User talk:SneakyTodd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Erik Rhodes

Welcome to Wikipedia. I realize you are new and that it takes some time to get on board. Your move of Erik Rhodes the actor is not the customary form when there is only one other person by that name, but instead to place a link to the second person of that name at the top of the page, with the distinction that separates them. Even if there were several persons of the name, when one is already established there would usually be a link from the top of the primary page to a unique disambiguation page (such as: Erik Rhodes (disambiguation), leaving the original in its place.

For one thing, although this is not the most important, it does not require changing all of the links that you disabled by this move.

I have requested that the page for Erik Rhodes the actor be moved back by an administrator. You will find room for discussion on the actors present page if you wish to express your views there and/or feel free to email me, or respond here or to my talk page. Doc 18:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Erik Rhodes (porn star)

You may want to re-evaluate your links on this article. No links to commercial sites are permitted on Wikipedia. This would exclude all of your external links for this article as well as the movie sites for his films. Doc 05:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy against commercial sites, in fact, when the commercial sites are relevant, they should be linked. Linking to amazon.com for a random book would be bad, but all of the links on this profile are relevant. Links to the movies he has been in, and links to the de facto porn review site, that happens to appear in quite a few (I venture to say most) gay porn related articles.

I will check further on this, but I have seen them removed in the past. Again, you are not signing your posts. Doc 07:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out Wikipedia:External links. Under Links to normally avoid:

• 4 Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
• 5 Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
• 6 Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
• 11 Bookstore sites

Now bookstore sites have reviews of books too, but they are to be avoided. Doc 09:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links on Erik Rhodes

• ManNet Links ManNet does not sell any products. They just review videos and interview porn stars. I don't really consider them a commercial site. The only thing that I can think of that you might object to, then, is the advertising. It is a relatively small amount of advertising for a site dealing with porn. When I click on your link to the IMDb, I see a total of 7 advertisements, and 5 ads on your link to Find-a-Grave; my eyes have tuned out the ads on ManNet, probably as well as yours have tuned out the ads on the other sites.
• Links to official movie sites I could create articles about the more notable movies, and link to them there, would that be preferable? It seemed a little bit easier to just link to them from here, but some of those movies are pretty big, and I wouldn't have a problem creating articles about them.
• Erik's Myspace Profile This is entirely relevant, and is a unique resource. Quite a few porn stars use MySpace or BigMuscle as their fansite instead of creating their own web sites, as it is cheaper and easier. www.erikrhodes.com goes straight to Falcon, and his BigMuscle profile has nude pictures on it, which I try to avoid.

I guess the link to Jocks Studios and Studio 2000 could probably be moved to their respective articles, I put them in in order to create a more homogenous feel, and because it seemed like that was the standard. --Todd 11:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I really have no idea what is standard for porn articles per se, not something that I've tracked, but I do have a feel for what is standard for all articles on Wikipedia. Yes, I suppose that I have tuned out the ads on Find A Grave, and don't think that there weren't objections and a good deal of discussion on that, but the exception was made based on the amount of biographical information and there is actually a Wikipedia project at this point to add all of the famous articles on Find A Grave to be sure that they are all on Wikipedia and then link the article. So on that one there has been a decision. I do know that any book review that links to where the book is sold has been removed in every case that I have seen and just list the ISBN number. Doc 16:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

You keep reiterating that it is standard protocol to put a link at the top of the page instead of creating a disambiguation page. Could you please provide an example, because this is not what I've seen. Benjamin Bradley, Bryan Allen, Carl Adams, Paddy Agnew, Bill Aitken, etc. Honestly, I cannot find an example of what you're talking about besides what you've done with Erik Rhodes --Todd 12:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Give me some time and I'll add to the list, but here are a few pages that come to mind, the first is not a biographical name, but is the same disambiguation idea: Top Hat, Nordstrom, Byron, Bruce Weber is an example such as this where someone, added a second name and the decision was to leave what we have on Erik Rhodes now, with the name redirecting to the original and the DAB linked from the top of that page. There are now three Bruce Webers listed, but the redirect is to the most notable and original article. I'll think of some more with time and add them. Doc 20:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

For Nordstrom, Byron, and Bruce Weber, it directs to the most likely thing I would be searching for, although I could easily see a strong case for Bruce Weber linking to the disambiguation page. You say the decision was to leave the link to the original article, but it looks like you were the one who made that decision. Also, I would much more likely be searching for information on Top_hat than Top_Hat, and would be as likely to search for Top_Hat as Stack_No._4_-_Top_Hat; I think that one should almost certainly link to a disambiguation page as different people will almost certainly be looking for different topics.

I was a part of the decision on Weber, but I in fact disagreed on both Byron and Nordstrom, through that experience learned that it was usual practice on Wiki to link to the original article or key article unless there were very strong reason, such as a new president taking precedence over a former article. There are other examples that I was shown as examples at that time which I had nothing to do with. Just didn't keep a list and will try to remember them. Doc 15:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just came across another article demonstrating the norm we've been discussing: Jonathan Wells Had nothing to do with this one, but it follows what I've seen to be the norm when adding a second person of the same name, no disambiguation page, just a link at the top of the primary page. Then when adding a third name the norm I have seen is to add the disambiguation page and put that link at the top of the primary page. There are many other examples of this, just can't find them right now. Doc 17:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Another example Philip Johnson Doc 02:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mason Wyler

I'm glad to see that you've taken on Mason Wyler's page! I started it and hoped to get back to it, but I haven't had time. I look forward to seeing your progress! Cheers! Chuchunezumi 22:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zodiac Articles

(Your message)

I tagged all the articles because, at the time of tagging, none of them cited ANY sources. Without sources, the reader would have no way of knowing whether any of the information is true. For example, are these really astrology practices? If they're real, why are there no links to history books -- or even a simple astrology website? Then there's the lack-of-context problem. All the tagged articles begin with some variation of "traditional Western astrology." Are they "fact" the same way that it's factually so that Christians or Muslims believe certain things? Or is it "fiction", like a Hobbit or Klingon religion? I would fix it by adding information, but I don't know any astrology beyond the zodiac signs, so I have no way of knowing if "elements" and "qualities" are genuine or some hoax. --M@rēino 15:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

(Your message) You asked me for some web sites that talk about the various triplicities and quadruplicities of the zodiac, so I hope these links might be of some help:

history of triplicities history of quadruplicities Information on Fire Element and Cardinal Quality Information on Earth Element and Fixed Quality Information on Air Element and Mutable Quality Information on Water Element and Cardinal Quality Information on Fire Element and Fixed Quality Information on Earth Element and Mutable Quality Information on Air Element and Cardinal Quality

CarmelitaCharm 17:40, 11 September 2006

[edit] Debatepedia.com and the minimum wage debate

Noticed that you contributed a substantial amount to the minimum wage article. Curious if you were interested in helping edit the minimum wage debate on Debatepedia (wiki debate encyclopedia). [1] Loudsirens 21:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)