Publishing and California Alternative Newsweeklies who are already on wiki. how did they make the cut? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unionpilot (talk • contribs) 12:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks, Toddst1. I appreciate your direction. Good morning! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unionpilot (talk • contribs) 12:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Early tags

You usually add those tags few minutes after creation of the article? Squash Racket (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol from the bottom of the list. Toddst1 (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a big issue, but the kind of tags you placed there are not mentioned on that page. 'New pages patrol' is mainly against vandalism and copyright issues, right?

A quote: "Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author." Squash Racket (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That quote from Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Patrolling_new_pages is preceded by a suggestion that tagging be done from the bottom of the list (see above). No intent to annoy. Toddst1 (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Citations for my new article

Dear Toddst1, I put a number of citations on the article I wrote for Harold Scott, Director, from newspaper references to websites. My question: how do I get the site off "This article needs additional citations for verification."- so that it doesn't head for elimination? Thanks Weimar03 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Weimar03Weimar03 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you nailed it. Nice work. I took care of the tags. Toddst1 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Toddst1 Thanks for the advice, I have used wikipedia for a long time but am new to editing and could do with all the help i can get! Jimjom (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Harold Scott, Director

Thanks, Toddst1! Weimar03 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)Weimar03Weimar03 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Dante (Harry August Jansen)

I noted your deletion template on Dante (Harry August Jansen). Although the article is a mess, the magician was certainly notable enough. I did a quick edit, but have limited information at hand. Google shows plenty, however. I am removing your template. If you still think the article should be deleted, please nominate it for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion) so that others can vote on the matter. Best wishes. WBardwin (talk) 05:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Commercial Paper Article

Hi Todd, I received your note regarding the name of the website that was put into the external link. I have removed it and re-added it. take a look and let me know if you have any issues with it. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.236.89 (talk) 23:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Troubles of the world

I've declined the speedy tag you placed on Troubles of the world. The reason is:

about the album, not the band

I did put it up for PROD, though - I don't think this article belongs on Wikipedia For your information, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Roger Liddle

Just to give you a heads-up, but Roger Liddle is a real public figure in the UK and his edits need to be handled sensitively. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Is this the correct channel in this amateur stew for my gripe?

Clearly, (given my fundamental disdain of this mass misinformation machine) I would not haphazardly, nor would I arbitrarily 'post' anything here. My reason (previously unstated, given how bluntly obvious it was) for posting the quote and reference of the Icelandic fermented shark and the subsequent mention of the rectum, was that the omission of the shark from the statement needed to be corrected. It was no problem to interpret my intent, as evidenced by a response and a profession that the author of the response would amend the section. So, in closing, all of wikipedia could serve well from this example. Think. For a second consider the context and the parameters of the rhetoric before imposing your foolishness on me. Sincerely, 72.228.113.62 never to be annoyed again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.228.113.62 (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Zpryme Research & Consulting Removal

Hello I'm a PhD student and I thought it was very helpful the article I created on January 7, 2008 regarding a very critical segment of business now; emerging markets. Zpryme was instrumental in items of research that are critical to my current studies and now the article i created to help others has been removed. Further, it was removed (still do not know why as I thought it was articulated well) and I do not have the code available. Would you have access to this? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Econ123 (talk • contribs) 06:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Ashley Nebelsieck

Aren't authors from major publishing houses (Random House) "notable?" The criteria on your "notable" page says they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westrope11 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but her only book appears to be published by Three Leaves rather than Random house. Toddst1 (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Three Leaves is an imprint of Doubleday which is a division of Random House. Here is the link to the entry in the Random House catalog:

{http://www.randomhouse.com/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780767928496}

I probably should have put this on the page, come to think about it. sorry. I thought the isbn number would reveal all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westrope11 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can I put the page back up now?--Westrope11 (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I would think it would be OK. Be sure to assert notability in the article - any outside book reviews from a reliable source would be good. You might want to also put a note in the talk page about the random house connection. BTW, you might want to use these templates when you mention the book. It automatically formats them and decodes the isbn and stuff. Good luck!! Toddst1 (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Roller Skating Ninjas

Why are you deleting my Roller Skating Ninjas listings? You said it was 'unverifiable' ... so i verified it. I even verified it with a link to a wikipedia entry on Godfrey Ho! If you don't trust your own site as verifiable then what is the dispute over in the first place?! I think its silly and its mean. I spent a lot of time creating that entry and then you just delete it arbitrarily. I even pointed out on the 'talk' page that 'shat' has its own entry in wikipedia. How can wikipedia defend deleting my Roller Skating Ninja's page(verfieid internally and externally) while maintaining the enclyclopedic value of the word "shat"? I think you abuse your editting power. It takes a perpetually growing collective of writers and researchers to create an informational posting, but it takes only one of you to delete all their work. That's not fair and it's not right. I would like you to re-post my entry. Briansantamaria (talk) 05:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion tag on Haling Manor High School

1. Awesome work on New Page Patrol; so important. thanks.
2. I removed this tag because High Schools, unlike middle and elementary (primary) schools, by their mere existence are regarded as notable by general consensus. See the proposed guideline WP:SCL. A7 doesn't really apply to schools anyway: "If controversial, as with schools, list the article at Articles for deletion instead." Keep up the good work!--CastAStone/^/(talk) 23:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Thanks!
2. Cool. There really didn't seem to be much there, but all is good. Thanks for the info. I'll keep it in mind. I think that's the first time I ever tagged a high school, now that I think about it. Cheers Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Rob Johnson (American football)

Your removal of unsourced information was technically right. However, a huge chunk of the article was a hoax, and that's what i was trying to undo, rather than add back in unsourced stuff. Wizardman 00:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You might want to take a second look here.

Ah, User:East718 didn't actually create an attack page. He was adding a blocked notice, which does create a page, but not an attack page per se. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Right - I realize. Twinkle automatically notifies the creater of the page that a CSD tag has been placed on it. I think having such a user page perpetuates the attack. User should blocked, User pages belonging to that account deleted and salted. Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point all right. I don't think I have had a vandal user create a user account in my honour - for lack of a better term - but I am not sure if there is anyway around the necessity of adding a block notice somewhere. (I have had one or two attack articles created in mainspace, but no user accounts.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Millions of Us LLC

Hello, I created this article and provided 5 third-party references in an explicit effort to document "notability." The Economist and The Wall Street seem pretty authoritative to me. I have removed the deletion tag as I believe it is premature based on solely your evaluation, but left the notability tag to see what others will say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.229.70 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

That's why I used {{prod}} instead of csd. I'll add {{nofootnotes}} so we can tie the notes to the facts. Toddst1 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I have added painstakingly detailed references to satisfy the notability requirement. I have cited inclusions in such authoritative outlets as The Wall Street Journal and The Economist, specifically linking to the article text. I have made a thorough, good-faith effort to demonstrate notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Algajola (talk • contribs) 22:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop the Flares

Hello there. I plan on recreating the page once I have more info such as accomplishments, impacts, etc. Is there anymore info I need so it doesn't get deleted? Thanks Kageskull (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As long as you review WP:Notability, you should have what you need. Let me know if you need help. Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, that answers a lot. Thanks! Kageskull (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

controversy regarding Rote Prayers in the Prayer article

The stuff you keep removing is verifiable. Please stop removing it as it is not vandalism. Bytebear (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It sure might be verifiable, but what I saw didn't support the way it was worded. Either way, I don't feel strongly enough to push the point. Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Velocity Sports Performance

I declined the speedy delete because the article currently asserts a claim of notability. The article is currently unsourced, but this is not a basis for WP:CSD. Suggest WP:AfD to test the validity of the claim. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is about Dr Parivesh Mishra, a prominent social worker, writer and politicial of the Chhattisgarh State.

I am new to the contributing part of the wikipedea. As for entries under Parivesh Mishra, all are done by me so far. I see the point when you said it is shaping up to be very personal. Give me time, a day or two, I will try myself to prune it of unnecessary portions. At the same time, will provide citations wherever I can. ≈≈≈≈Pariveshm (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

College of American Pathologists

The language that was mistakenly addedd which sounded like an advertisement has been delted from this non-commercial medical association site. Can it be re-reviewed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mebjones (talk • contribs) 14:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we've got bigger problems there. User: Mrand identified this as a copyright violation. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really calling it a copyright violation, but rather, was trying to point out that the article was full of their marketing language copied verbatim from their info sheet. Marketing droids design those info sheets to be copied, so they love it when someone does just that. My point was that the article contains a lot of marketing language and contains some irrelevant information that someone who wrote the article from scratch wouldn't use.—Mrand ^T-C 15:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no material on the College of American Pathologists page that is a copyright infringement. This has been verified by the CAP, who has contacted Wikipedia directly. JTH2008 (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC) JTH2008

If that was the case, there should be a {{PermissionOTRS}} on the article. Toddst1 (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Option

See response on my page, there may be a way to solve this. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding William Avery Rockefeller on the John D. Rockefeller Page

Hi... the text was sourced from the wikipedia page on William Avery Rockefeller. you can find it here http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/William_Avery_Rockefeller This was my first edit here... didn't know how to cite a reference. Moreover, it has been documented to that effect at a lot of reputed pages. 203.197.77.37 (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See response at User talk:PraveenKurupToddst1 (talk) 17:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Am struggling with the wiki tags! This book is the source http://www.amazon.com/Titan-Life-John-Rockefeller-Sr/dp/0679438084 It has been listed in the "Bibliography" on the "John D. Rockefeller" page.--PraveenKurup (talk) 17:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's what you would add (you can cut and paste the text below verbatim - and add the page number), right after the statement you would cite:

<ref>
{{cite book
  | last = Chernow 
  | first = Ron
  | authorlink = Ron Chernow
  | coauthors = 
  | title = Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr.
  | publisher = Random House
  | date = May 5, 1998
  | location = 
  | pages = **REPLACE THIS WITH THE PAGE OF YOUR CITATION**
  | url = 
  | doi = 
  | id = 
  | isbn = 978-0679438083}}</ref>

Note that you do not want to link to the Amazon page - that is considered WP:SPAM. I hope this helps! Toddst1 (talk) 18:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!! Will put in a verbatim quote with page numbers tomm... don't have the book now. Thanks again! You were really helpful! --PraveenKurup (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dubya

I'm not sure you were right to label this a vandalism revert. --John (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I will apologize. Stand by Toddst1 (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. Thanks. --John (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I had already realized my error and was about to revert it when I got your message. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Toddst1 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

User: Duergarthedwarf

Hi, Could you please explain why you are labeling Duergarthedwarf's removal of templates without explanation as vandalism, but not labeling the addition of those templates (in alphabetic order by one editor) as vandalism? He is new and some of the templates are likely right, but those templates are appearing at least as arbitrarily as their removal. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I hadn't addressed User: Gavin.collins's edits as many tags seemed appropriate. For example Choldrith is unreferenced and had a notability tag on it. However User: Duergarthedwarf removing the notability tag without addressing the problem seems like vandalism to me - especially since he/she is a brand-new user. If you want to follow User: Gavin.collins's edits, it might be a good investment of time as well. Toddst1 (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that I had explained why his/her edits were vandalism on his/her talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, and I'll reply here (and there). I think at least one of the templates he's adding (weasel) is so far out as to be blatant vandalism. Plus he seems to be working his way through monsters in alphabetic order hitting them ALL no matter their actual notability. I've removed a few of the clearly bogus ones, but don't really feel like walking them all. Given he's only on "D" it might be a lot of work. And as you note, some of the tags are valid on some of the articles. But still, indiscriminate tagging (and clearly bogus tags) on this scale feel a lot like vandalism.... Hobit (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't mean to butt in on your conversation here, and while I agree that Duergarthedwarf is a vandal, it does seem to me that indiscriminately tagging 50 or 100 articles a day with the same templates also borders on vandalism. If these tags were being carefully added after thorough readings of the articles, that would be one thing, but a quick glance at the editing history for User: Gavin.collins makes it clear that he's just adding tags indiscriminately. And the "weasel words" tag in particular is unjustified many times.

At the same time, I'll grant that a lot of the tags seem accurate. But adding massive amounts of tags indiscriminately isn't helpful, and whenever a user removes one or two tags they disagree with, they're confronted on their talk page with instructions from User: Gavin.collins to not remove tags that he's added. Rray (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're not butting in at all. I had seen the discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dungeons_&_Dragons#More_tagging and thought about posting something there. Since I'm not a member of the project, I thought better of it. I would say that both of those editors could probably improve their behavior a bit. User: Duergarthedwarf was a very active brand new user (Sockpuppet?) and wouldn't engage in conversation as he/she was removing templates. Wikipedia is built on consensus and anyone who can't be bothered to engage in a conversation about potentially objectionable edits is probably not acting constructively.

I'm not a D&D person so I'll leave it to the project folks to take it from here and decide what templates are appropriate. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin

Hi. I just wondered if you've considered becoming an admin. You seem experienced enough, so I'd be happy to nominate you if you're interested. Regards. Epbr123 (talk) 14:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you. I appreciate the offer - it is definitely quite a compliment. I suppose it's considered canvassing if I asked a couple of admins if they would support it. Let me think about it and do some reading on the process/obligations. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking of nominating you as well, having seen the prodigious amount of edits you've put in at AIV (191, according to the counter!), the amount of time you've been here, and the balance of your edits with respect to content, vandalism reversion, talk page, and project space. Kakofonous (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nabil Abou-Harb

Sorry, like I said - I'm new to this whole thing. I've added a lot of references and cleaned up the language a little. Could you tell me what else I need to change to get back on track? Thanks. Donstorm (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I would start with the Biography section and make sure you have citations for the statements there. There are a lot of statements that seem like WP:Original Research Toddst1 (talk) 11:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How's it looking? I've just cleaned up the bio and the Arab in America blurbs as well as added a couple more references. Can I take off those flags yet? Donstorm (talk) 10:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Big improvement. Still a few unsourced claims and WP:Peacock words/phrases but I took the tags off. Keep up the good work. Toddst1 (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to find a way to show that "up-and-coming" claim instead of just saying so. Why did some guy just put the flags back on by claiming he is reverting vandalism? Donstorm (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know. Better yet, just call him a film maker and don't predict the future. It gets to sound like an advertisement very quickly if you do. Toddst1 (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

All right. Fixed. Thanks for all your help! Donstorm (talk) 10:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Comments regarding new FGL topic.

Todd, I just received a note that you have tagged my FGL topic for rapid deletion for copyright issues.

As the original author and owner of all of the material in question, a fact which is easily verified (www.5g.com, www.open5g.com, www.zude.com, www.angieandsteve.com), there is no issue of copyright. Accordingly, any material that I place in Wikipedia that I wrote and own is obviously placed there with my full authorization.

I am hopeful that Wikipedia cna evolve to be an important informational source for many of the technical projects that I am involved with, and look forward to any assistance, direction, or guidance that may be available.

Thanks,

Steve Repetti Chairman/CTO Fifth Generation Systems co-author FGL programming language —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srepetti (talk • contribs) 01:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are the website/copyright owner all you need to do to give the copyright permission for this article is to send an email to permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org (replace "at" with @ and "dot" with .) stating that you are the copyright owner and that you agree to license the material under the terms of the GFDL. There is even a boilerplate you can use here. Then someone will come along and tag the talk page of the article, remove the copyright violation tag and restore the article for all to read. Toddst1 (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't tell me to chill, I'll chill you

If you acctully read what they had posted you would understand why I handed out warnings and speed tags.Harebag (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I read all of them before I made my two comments here and here on your talk page. Perhaps while you're waiting for your block to be lifted, you'll review WP:Civil and Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol#Being_nice. Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Expand

Hello! Regarding one of your edits (a while ago) to Abdikarim Egeh Gulaid when you added {{expand}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{wikify}} tags on the article. All of the tags are 'correct', but there is no need of the expand template when a stub-tag is already there. Just a friendly notice! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Look again - it wasn't marked a stub when I added them. You may argue that I should have tagged it as a stub though. Toddst1 (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gladly. Thank you for the honor of such a request. See Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2/archive2 Toddst1 (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

removing {{reflist}} templates

You appear to be going through articles and removing {{reflist}} tags and inserting comments suggesting using <references/> but breaking the references in the process. Assuming good faith here, can you explain? Toddst1 (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hello. When you have both the {{reflist}} tag and the <references/> tag what ends up happening is you get a double listing of the references happening. So I had to eliminate the one in order to avoid duplicate listings of references.Nhl4hamilton (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No problemo. Nhl4hamilton (talk) 10:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Digital rights management edits

These edits were discussed in some detail on the relevant talk page. A cursory look at the 'citations' reveals them to be neutral on the issue of whether DRM is restricted to media only, or whether software is included.

The discussion on the talk page is listed under "Edits of MasterHomer / iamacreditcard", and was removed then because it was included as a deliberate attempt to increase credibility of a statement made elsewhere from Wikipedia as a deliberate act of intellectual fraud.

Consequently I believed it was both reasonable and indeed nessisary to remove the post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unedit (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Please use an edit summary. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ifeanyi Chijindu.jpg

Hi, I removed the db-norat tag because the image hasn't been uploaded for more than 5 days. norat is for images that are older than 5 days old. Corvus cornix_talk 22:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok - thanks. I didn't know that. Toddst1 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't either till I read what the template was saying.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 23:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Todd...I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm still learning the ropes and etiquette here...I used some other articles as models while writing Ifeanyi Chijindu's, so maybe I'm missed something? I've seen untagged articles that have the person's business all over it and there's hardly any sources. I don't know why my article got tagged for "advertisement" when I didn't include her company's website in her external links or in the thumb picture to the right. According to Wikipedia's style definition, it says in RE: to tagging articles for blatant advertising that "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Also, I don't know why it's been tagged for "dispute" when there's lots of sources, online and printed. I'd really appreciate if you could help clarify these things for me since I want to do a good job on the article. Thanks! Just The Facts Plz (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ifeanyi Chijindu

Could you please explain in the article's Talk page what you're disputing? Sticking on a disputed tag without an explanation doesn't help to make the article better. Corvus cornix_talk 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree...knowing what to change exactly would be a great help! --Just The Facts Plz (talk) 23:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressed on Talk: Ifeanyi Chijindu. Summary: my bad. Sorry. Toddst1 (talk) 02:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Funyuns banner removal

Thank you for writing to me. I would like to remind you that it was several months ago now that I removed the banner. Before doing so, I did remove some really trivial stuff and incorporated some other sentences from the trivia section into the main article. I believe that what was left was, at the time, a section on Funyuns in popular culture only. Of course, it has been edited again since that and some real trivia crept in again. (I've just removed some sentences that I think shouldn't have been there.) I am just as keen as you are on making this a real encyclopedia that contains reliable, meaningful information, I may slip along the way but my intentions are good, as you are aware. I don't just want this to be a load of nonsense like "Zach's dog is called Funyuns" that no sensible person would want to read either.Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)Simon Peter Hughes

I think I should add "Trivia/In popular culture" sections to my Peeves list. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 04:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Prem C. Pandey

Clearly you're one of the tiny number of people who has attempted to make sense of the article Prem C. Pandey. I'm another. Somewhere almost hidden by the godawful mess of that article I see somebody who for some time was the head of an institute that, rightly, has its own article, but who's otherwise not obviously remarkable. Even the references that I laboriously corrected earlier do no more on average than quote Pandey, underlining the fact that yes, he headed that institute. Can you think of any compelling reason why it shouldn't be sent to AfD? (Please reply either here on on the article's talk page. Thanks.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Since I wrote the above, an IP has degraded the article still further. I'm sick of even attempting to make head or tail of the claims within it (and I'm sure you are too). I've warned the IP, who may of course have some trouble understanding English. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I just reverted the IP's edits. There are multiple socks at work here, I fear. All those IP addresses editing the article are mobile devices in India. Toddst1 (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

My own impression too was that there was just one author. (If there are two or more there's no sign of disagreement among them.) That being so, and as he shows (they show) no interest in our attempts at improving the article, my own idea was to let them go ahead and degrade it as much as they wish, pending AfD. I'm not eager to start the AfD very soon, though, as I'd have to babysit it and I have other things to attend to for the next few days. Next week perhaps. -- Hoary (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Toddst1 (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that one "contributor" to this article is insane. -- Hoary (talk) 14:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope it's not me 8-). This is indeed a very strange edit pattern. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely not you, no.

We've disagreed a bit about what to do. Nothing necessarily harmful about that. I notice that before changing your mind you briefly said that something was up to me as I'm an admin. I appreciate your good intentions, and this may have just been idle modesty or something, and maybe one reason you deleted it was that you decided it was factually wrong; but I'll take it seriously all the same. No, being an admin has nothing to do with this. If you and I disagree, the better position should prevail; it's not a matter of a pecking order. All being an admin means is that if we all agree that something is to be deleted, I have an extra link on my screen that lets me delete it. It truly is no big deal. -- Hoary (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Just left you a note on your talk. I actually moved the message there since it seemed to be more about you and me than that editor. It seems we're working in the same direction and I have enjoyed working with you. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 06:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice

I watch “James Bonard Fowler”, and I note that you have made some solid, well-structured contributions! —SlamDiego_←T 23:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That article in particular will be an interesting one to watch and update this year with the coming trial. BTW, thanks for fixing the NPOV stuff there. It's easy to let that stuff creep in on a subject like this if you're not careful. Mea culpa. I had recently created the Jimmie Lee Jackson article. It would be really good to get a public domain picture of either of them for their articles. Toddst1 (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hiii

Thank you for your interesting comment to my page. In future, do NOT revert previous warnings that I have received and served, that is history and should not get in the way of my future wikiediting. Many thanks HaereMai (talk) 07:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not blank pages per Wikipedia:No blank pages Toddst1 (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No blank pages states that you should not blank articles not user pages. HaereMai (talk) 00:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read. It doesn't say that. Toddst1 (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"They also mislead readers into thinking an article exists, disappointing them when they find a blank page." ARTICLE. Why would someone be disappointed to find a black user page? WAKE UPHaereMai (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop - Be civil. Look at what I said. The article makes no mention of user pages. I mean that about stop. Toddst1 (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not your issue

Everyone is ganging up on my roommate. He added a source just as Dorftrottel and Jeanenawhitney requested. Please unblock him! -UWMSports (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clear it's not yours. Please don't Canvass. Toddst1 (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked, so its kinda 20-0 without him being allowed to post on your talk pages. I'm closer to the source than you guys. And don't tell me about being civil. I'm being quite civil. I want things to be fair -UWMSports (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

And rightly blocked. I will tell you about WP:Civil when appropriate and calling someone's action on wikipedia "horse shit" as you did in this edit is not civil. You really should review Wikipedia:Canvassing and STOP. Toddst1 (talk) 19:00, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

janette barradas

---

janette barradas —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.22.156 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor characters in 24

Toddst1, can you please explain why you reverted without explanation the significant cleaning up I've been doing on Minor characters in 24? Those character sections are greatly laden with WP:OR, WP:PLOT, and WP:TRIVIA; I posted about this on Talk:Minor characters in 24, so discussion is probably more appropriate there, and I'm cross-posting this there. --Lquilter (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I've already un-reverted my change. It was a bad revert on my part as I noted in the edit summary. Sorry for any inconvenience. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for clarifying. --Lquilter (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Argos

You might have noticed this already, but your first revert on Argos was actually fine. Your second revert actually reinserted the vandalism. Natalie (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Whoops. 8-) Not my intent. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured so. These things happen. Natalie (talk) 23:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The Golden Pitcher on WNYO (FM)

You identified the following addition as vandalism

- The sports department has had an annual flag football, softball, and sometimes basketball with its on-campus television rival, WTOP-10 since the 1970s. WNYO's dominance over WTOP has been unheralded over recent years. WTOP sports directors and their members have been known to sore losers as they frequently cry foul for any reason whatsoever. It is clear they are frustrated by the slaughter house happenings. The winner gets to keep the golden pitcher, which is really nothing more than a plastic pitcher from one of the local bars. In fact, it's in worse shape than the Liberty Bell.

This is not vandalism. If you feel that this is not a reliable source, not verifiable, original research or something of that sort, that would be a much better edit summary. I'm going to research this issue a bit more. Thanks, and have a great day.Wjhonson (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You are correct - it was an edit war between Dorftrottel and FancyMustard. That is different from vandalism. I do think FancyMustard was way out of line though (and got much worse). I came across this doing Recent changes patrol. I noticed that Dorftrottel had reverted that edit (or one almost identical) twice and politely asked FancyMustard not to restore, citing "WP:POV WP:OR DO NOT REINSTATE". My €0.02 worth. Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Todd. I got side-tracked but hope to plow through the edits. It seems like possibly they've found consensus. I was pulled over from a post on RS or OR I believe, can't quite remember. Thanks for your response! Wjhonson (talk) 04:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

administrative education

I was looking at SSP cases. What do you propose for User:Anonymous IP? The user is blocked. The user has no edits. Having an account and then editing only from an IP is permitted, I believe. These questions are only asked for my own education, not to harass you. Archtransit (talk) 00:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, no worries on the question - It's actually a pretty good one. I think if you read the editor's comments on his/her own talk page at User talk:76.182.32.227 you'll see what I was trying to do. I use TW to report sockpuppets and in the course of reporting User: 76.182.32.227, TW wanted to know what the other account was. I typed "Anonymous IP‎" (meaning an unknown anon IP) which, apparently through the workings of TW, and the sockpuppet report, it posted something on the Talk page and User page of User: Anonymous IP - best I can figure - it's kind of obscure. What's clear is User: 76.182.32.227 is a block evading sock using multiple IPs which is what I was trying to report. Toddst1 (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't make sense to me. User:76.182.32.227 doesn't have a productive attitude. How that ties in with User:Anonymous IP is unclear to me. Is it just that Anonymous IP is a nefarious sounding name? Archtransit (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is a user named "Anonymous IP". I think it is an artifact of me filing a sockpuppet report using TW against an unknown sock. If there is such a user, it is a coincidence. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok if you want to know

If you want to see why I put those nonprinting notices on Way of St. James, look at just a few of the links we removed over the last few months alone: [1].--Filll (talk) 01:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I understood after I looked a bit deeper. It was clearly a bad revert on my part, hence my note to you. 01:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

If we let people just post whatever they wanted on the page, clearly the page would be destroyed in a few months. I finally decided to try the notices and see if that helps.--Filll (talk) 01:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:68.161.54.236

apparently you didn't blink fast enough for twinkle :P--Pewwer42  Talk  04:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

yup, my mouse finger is getting kind of slow. I noticed it and reverted. Cheers.. Toddst1 (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm kidding, although I do need a new mouse, the left button isn't picking up all the clicks.--Pewwer42  Talk  04:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Max and Ruby

I just updated my Max and Ruby update with references. I am hoping that I did this correctly this time. Please let me know if I am I still doing it incorrectly. Thanks! Blm0303 (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Got your note. I am confused. I thought I did use the ref tags. I guess I didn't do it right, but I don't see with the link you gave me how to just use ref tags on a webpage. Or just do ref website /ref? Sorry to be such a pain in your neck. Blm0303 (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

You're not being a pain in my neck. 8-) I would recommend using something like this:

{{cite web
  | last = 
  | first = 
  | authorlink = 
  | coauthors = 
  | title = 
  | work = 
  | publisher = 
  | date = 
  | url = 
  | format = 
  | doi = 
  | accessdate = }} 

and fill in at least the publisher, title and URL. Let me know if you need further help.Toddst1 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

St. Barnabas Church peer review

Hello...i would love to peer review your article...i will start this weekend--ChrisisinChrist ^{comments and complaints here!} 20:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Usernames

Hi there; I notice that you welcomed User:Deltalkshow, and then warned him about his creation of an article entitled Del Talk Show. Perhaps you are not aware that Wiki username policy prohibits the use of the names of commercial or media enterprises as usernames. Could I encorage you to become familiar with this policy, as it is incongruous for an editor to comment in this way immediately before a username block is applied, as I have just done. Happy wikying. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was aware of the policy as you can see by this edit. My welcome was genuine, as I understand even folks with WP:COI are allowed to edit from a NPOV, assuming a name change. You may notice that I frequently welcome vandals. I've never seen a non-admin suggest a username change. I'll be glad to suggest username changes in the future. You'll notice that I've reported over 100 usernames to Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention over the past few months. Toddst1 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My friend, I had no wish to criticise or to give offence, and I apologise if I have done so. As you suggest, WP:AGF clearly recommends the welcome of editors who unwittingly submit unsuitable names. My point was really more that you commented on the unsuitability of the article he had created, with essentially the same title as his username, without additional comment. Non-admins have a perfect right to suggest to editors that their name may be unsuitable. Use {{usernameconcern}}. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

No offence taken. My writing sometimes seems terse - not intended. I didn't know about the template - I'll use it! In fact, I was just thinking about creating such a template. Glad it already exists. Cheers! - Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Beerex redirect proposed for deletion

Hi Toddst1, I note you have proposed Beerex for deletion. This is a commonly used term for Beer Exhibition or Beer festival and this redirect page was created to take users straight to the appropriate page; I believe the Beerex redirect to be very useful. Oddly, when checking the page, I can't find the dated prod notice. I look forward to hearing from you Weydonian (talk) 23:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. If you look at the date of my note on your talk page, I left it on January 8 for an article you created called Beerex. The article was deleted on January 13. You've recreated a redirect named Beerex on February 6. The redirect looks solid to me. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion! Weydonian (talk) 20:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Belair Mansion peer review

Hi Toddst1 -- I am concerned that by my providing a narrow comment or two within the peer review for Belair Mansion, that I may be interrupting whatever would be the normal process for a qualified peer reviewer to take on the article. I don't feel qualified or able to take on a complete peer review, as I am going through peer review for an article of my own, for the first time, just now, for the article List of National Historic Landmarks in New York. I did ask on your behalf for others in WP:NRHP to consider joining the peer review at talk page of WP:NRHP, but that is not a regular process there and I am not surprised that so far there are no takers.

Please do follow the regular process at Wikipedia:Peer review to ask volunteer peer reviewers to consider reviewing your article, and please do explain that one person (me) has provided only a very limited comment and is not qualified/able to perform a proper peer review.

Good luck! doncram (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are more than welcome. I'm looking for all feedback to try to improve this article. I've sent off for the source documents as you suggested. Your comments about the stable are very relevant. Since they're listed separately at NRHP, I created the separate articles for them. It may make sense to merge them. We'll see. Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

OC Systems

Boy you sure got rid of OC Systems fast. You didn't even leave me time to respond on the talk page. The patent Aprobe technology is signifcant contribution. Cole is a leader in the Open Source community. Could you give me further imput on why you so speedily got rid of this article? Amyyaley (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The article had been around for weeks if I remember correctly and had no assertion of WP:Notability. That would not be fast. If you think that the article did not merit deletion, you can appeal at Wikipedia:Undeletion_policy#Deletion_review. FWIW, I tagged it, nominating it for speedy deletion, and an administrator evaluated the my nomination then deleted it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That article was posted yesterday about this time. Another version was posted Monday and was nominated because of blanant advertising. I took out anything that could be taken for advertising and that was the article posted yesterday. So I am unclear as to what you have been seeing for weeks??? Amyyaley (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I wasn't sure that I remembered correctly. However, I see the deletion review restored the article to your userspace. Looking at the article, it's clear that it doesn't assert the company's notability. Having a patent doesn't make a company WP:Notable, nor does participating in an open source project. See Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for more info. In terms of timing, if an article doesn't its subject's assert notability, it's likely to be deleted within an hour of creation. Sorry I didn't remember the article's edit history when I replied above, but either way, it wasn't too speedy.

Looking at your edit pattern, you're probably going to have some questions about WP:COI, so I thought I'd highlight that policy for you. Not trying to give you a hard time, but Wikipedia has lots of things that foul up newbies. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I see where I got confused - I was thinking of the other article that you edited for OC Systems, PowerAda. That's the one that has been around since 2006 and hasn't established WP:N. As I mentioned on your talk page, I nominated that for WP:AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

VRoooom Technology‎

hi, thanks for the note however im not advertising....im simply creating a "bio" or history of a company in my community . you should search " microsoft" or "wikipedia" " home depot" thank you for your concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert.moore.j (talk • contribs) 21:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for OC Systems

An editor has asked for a deletion review of OC Systems. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Amyyaley (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

See Dave Mock

Clearly an autobiography. Please take the appropriate action. Thanks! -UWMSports (talk) 23:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion regarding Dave Mock. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Toddst1 (talk) 18:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a joke, it's an inside job, face it.

There was nothing wrong with what I linked, look at the other links in the page concerned. The page I linked, showed an alternative, non-comercial example from the 'norm', or is that the issue? The external links on that page are, essentially, spam, by the above definition, in your template, cut and paste. Jeez, so much for free speech and difference of opinion. P.S. I appreciate wikipedia spam policy, but this doesn't even come close to violating it. All I did was find a decent site, and after, previously exaiming wikipedia (and seeing that articles of a similar nature were included, and reading them), felt that (it-wikipedia), was lacking in reasonably suitiable examples, or that the page, in general, lacked in alternative viewpoints. My aplogises for participating in the wikipedia experience. The mass media is correct, wikipedia is dominated by a miniority, what a joke. WATCH HOW FAST THIS POST IS DELETED, that in itself is proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amisomeone (talk • contribs) 18:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

No, but systematically going through articles about food and adding links to a single site as example recipies is considered spam. See WP:Spam for more info. Toddst1 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Amisomeone (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC) Here's my four tildes, WIKIPEDIA IS A JOKE, DOMINATED BY A FEW, DON'T BELIEVE THE HYPE!

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as in User talk:Toddst1, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( Amisomeone (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC) ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC