User talk:Toddst1/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page, Toddst1/Archive 2 contains archived talk page discussions for Toddst1 (talk) November 2007.

Archive
Archives
April 2008-present

May 2008-
April 2008
December 2007-March 2008
November 2007
before November 2007


This editor was formerly known as Toddstreat1.

Contents


Dorothy Morrison

Gee, Toddst1, how about waiting longer than 2 freaking minutes before tagging an article as unsourced. You know, maybe give the editor a few days to gather some references when he SAYS it's just a stub at this point. Do you really think an author of this many books can't be supported by some citations, given a little time? Rosencomet 01:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

First, please don't take it personally. It's just an article. I've been doing Wikipedia:New pages patrol for a while and we look at articles as they're created. Take that tag as a suggestion on how to improve the article.
Here's a suggestion from having seen a lot of these issues: When you're developing an article, set up a user subpage of your own for the article and when it's in good shape, copy it in to the main space (create the article at that time). This way, it won't be speedily deleted as thousands are daily, or subject to scrutiny (like this) before you're ready. I hope this helps. Let me know if I can help. Toddst1 01:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
<< comment implying violence added by BomberJoe (talk) removed for the second time >>

eClerx Deletion

The eClerx page has been deleted once again. This time by someone who was not even in the discussion. I want to know why or how this is happening. It is harrowing to find carefully measured words being deleted every few days. Having to start over again is no fun either. Can anyone just drop by and arbitrarily delete pages?Nshuks7 07:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the WP:AfD discussion has closed and it was deleted in due process Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eclerx. I hadn't looked at it since my comment on the 25th. Toddst1 11:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
And I had added more references and facts after your comment on the single, inadmissible source. *sigh* I guess I am better off starting other articles. Maybe later I'll come back to this. Thanks anyway. Nshuks7 15:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It's tough to clean up an article once the momentum gets going to delete it. Check out my comments above about creating articles in a subpage. I really think that's the best way to start one. Then you can ask a couple of folks to take a look if you're in doubt. Let me know if I can help. Toddst1 15:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Ulrich

Be aware that you're stepping into a minefield here by nominating a Billy Hathorn (talk · contribs) article for deletion; while he has a very long history of uploading wildly inappropriate articles, people who nominate them for deletion tend to get dragged into a crossfire of arguments (this was my taste of it). — iridescent 16:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jozef Baker and User:Buneeboi

Please be careful to avoid biting the newbies. The article, which includes the only four contributions of the user (and is now deleted), certainly wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia, but you accused him of adding an inappropriate page (which is fair), and then threatened him with blocking for vandalism (it isn't clear what that was for) and then again for blanking the page (when he tried to remove it because he agreed with the deletion). When dealing with a new user who may not be familiar with Wikipedia process and procedure, it's often better to take a little time to write a friendly, descriptive message rather than banging on a Twinkle template and moving on. Thanks for your help. Stifle (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Message

Dear Toddst1, Please accept my apology. I created that article before I read the appropriate article section on wikipedia. I now realize not to create controversial articles or articles with opinion. Thank you for telling me my mistake and I assure you it will not happen again. Sincerely,helraiser9191 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helraiser9191 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

entrepreneurs of tomorrow deleted article

(Refactored comment that Toddst1 left on User talk:Trenton Browne removed because it was out of context and appeared as if Toddst1 warned himself )

Why not respond to the points I made in my message? Please explain to me how it was NOT through prejudice and/or small mindedness that my article was deleted. Please explain to me what recourse I have against what seems like an editorialship that has been corrupted by power? Then block me if you you think that is the right thing to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.217.181 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 1 November 2007

I assume that you left that message as User:Trenton Browne but having logged out (please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~).

It appears that both Nyttend and NawlinWiki both left fairly standard explanations for the deletion on your talk page - that the author (I assume you, by your indignance) didn't establish WP:Notability of the organization when the article was created. That usually means citing some WP:Reliable Sources or at least implying that they exist. I don't think that I was involved in deleting the article - I almost always leave a notice on folks' talk pages when I tag something for speedy deletion using WP:TW, and there doesn't appear to be a note from me there. I think I remember the article though, and that fits what I remember.

That being said, I wouldn't expect to hear much from either of them after your personal attacks, if I were you.

If you don't understand what Wikipedia means by WP:Notability or WP:Reliable Sources, after reading those two sections, let me know and I'll try to help. Toddst1 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry for the hangon thing and thanks for explaining it. I didn't know what I was doing before.

Landhermie 23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No worries. Let me know if you need help. Cheers. Toddst1 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Friendly bug

I fixed the signature bug that you encountered on User talk:Suzystorm earlier. Ctrl+F5 and you shouldn't have to manually edit it anymore. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 16:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You rock. Thanks!Toddst1 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Lydiauhlir

I do not feel sorry when I tag speedy deletion on articles which are pure vandalism, spam, ad, self-bio, nonsense. But I think, I did at least one mistake. This chicago greeter, global greeter stuff deserve main namespace. But you and then me tagged it for speedy deletion. Obviously user is new and the way he wrote made us to think that it is advertisement. In fact it is about volunteers who welcome and guide tourists in cities. Such non-profit, selfless social services deserve regognition. Please see http://www.chicagogreeter.com

From now, I will slow down. TRIRASH 19:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Baleet

"Baleet" was a legitimate page, not vandalism, and should be reinstated.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhazared (talk • contribs) 15:15, 4 November 2007

It was not a legitimate page and though I was not the deleting administrator, I endorse the deletion and its tagging.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
In consideration that both "LOL" and "Banhammer" have articles, "Baleet" should be perfectly acceptable.--Jhazared 4 November 2007
You're comparing apples to kumquats. The article lacked context and thus read as nonsense; failed our minimum information standards for new articles; as the term is not the subject of significant treatment in independent reliable sources (see the general notability standard), it is not a notable internet meme unlike the pages you are comparing it to. Based on all of the foregoing, it was no more than an unsourced slang term and because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide, even if the article didn't suffer from so many problems, such articles should be avoided.--Fuhghettaboutit 18:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

All my recent changes

Hello Toddst1,

You have been undoing entries that I am adding to wiki. Can you please give us some guidelines so we know exactly why you are removing these entries? For example I was a close personal friend of Wally Schirra (one of the original seven astronauts) and Wally wrote a book called "The Real Space Cowboys" just before he died. We made an entry into his biography about the book (which can be clearly seen on the hyperlink you removed) and yet you trashed the entry tagging it as vandalism. Can you explain why this would be construed as an inappropriate entry? Is it because the hyperlink was in the wrong place?

Please explain.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mheimbecker (talk • contribs) 16:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, these were links the Apogee Books shop site and appeared to be added to promote the sale of the book. Take a look at Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. What's your connection to Apogee and/or Robert Godwin? Toddst1 22:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Can I just clarify - particularly to Mheimbecker as a new editor who may not be familiar with our policies - that it is explicitly not forbidden to write about companies/people/products with whom you are associated. However, particular care must be taken in this situation to ensure that the writing's neutral, and I'd strongly suggest that external sources are cited regarding the book (which undoubtedly does exist - I've read it - and almost certainly actually warrants its own article). — iridescent 01:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Irie is correct (as usual 8-): It is explicitly not forbidden to write about companies/people/products with whom you are associated. However, there has been a recent flurry of activity around Robert Godwin and Apogee Books that bordered on advert/promotion and vanity between two registered users and two anonymous IPs. That was why I have been tracking down the Apogee shop site links and asked about the connection. Toddst1 03:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am associated with Apogee Books and the publisher Robert Godwin. Many of the Apogee authors have their own wiki pages and are wondering why their wiki pages don't mention their books, or why their books don't have their own pages. Many of these people are astronauts or very old people who contributed in a big way to winning the space race and have no comprehension of how Wiki works. e.g. Sir Arthur Clarke who has contributed to several of our books has individual wiki pages for practically everything he's ever written. One of our books is the book that inspired him to be a writer! He says as much in the introduction. (Conquest of Space by David Lasser) Buzz Aldrin has been running around the country doing signings of Apogee titles for almost a decade and was responsible for starting the imprint. Before he died Wally Schirra (one of the original seven astronauts) co-wrote "The Real Space Cowboys" for Apogee and appeared all over the world doing signings. His two books from forty years ago are mentioned, but not the Apogee one from last year just before he died. This makes no sense. Three of Robert Godwin's books are cited by someone else as references on Schirra's page. Godwin's other titles were used as primary sources for Dr James Hansen's official biography of Neil Armstrong "First Man" published last year. Surely these facts should be mentioned somewhere in the wikipedia? I have attempted to create a presence on Wiki without blatantly advertising the books. The links I had placed on Wally Schirra's page lead to an informational page about his book, which just happened to link to a page where it was for sale. No advertising was meant by this act. If we had wanted to advertise the books we could have shown the thousands of links to reviews, and news stories, or posted links to the thousands of articles in wikipedia which cite our books as sources. Or worse still, placed links to our shopping cart. Apogee publishes more space books than any other publisher on the planet but I didn't say that because I know it would be inappropriate. I would urge anyone who wants to delete these entries to actually try Googling some of these names and see how many tens of thousands of reviews and news stories there are relating to Apogee before making that call. Mheimbecker 20:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did suspect the conflict of interest. Thanks for confirming it. And as — iridescent pointed out, it is ok to edit pages that you have a conflict of interest on it. Be sure to familiarize yourself with WP:COI and often it's a good idea to make a note on the article's talk page stating your affiliation. While we try to remember to assume good faith, there are a lot of self-promoters trying to spiff their traffic, and folks creating vanity articles.

Depending on context, it could OK to say Apogee is the largest publisher of space books in a WP article, but you would need to cite WP:Reliable Sources which mean verifiable third party qualifications.

Just to be clear, you did place a link to the Apogee shopping cart: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wally_Schirra&diff=168797514&oldid=167373539 Good luck and happy editing. Toddst1 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to make a big issue of this, but the website that I linked to is an information page. There is a link on that page that leads to an online store selling the book, but there are also links to Amazon and other online book retailers. Is this against the rules? I would think that the publisher's official website for a book qualifies as a source that should be cited. Mheimbecker 18:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The Story of a Noble Family

Hi! I have clarified this article somewhat, and believe it offers sufficient context to not be a candidate for speedy deletion. --Stormie 01:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that looks much better. Thanks for your edits. Toddst1 01:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Megadim (journal)

Please don't delete. I'm working on it, and it will have content within a few minutes. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 00:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the {{inuse}} tag - It looked pretty suspicious before. Happy editing. Toddst1 00:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

match.com

Hi Todd,

Having blocked my initial article on 121connection.co.uk, I'm confused why the index for match.com is there? Surely this entry should also be removed under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content and does not indicate how or why the subject is notable? It is blatant advertising?

Kind Regards

Mark —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcwillis (talk • contribs) 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I didn't actually block 121connection.co.uk - rather I proposed it for deletion because it did not assert WP:Notability in my opinion. Re-creating the article with the same content isn't exactly constructive if it didn't meet the criteria in the first place. (WP:Notability is somewhat different from what some folks might consider notability, so please read that section and Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) as well. If after reviewing those sections, you feel 121connection.co.uk meets that criteria, you should re-list the article (with appropriate citations from WP:Reliable Sources). If you cite WP:Reliable Sources, then your article is not eligible for speedy deletion. However, it may be subject to deletion under WP:AfD, the somewhat peer-juried Wikipedia process to determine whether an article should be deleted.

Further, if you don't think match.com meets those definitions, you can nominate it for WP:AfD yourself. If you follow the link I provided, it has instructions.

Good luck. Toddst1 16:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

esther muncaster

this is not a memorial

I've removed the speedy tag and wikified it a bit. I've added a few tags - it needs work. Toddst1 17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

ManhattanGMAT

Toddst1,

Why would you want ManhattanGMAT to be speedily deleted? Another test prep company, Veritas Prep, has an article almost exactly similar to the one up for ManhattanGMAT right now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael.dinerstein (talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me why the company is significant. See the description here. I've tagged Veritas too. Thanks for pointing that out.Toddst1 17:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Asami Edoh

Hi Todd, I think I fixed the Sybarite entry - I followed procedure and did the "hang on" tag and added some 'talk. I thought it was similar to some other entries, so didn't think it would be counted as spam. I certainly did not intend it as so. Thanks. Asami 22:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Attack pages

If you ever find a problem user like User:TIMMAYYYY posting vicious attack pages, and I'm around, just drop me a note and I will block immediately. Defamation like that is the worst form of vandalism and no series of warnings is needed in my book.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I see them all too often. My experience is folks who post garbage like that have not intention of contributing constructive edits. I can't count how many arv submissions I've made after tagging a series of them for speedy deletion. Thanks for the help. Toddst1 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. And you're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

Hi. Please do not mark pages for speedy deletion under criteria G1 unless that page is "gibberish, an unsalvageably incoherent page with no meaningful content.". The reason I am pointing this out is because of the tag you placed on Shane Hansen, which was clearly not nonsense. Thanks - Rjd0060 02:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the dates? It looked legit until I read them. Toddst1 02:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
It obviously is deletable, but not under G1. A7-non notable (currently tagged) is more appropriate. The text was "David (Shane) Hansen (1898-1947) was a Danish born post-modern poet that was an uninfluential poet during his time who later gained popularity with the early British Punk movement.". That is not incoherent at all. I can read it with no problems, therefore it does not qualify as "nonsense" by WP's definition. - Rjd0060 02:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
What would you say about Huston Sacajawea Antartica? (I'm assuming you have access to deleted articles as an admin.)? Toddst1 02:57, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I'm not an admin. - Rjd0060 04:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Jumping in on your conversation here as I still have your talkpage watchlisted from our previous conversation here. The full text of the article was Huston is a beautiful little city found on the north coast of Antarctica. It is known for it's holidays and for contribution to music history. Although it's been speedied four times - who am I to argue - if I came across that with a speedy tag on it I'd instantly decline it. Although it reeks of a hoax, "hoax" is specifically and unequivocally never a speedy criteria. The admin who incorrectly speedied it as a G4 - which only applies to articles deleted via AfD - deserves a rousing WP:TROUT as well. — iridescent 01:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Irie, your comments are always welcome (and please don't unwatch me 8-). I continue to learn. Thanks, both of you. Toddst1 02:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of ASIX Electronics

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on ASIX Electronics. I do not think that ASIX Electronics fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because public companies are usually notable, at least assertedly so. I request that you consider not re-tagging ASIX Electronics for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Carlossuarez46 01:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My Article Was Significant I Believe, Thank You Very Much

You deleted my article on Trading Nothing which took me quite a lot of my precious time to prepare, and you cited there wasn't an indication it was significant.

Well excuse me, but if you can point me to a more interesting or successful Internet trading up adventure happening anywhere in Europe right now, or even anywhere in the world, then I would really love to know. (OK, one red paperclip beats mine, no argument, but really that has finished happening).

If you can do that then maybe I have more work to do, but if not then I believe my trading nothing adventure is plenty significant enough to qualify for a place in Wikipedia.

Please do the world a favour and restore my short article to its rightful place.

Faithfully,

Andrew Henderson

--Tradingnothing 16:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See: Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles Travb (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

ICOF

Todd, thanks for the welcome. I need some help. The subject material for this topic has been deleted. I don't understand why. Someone apparently has attempted to place an article under this topic in the past and met the same end. Admittedly there is not a great deal of published material on this subject from outside sources, but when I read articles in wikipedia like kwanzaa, I find way less. Other similar religious groups also have less notation and they remain on Wikipedia. The creation of such a large group is historically relevant and in the realm of Christianity/Religion even more historic. Your incite is appreciated. (Seenitall 17:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

Maleflixxx Television

Hey, you don't delete an article until there is a discussion done on it first. This is a notable subject just like any other television channel out there. What makes Playboy TV any more notable then this one? And I wasn't finished editing the article either, i was going to add more info to the age as well as references. This isn't fair, and if I have to I'm gonna report this. MusiMax 21:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Your article was tagged for speedy deletion because you did not assert the importance of the company. See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.
Suggestion: when writing an article, it's a good idea to set up a user subpage of your own for the article and when it's in good shape, copy it in to the main space (create the article at that time). This way, it won't be speedily deleted as thousands are daily, or subject to scrutiny (like this) before you're ready. Toddst1 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Eric Delony

please review my Eric Delony page with the cite to AASHTO --Saguinter 20:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Thanks for getting rid of the copyright violation. I took the liberty of editing the article a bit to make it more wiki-like and removed the speedy deletion tags now that we're free of the copyvio. The guy is clearly notable and this could be a great article. Good luck. Toddst1 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletions too speedy

Todd, I've noticed that many of your requests for speedy deletion seem to happen just a few minutes after the page has been created. Could you please note the advice in the first paragraph at WP:NPP#Patrolling new pages. Phil Bridger 14:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I don't understand why he deleted my article so fast. I specifically asked for some time to flesh out the article a bit: Equipment reservation policies. I'm guessing the entire neutrality thing has take a back seat to people's personal viewpoints around here. --Imagemonth 15:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Into what did you intend to polish it? And why do you think that it was suitable for an encyclopedia? Because I didn't see a single bit of what could have possibly become an article, I deleted that page. Wikipedia is not for publishing your gym's rules. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 17:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
There was nothing "gym" related in the article. The article was technology related.---- Imagemonth (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Right. My bad, already forgot what it was. Please explain how "In order to have reliable devices available to all employees, the official procedure is as follows: / Submit a Tech Request 48 hours before the device is needed to guarantee availability. In the Tech Request form select Equipment Reservation from the Type drop down menu. Be sure to enter both the proposed dates for checkout and return of the equipment in the description field. / The device should be picked up no later then 4pm." can be considered encyclopedic article. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, your article Equipment reservation policies wasn't deleted very speedily - it was tagged from the bottom of the list. I had nothing to do with you asking for more time as all I did was tag it. If you put a {{hangon}} or comments in the talk page after that, I didn't see them. That part should be taken up with User: MaxSem who deleted it.

Frankly, if I remember correctly, the article seemed to be cut and paste from a gym's web page or something along those lines with zero context for Wikipedia. Toddst1 16:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing about a gym in the article. Perhaps you deleted the wrong article by accident.---- Imagemonth (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope - it was the right article, I just didn't remember it correctly. That is exactly the kind of article new page patrollers are supposed to tag with speedy. -- Toddst1 (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Toddst1, I think it's time that you went back to WP school and learn what needs deleting and what doesn't. You obviously don't have a clue what you're doing and the power of your Delete key is going to your head BomberJoe (talk) 17:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bomber, Perhaps you should have read the article before commenting. Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Responding to Phil: you have a good point. Toddst1 (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoai Anh Pham

When you put a speedy deletion tag on Thoai Anh Pham, you put it as an attack, although it was clearly a spam page. In the future, read the content of the article before tagging it. Thanks, Redmarkviolinist (talk)

I disagree. It clearly wasn't WP:Spam. The article said something about her wrecking kitchens and putting gum all over people's walls. I would guess that she doesn't want that on her medical CV, so calling it an attack is fine with me. Either way, it should be speedily deleted. Toddst1 17:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Jack Clemmons

I think we should keep Jack Clemmons. He is in hundreds of books and documentaries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Persianhistory2008 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See Talk: Jack ClemmonsToddst1 22:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Haley Industries

Why are you being so aggressive with the speedy deletes? I had barely started this article stub when you came along and deleted it. Are you knowledgeable about what's notable in aviation history? Please restrain your disrespect and contact the author before hitting the delete button. BomberJoe 22:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You may notice that I tagged the article with {{unreferenced}} and {{Notability}} as well as left you a note on Talk: Haley Industries. I'm glad you took my suggestion of the {{inuse}} tag. Without that, someone else would have surely deleted it as WP:NN by now. Toddst1 22:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
<-Impolite edit by BomberJoe (talk) removed->
Todd, nobody would have deleted this as WP:NN because that is not a valid reason for a speedy delete. I already pointed you to this guideline but you don't seem to have taken any notice, so I'll copy it here to save you following the link:
"It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the first page of the log. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages or complete nonsense a minute after creation is not constructive and only serves to annoy the page author."
By ignoring this you are annoying lots of editors, and distracting them from doing useful work on their articles, and also taking up administrators' time in reviewing unfounded speedy deletion requests. Phil Bridger 23:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant to say WP:CSD#A7. Toddst1 09:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

< - second personal attack by BomberJoe (talk) 17:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC) removed - >

Speedy deletion of Shitty bands

Hi how r u you deleted my article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notkool35 (talk • contribs) 15 November 2007

IAHGames and its hanlding of Hellgate London

Extrakun 10:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Hi, I received the proposal to delete, but even before I can review, it has already been deleted. I have to say I am quite confused. I have even made an explanation on why I think the information should be around. I guess I will hold on writing the article till there enough information to suffice Meanwhile, I will just put the relevant information on the main Hellgate page. When it starts to clutter up again I'll move it to another article.

I added a {{prod}} template to it which normally would have kept it around for a week or so. It looks like it was deleted by User: RHaworth who left you a note. Toddst1 11:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You asked why I was editing 'another' users page

My mistake. I forgot that I have two accounts on Wikipedia and used the wrong one to edit my User Page. Nanodave is a pseudonym for Ditaylor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nanodave (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 November 2007

Ok. It looked really strange. Cheers. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of Nitish Mishra

Dear Toddst1

How are you doing?I strongly protest your mail where you have warned me about my disrruptive edition of Nitish Mishra.

Mr Nitish Mishra is a MLA in the Bihar province of India and he is holding the post of Sugar Cane Development Minister.If any other Indian politicians can find place in wikipedia then why not he?

You can type nitish mishra on google and see all references.Most of prestigious news papers have published about him.He belongs to prestigious Mishra Family of India.His father Mr Jagganath Mishra, his uncle Late Lalit Narayan Mishra and his cousin Mr Vijay Kumar Mishra all are on wikipedia.

I will appreciate your affort to restore him on Wikipedia and honour him which he deserves.

Regards

Bipin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bipin dr2002 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a {{prod}} template to Nitish Mishra on November 4 and notified you on your talk page. {{prod}}s are used to give ample time to anyone to object and/or comment on deletion. Since then, apparently nobody has objected to its deletion and another editor, User: MastCell saw fit to actually delete it on November 9.
It was several weeks ago, and I don't have access to the article's history, but the 'disruptive edits' were adding unsourced information. If I remember correctly, you added WP:OR and possibly WP:Peacock material about his family tree and there wasn't any other content in the article. If the material was true and relevant, you should re-create the article but the material must be cited with WP:Reliable Sources.
You have been adding quite a bit of unsourced information about families to several articles lately. Please review Wikipedia:Citing_sources. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Problems editing Abdul Qadeer Khan

I'm trying to add the following:

{{For| Abdul Quddoos Khan, the Pakistani microbiologist associated with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed |Abdul Quddoos Khan}}

to Abdul Qadeer Khan, but I'm getting errors:

Spam protection filter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.
You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the Spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to allow a particular link without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the Spam whitelist talk page.

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http:// www . cceia . org

Return to Abdul Qadeer Khan.

It appears that the link is already in the article and it's preventing me from editing. (I inserted spaces above so I could ask the question) Ideas?? Toddst1 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Thw1309. You should try
:''For Abdul Quddoos Khan, the Pakistani microbiologist associated with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed [[Abdul Quddoos Khan]]'' This looks like

For Abdul Quddoos Khan, the Pakistani microbiologist associated with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Abdul Quddoos Khan

Happy editing. --Thw1309 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me so quickly.
That would work, but the point is, I can't edit the page because the spam filter is catching something already in the article. I'd have to remove the citation to save it. Ideas?

I have reported the problem at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. You should watch the page. They will correct the mistake or tell you, what to do. I'm sorry, but that's all, I can do. --Thw1309 (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll keep an eye on it! Toddst1 (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It was the link cceia.org that prevented edits to the article to be saved. The link is on the local blacklist here at en.wikipedia: MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.
I removed the link from the article and it can be edited now.
--Jorunn (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Zavvi store locations

An article that you have been involved in editing, Zavvi store locations, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zavvi store locations. Thank you. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 19:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Speedy deletion warnning

Hi,

The page about Mega AS Consulting Ltd is similar to other pages edited at Wikipedia such as Aladdin Knowledge Systems. This is not an advert or spam. These are mere facts about the company - in the same way and syntax as used by other companies in the same industry at Wikipedia.

Mega AS technology is young and innovative. Wikipedia is not intended (as I understand it) to be the advertising place for established companies. It is not intended to be advertising at all. It is supposed to treat all with the same respect and regards to the information provided and benefit for others.

The Mega AS product lines is different in the same way the RSA Hardware token or Aladdin eToken are. It is a new niche in the Identity Management market. It was recognized and awarded by technology peers.

What is the possible reason for singling it out.

Please contact me advise if there are any irregularities or you think that the information is missing. I'm happy to provide further explanations/information/documentation.

This information is relevant, factual and interesting to the people in the industry.

Cheers,

Arnnei —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnneisp1 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 20 November 2007

The article wasn't deleted because of being an advert or spam, rather, the article is about a company or corporation, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Check out WP:CSD#A7. Regarding Aladdin Knowledge Systems, it's traded on a stock exchange which makes it inherently WP:Notable. Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of The Steve Best Collection

Why is your reasoning delete my contribution on the independent film series? It was fully in compliance with speedy deletion criterion A7. It was significant as a Relevant example of independent film. The film series in question is studied as an example of independent film by Year 11 students at specialised technology status schools. Seriously you have impaired the contiued education of several students I personally know. Regards, --User:surfdarthvaderSurfdarthvader (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Students making a film doesn't make the film WP:Notable. There were a series of edits you made between October 2 and November 4 that were tagged for speedy deletion by both User:WebHamster and me that were well within the speedy deletion criteria. If you truly feel the films comply with WP:Notable, see: Category:Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles. You'll need to add information to the article to show that the film meets those criteria. Toddst1 (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Improper accusations

You have left a note on my Talk Page that I have been attacking you on this page, yet when I review my comments I see that you refer to my comments as merely "impolite". You are not correct to say that I am "attacking" you when I complain about your behaviour on this Talk Page. If you are a beginning or self-appointed patrolman, please ask for help from a more experienced editor before whacking other peoples' contributions. It's easy to offend a huge number of editors by doing what you do - and it's not wise. Further, you cannot have me banned from Wikipedia simply because I am making a little noise on your Talk Page about your immature behaviour. It's not wise to prance about making such preposterous statements. BomberJoe (talk) 22:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The edits speak for themselves:
Toddst1 (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Virgin Megastores store locations

An article that you have been involved in editing, Virgin Megastores store locations, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virgin Megastores store locations. Thank you. -- John (Daytona2 · talk) 13:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Zachery Tims

Thanks Todd for your editing. Your warning message was kind of harsh well very harsh!!! I'm new to wiki and wasn't interested in "furthering my personal agenda" as you stated. I think he's a great person, my purpose was to enlighten Christians who believe he is who he represents himself as. The information you deleted IS true but I believe your adjustments are a good compromise. I guess it's up to the reader to do the additional research to find the truth OUTSIDE OF WIKIPEDIA. Peace and blessings my friend. Thanks for your time and your professionalism :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthofyahweh (talk • contribs) 05:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like we're on the same page with the article - it has to be WP:Verifiable. The situation sounds kind of sticky and Wikipedia has to be neutral. It's easy to have an opinion if you know the people (which I don't). Let me know if I can help further. Toddst1 (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Photo of Thomas Sim Lee

A photo of this gentleman is hard to come by. I did however find a photo of his wife Mary Digges Lee and have inserted this in the article. If you or someone else could locate an image of TSL that would be great.Rumbird (talk) 21:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! This is an improvement. I was/am hoping that as a former Governor there is a painting of him somewhere in Annapolis and that there might be a PD image. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Dmitry Sitkovetsky

Hi Toddst1. I have raised some issues on the Dmitry Sitkovetsky talk page.Regards,--Atavi 15:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I realize you may be busy or off line, but when you have the time, I would appreciate it if you would care to continue our discussion. In time, I might remove the two tags myself, but I want to make sure we're on the same page before I do that. Thanks,Atavi 19:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a note of thanks.--Atavi 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Erin Dolgan

you for some reason deleted my reference to the SOMB on Erin Dolgan's page as I was writing the article. Can you get it back as I cannot figure out how to do it.RKChesnutt 23:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RKChesnutt 23:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)Todd, Why'd you delete my reference to the SOMB on Erin Dolgan's article. Is it a violation? I was writting the article as you were deleting!!!!

It seemed to be at best a misplaced reference and there was no indication that you were still editing it. I noted that it was misplaced in the edit summary. It appears that you've gotten the reference back in there as well as some content that it ties to. Check out the {{inuse}} tag for when you're doing serial edits on an article. Toddst1 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)