Talk:Todd P.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Todd P. article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

1 Notability debate
2 Punctuation
3 Original creator
4 Note from the article subject
5 References which need to be added to article

[edit] Notability debate

Note:

It is ridiculous of the previous editors to suggest that the "Todd P" article I posted lacks sufficient social significance to merit inclusion in Wikipedia. I have no affiliation with Todd P, but he is the major organizer of indie rock concerts in Brooklyn, NY, where tens of thousands of fans of this type of music are concentrated. Many writers in national music publications are based in Brooklyn and attend Todd's shows to determine which bands they should cover in their publications. By organizing concerts in Brooklyn, Todd shapes the listening preferences of fans of indie rock in NYC and across the nation. Indie rock is listened to by hundreds of thousands of people across the nation and there are hundreds of articles on wikipedia about indie rock bands, recordings, and record labels. The indie rock scene is also where bands are typically discovered by major labels. If indie rock warrants coverage in wikipedia, then Todd P, a major player in the indie rock scene, deserves such coverage.

Also note that the _NY Times_ and _Village Voice_ have considered Todd's efforts at organizing indie rock shows to be of sufficient interest and signifance to warrant their publishing articles about him, which are linked above. If Todd is important enough for these publications, he should also be important enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. The previous editors should investigate the subjects of articles more carefully before prematurely suggesting their deletion for lack of social significance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toddyking (talk • contribs) 08:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith and be civil. Declaring changes made by other editors to be "ridiculous" is not helpful. Your original version of the article was both entirely devoid of sources (other than a link to the subject's own web page) and also included an absolute superlative (the leading promoter, rather than a leading promoter). Furthermore, your name here is "Toddyking" and your only contributions have been to an article by a person named "Todd". It's not unreasonable that some might think that this was a case of a autobiography. VoiceOfReason 15:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the disparaging tone of my previous comments. It is correct that I share the same first name with the subject of the article ("Todd"), but this is the only association I have with him, other than the fact that we had a 10-minute conversation once at a concert. I regret that my formatting was less than perfect. This is my first attempt, other than once editing an article about my high school, to post something on wikipedia. Thanks for your help and understanding. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toddyking (talk • contribs) 12:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No problem, and welcome to Wikipedia. Just a tip: you can (and should) sign your comments on talk pages like this one with four tildes (~~~~) VoiceOfReason 20:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuation

There should be no period at the end of the title - it's "Todd P", not "Todd P."

To support my argument, visit www.toddpnyc.com - that is this individual's website. He never uses periods at the end of the name.

Also, the original author of this article appeared to have had a personal axe to grind with the subject of the article. Discussion about his clothing choices are all but irrelevent.

That really doesn't fit the mission of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 166.114.6.130 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Original creator

I am the original author of the article. I appreciate the improvements that have been made to the article subsequent to my contributions. For the record, I have no axe to grind with subject of the article and I admire his work. In fact, I created the article in order to highlight the important and valuable contribution that the subject has made to the indie music scene in New York and nationally. I included the discussion of the subject's personality, demeanor, and dress because it has given rise to much criticsm, discussion, and uncertainty among those who patronize his events. Nevertheless, I could see how it would not be relevant to an encyclopedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.115.7.2 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] Note from the article subject

This is the subject of this article, Todd Patrick. I'd prefer this article not exist. I don't think I am noteworthy enough to have an encyclopedia entry about me. That someone else created it means that I can't in the spirit of free speach get rid of it, though I sure would rather it went back in the memory hole. A friend of mine forwarded me the link and someone who I am travelling with corrected your orginal entry, as it had some factual errors.

I disagree with your repeated assertation that one anonymous web lurker's persistent anonymous postings on one weblog amounts to "much criticsm, discussion, and uncertainty among those who patronize" my events. Your only point of reference here is a link to one Brooklyn Vegan blog post with a few anonymous comments left afterwards, almost all in the same writng style, several of which went beyond personal opinion and into completely bogus, making stuff up territory. This person has some issue and has chosen to hate a stranger. Hate to say it, if you do anything public in this world you will attract these detractors. I don't think it's coincidence that thse things showed up right after I got a very positive write up in the Village Voice. The world is full of the jealous and resentful, and the clueless - and they love to take down whoever they see as high and mighty.

Anyway, anonymous postings on one largely obscure website, about a largely obscure show organiser in Brooklyn, are hardly proof of some large swelling of uncertainty and disdain, but regardless they aren't a reliable source for an encylopedia entry. You might as just as well have linked to the hundreds of very positive web comments about me and my personality on hundreds of other sites, as well as many positive commnents on Brooklyn Vegan itself.

By the way, I've never worn a cardigan sweater in my life and if you were more than 20 years old you'd know that my fashion is what used to be pretty standard issue indie-rock wear in the mid nineties. Hardly weird or noteworthy.

By the way, if I were an angrier person, I might hit you for calling me "prissy" in print.

Instead I'll just point out that your calling me names in the first draft of this thing makes it pretty hard to belive that you were trying to do a nice thing creating this article.

Todd Patrick —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.50.97.139 (talk • contribs) .

This is the original author. I am sorry to have offended the article's subject, and I'd be happy to edit the original article to eliminate any potentially insulting or critical elements. I do not agree that the subject is not substantial enough to warrant a Wikipedia article, as there are many articles about arts and entertainment figures much less influential than the subject. There seems to be an article about nearly every player who started on a professional football team in the past five or ten years. Todd P has made a much greater positive contribution to society than some obscure cornerback for the Arizona Cardinals. I thought my original article presented a fair and balanced view of the subject and included both praise and criticism. Most of the article was positive, and there were only a few sentences devoted to a critical perspective. However, I certainly don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, and if the inclusion of such criticism is going to have that effect, I would be very eager to delete it. By the way, I was not calling the subject "prissy." Rather, I was citing this as a percpetion that is held by some people who attend the concerts. It should not be too big of a deal even if some people believe it to be a valid characterization. It may even be a positive attribute for someone responsible for organizing the logistics of concerts. I am certain that even those who believe the subject to be "prissy" and attend his concerts still greatly admire and respect his efforts. I believe such admiration and respect is universal among such attendees, while the aforementioned criticsm is not universally believed. Thus I will delete the criticism, and I'd also be happy to delete the article if that is necessary to avoid causing offense. I also regret the initial factual errors. I tried to make the article match my factual recollections as closely as possible, but evidently these recollections were flawed. Peace. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.115.7.2 (talk • contribs) .

Updated 5 minutes later--I've deleted the critical components, and I believe that the end product is a well-written, factually-accurate article paying homage to the subject's influence in making Brooklyn a better place for so many of us youngsters.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.115.7.2 (talk • contribs) .

Updated several hours later--I evidently was mistaken about the definition of cardigan sweater. While I believed this to be a synonym for v-neck sweater, it evidently signifies not a v-neck but a button down seater. For the record, I have never seen Todd P in a cardigan, properly defined, but I have seen him several times in a v-neck.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 38.115.7.2 (talk • contribs) .

well then I accept you explanation and that you meant well.

I've put it back the way it was, with the criticism citd and linked, but not endorsed. I think it should be there, I just don't think it should be stated as a fact.

It's important to remember that Wikipedia is a pretty high profile source of information and people take what is said here as fact - even they absolutely shouldn't. I love Wikipedia, but I think they should get rid of the "pedia" in the name. This is not an encyclopedia, not a reliable source, the quaility controls are far too, loose. It's too easy for people to post hack jobs on other people and things. I'm sorry that I apparently wrongfully accused you of doing that, but please understand why I would be concerned about what's said about me here.

Remember that Wikipedia isn't some blog - a lot of people take this thing seriously as journalism.

peace, Todd —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.90.190.49 (talk • contribs) .