User talk:Toddst1/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page, Toddst1/Archive 3 contains archived talk page discussions for Toddst1 (talk) December 2007-March 2008.

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


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

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)

Takazawa Masanao (karate)

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

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

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://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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 cornixtalk 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 cornixtalk 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 cornixtalk 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.[1]

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

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)

flaggin wterm article

you flaged the wterm article with expand and refimprove, templates. Its a very small program, there isn't much else to say. and as for references, the one direct source is good for the article size. Please read the article first before flagging it. Thanks ZyMOS (talk) 10:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

AGF - I had read the article. I figured you planning on improving it it. It sounds like you aren't. Toddst1 (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
So now u add a notibilibly thing on it. Its not the top terminal emulater, but its still prpular. It is listed on the list of x windows terminal emulators on the wiki page, and has a package for installation in every linux distribution. You have now added more warnings on the page, than the etire articles content. An example. eterm is one of the most popular terminal emulators. wterms article has more content, and eterm's page does not have propers notations.
Since i was there, i added notation ZyMOS (talk) 05:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
If you do not know about the subject, you should not mark notability. It is a good article, with good style. It is notable. I think i have addresses all warnings and have given evidence or precidence to the contrary of all. I would apreciate you removing the warnings and being more conservative with warnings in the future. ZyMOS (talk) 05:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Again, AGF. What makes you think I don't know the subject? Since "ls" is a clean article (although it seems WP:NOT would apply), I'll remove the tags. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Ill put more sources but its really not nessesary, the source is first hand (assuming the homepage is writen buy the authors ) in any academimic paper this would be acceptable. and again i cite eterm, a sidgle source, prefectly acceptable. I assumed u don't know teh subject because a simple google search would show the notability. Its not the most popular, but its a well known program. But ill add the extra sources. I just wan't to note that if you sit back and think about it, all the the flags were unnessesary. I think any thrid party would agree ZyMOS (talk) 23:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
PS in the future could you link to what AGF means. for i did not know.

Please see Yahoo! Fantasy Sports

User keeps deleting prod request. Take a look at the article, just a long list of meaningless facts and links. -UWMSports (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

{{prod}} tags can be removed by anyone at any time. If you think the article should be deleted, nominate it for articles for deletion. Follow the link for info on how. Toddst1 (talk) 18:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Cruise West

Could you please provide me with (or instruct me how to obtain) the data for the now-deleted article titled Cruise West so that I may revise it to meet your standards of notability. Khaufle (talk) 22:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, how do I get the cruise line's vessel pages back? I find it very concerning that they were deleted when there are hundreds of others with equally limited articles linked on List of cruise ships. Khaufle (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They aren't my standards - they're Wikipedia's. See Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted? To see the text that was deleted, contact one of the Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles and one of them will restore the article to your userspace. I don't have access to it. You should review the WP:AFD discussion for the article (it was discussed in an open forum) before you recreate the article. Toddst1 (talk) 13:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are one of the qualified administrators who can copy it back to my userspace. Would you be so kind? Unfortunately I don't log in very frequently and completely missed the discussion. Had I been aware I would have offered changes at that time and hopefully could have avoided the deletion. I'd rather not spend the time recreating the wheel when I could be using that time to better enhance the article that was already written. Khaufle (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. See Wikipedia administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what list of users I was looking at? OK, I'll approach one of them. Thanks. Khaufle (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Joshua Barney entry

Sorry it took so long to get back to you on your request. I updated the content a little, and added a reference to where I got the information. My previous edit was more to synchronize the Joshua Barney entry with the Battle of Bladensburg entry, as well as adding that Marines participated, which I found on the historical marker and other online research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteKMJK (talk • contribs) 17:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

winmagic inc. and other pages

Hi Todd. First, sorry about the "WinMagic Inc." article - you can delete that for now, perhaps I will try to make another 'more complying' article later. Also, if I'm editing this usertalk page wrongly, I'm sorry about that too :P

Anyway, I'm mostly working on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_disk_encryption_software

We noticed our company (winmagic inc) was not listed there, so I'm starting to add our product and filling in all the charts on the page. Is that a COI? Also, should I make a page linking to our product and our company, like some other companies have on the above page? Is that a COI? Please advise.

Thank you very much for your time.

Baonh (talk) 19:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)bao

Check out WP:COI. It's OK to edit, but be extra careful to maintain WP:NPOV which you didn't. Toddst1 (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

civility

ok, i understand the edit wasn't civil and i apologise. But with the "metal up your ass" i don't see what the problem is. It's just a joke and i doubt anyone can take it seriously...thanks Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion / AfD

I quite agree. However, it is clear from the previous editor that they would have otherwise gone to speedy deletion, had an appropriate tag been available. The article is more than suitable for speedy deletion. PS. Please consider archiving this page Jammy Simpson | Talk | 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be deleted, but heck, if I threw a speedy tag on every article I thought didn't deserve a discussion... well.. I'd have done a lot of them. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow

Kinda harsh on Riverpeopleinvasion, aren't we? Just cuz you don't like the thought of metal up your ass doesn't mean you have to freak out. Most people don't even notice stuff like that. elisatalk. 13:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

No I don't think my comment was harsh at all. Nobody freaked out.
Do you and Riverpeopleinvasion always declare well-earned warnings to each other as "harsh" as he did with this warning you recieved (that appears to have not been taken to heart). Perhaps taking the message seriously would be a better course of action. Toddst1 (talk) 19:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Ha. You're awesome. I love how you dug through my archives to find 'incriminating' evidence. And, if you would have dug a little deeper, those talk edits were because an edit war was occuring and I was trying to resolve the problem (in fact, it's still in progress now). So unless you can come up with a good reason as to why you harrass random people, I suggest you leave me alone. Regards, elisatalk. 20:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You have made two false accusations here: 1) that I freaked out, 2) that I harass people. Please stop. Instead, please take responsibility for your actions. Toddst1 (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
You apparently dislike people calling you out. elisatalk. 13:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA nom page created

Kakofonous would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Kakofonous to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Toddst1 . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

Kakofonous (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to accept! --Kakofonous (talk) 05:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Shall I transclude or do you want to? --Kakofonous (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind...wrote this while you were doing it. Kakofonous (talk) 05:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Long Xuyen

Because this is an editor from Vietnam, and presumably they know who is notable and who isn't (and those redlinks, consequently, would lead to articles). If you want to know who the people are, just ask the editor. WP editing shouldn't be a combat. Badagnani (talk) 02:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Not meant to be combative, rather, dealing with vandalism. Specifically, this edit was flagged by Lupin's anti-vandal tool which brought me to the article. After reverting the vandalism, I thought would clean the article up. I'm surprised you're seeing it differently - especially since I said what I was doing, following which policies, in my edit summary. Toddst1 (talk) 02:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that edit is disturbing. Probably the editor is about 14 years old. However, there may be good mixed with the bad. Badagnani (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. 8-) Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 03:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

welcome to NRHP; colonial site write-ups needed :)

Hi, welcome to WP:NRHP from a fellow member. I know I have seen your name before, probably on NRHP articles already. If you are interested in colonial NRHPs, perhaps you'd be interested to browse the work-in-progress List of National Historic Landmarks in South Carolina, which has many new stub articles that have good sources linked, but little development. Or if u have a different geographic interest, i would be happy to know. I happen to focus on the National Historic Landmarks, which is kind of an honor roll of the NRHPs; we are getting within striking range of having an informative article for every one of the 2430 or so NHLs. South Carolina happens to be in progress right now; status of all NHLs by state is reported in a table on the WP:NRHP main page. Cheers, doncram (talk) 20:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome. You came across my name when you gave me really valuable input on Belair Mansion. I hope I've effectively implemented your suggestions. I'm still hoping to get that to GA, and know I have more work to do, so I think I'm going to remain focused on that for now, but want to be a part of the project. Toddst1 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Spell checkers

Hi - just been reviewing some of your contributions for your RFA nomination. I've got no problem supporting, but this edit caught my attention. The spell checker is not a standard tool in Wikipedia, but seems to be an optional add-on in anti-vandal tool. See WP:SPELL. It seems reasonable that a new editor wouldn't have that installed. Hope you don't mind me bringing your attention to this. It's not enough for me to worry about, so I'll cast my vote help to establish consensus at your RFA now. Good luck! —  Tivedshambo  (t|c) 11:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I had no idea it wasn't standard. Thanks for pointing it out. Mea culpa. Toddst1 (talk) 13:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I've amended my edit to User talk: Yung_chuck. Toddst1 (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I've always edited on Wikipedia using Firefox. That explains why I thought it was built in. Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Vrag naj vzame

Hi! I removed your proposed deletion of this article. I agree that the article isn't very good, but it was created yesterday and will be improved. There is no problem with verifiability nor does it violate WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the Eurovision, but it is the most watched television broadcast in Europe and, to the best of my knowledge, the most watched annual transmission in the world. The entries to it definitely satisfy notability and there are articles on all the other entries. As the entries are selected in March, these articles are still stubs but will most certainly be expanded fairly soon as the Eurovision has a whole "army" of extremely devouted fans. :) Cheers! JdeJ (talk) 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Plaxall - Wikipedia page

I have reviewed the information in my talk page and as a content owner am permitted to post the information in the article plaxall.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 21:14, 10 March 2008

As I stated on your talk page, you need to give wikipedia explicit permission. See the instructions on your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have given wikipedia explicit pemission which is found at http://www.plaxall.com/about.php You can see it at the bottom of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You're not listening. That permission is not enough. Follow the instructions on your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now added the GFDL statement to the page in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 21:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything else i need to do to satisfy your requirements?--Cschiffner (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to address these concerns. Before I answer, I have to say, they're not my requirements.
To be honest, I don't know. You have a GFDL disclaimer on your site now but there's also a copyright notice. Someone more knowledgable than me will have to answer your question. I don't get stumped too often. You get points in my book! Let me see if I can dig up an answer your question. Toddst1 (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like you have another problem. Another editor has tagged it for speedy deletion under Wikipedia:CSD#G11 - meaning that they think it's just advertising. Toddst1 (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The "spam like" material is removed. As far as the GFDL statement, it releases the information in question while the remainder of the site/page remains under the ownership of Plaxall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Re

This user is nothing but a vandalism only account. He repeatedly blanked his talkpage and erasing warning messages. So I have gave some mammoth warnings. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Google Books

I am not aware of any general policy of not linking to Google books, and the thousands of links to it imply that there isn't one, but WP:LINKS (not WP:Links ) is pretty clear about not linking to copyrighted works, period. I see no problem with linking to public domain works at that site, but that's just my opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

From WP:LINKS: "Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement". I don't think Google's fair use claim constitutes "licensing" (although I'm not disputing their fair use claim, only quoting WP policies). If you find out anything conclusive either way, please give me an update. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

David Maupin

Hi Toddst1, The article that I just wrote about David Maupin was listed as an autobiography, which is incorrect. I work at a major contemporary gallery in New York and am creating pages for the owners of the gallery that is taken from major media sources. Can you please help me remove the error messages that I'm receiving on this article? Thanks so much, Bettina Prentice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lehmannmaupin (talk • contribs) 18:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Changed. Please review WP:COI before proceeding. Also, please address this username concern. Toddst1 (talk) 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bobby_horocofsky

Oh, I missed <the offensive phrase>. Good catch! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Easy to miss at the bottom. It started innocently enough. Toddst1 (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the weird vandalism on my user page. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He/she got me too. Toddst1 (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anglicanism

I notice that you've created / worked on two Episcopal church articles. Well, do I have a project for you; one that needs people who write articles about Episcopal churches. No need to be an Episcopalian or even to like them :-) Would you like to join the WikiProject focusing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-related articles. If you are interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers!

I'll check it out. Toddst1 (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Addict Clothing/MC Wrec

Hi,

Regarding MC Wrec; I don't even know the guy, other than he is todo with Addict Clothing's music - the link I added there was to give notability for my Addict article, as I was told by the guidlines that if you have links pointing to your article it looks better and I found that there was something about Addict Beats Collective there when looking for link from my article.

Why has he been deleted? I hope it's not because of me, as that page is nothing to do with me.

With regards to Addict Clothing, I write articles for them, for free, because I love the company and what they do and what they are and think what they do deserves to be heard.

Many thanks,

Mischa.wgreen (talk) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Discospinster

Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... discospinster talk 23:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA

Hello Toddst1, I'm pleased to tell you that your RfA has been passed as successful and your are now an administrator. Congratulations, and good luck with the mop. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hoped to be first with my congrats, but DHMO beat me to it. Can you keep me a spare desk in admin school - hopefully I'll need it soon ;-)  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 09:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Well done! Rudget. 11:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations. Remember to keep writing! Relata refero (talk) 15:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
I know you will do a great jobThright (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Uber congrats! Tiptoety talk 18:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
The admins' T-shirt.
The admins' T-shirt.

Congratulations on your successful RfA! Do everything you're supposed to and nothing you're not! :) Make sure to check out the new admin school. Good luck and feel free to ask me if you have any questions. GlassCobra 18:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations - oh, and remember, despite what everyone says, it's not actually possible to delete the Main Page. Honestly. Seriously...go ahead. Try it... ;-) GBT/C 22:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Congrats!!!Kukini háblame aquí 22:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome

Wow you did very well! Wikipedia has every reason to believe you will make a brilliant admin! Thanks for taking the time to thank an old "commentor"! Have fun with the tools! --Camaeron (talk) 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Non nobis solum ; p

Bob Griese editing

Hi Todd

I see that you have edited my contributions to the page on Bob Griese. While I understand why my contributions were not acceptable-- I was in the process of entering citations, but they were not in yet-- you seem to have deleted the entire 2nd half of the article. This deletes Bob's pro football career entirely. It also deleted the one footnote I managed to put in before I saw what you had done.

I wonder if it would be better to either restore the article I wrote, so that I can place appropriate footnotes, or at least restore the work that others had done on that section of the article, as it just doesn't make sense to end the Bob Griese article in 1967, when most people know him because of his pro football career.

Thank you for your hard work trying to keep wikipedia as an authority of reliable information

Elton1111 (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)elton1111 march 14, 2008 (happy pi day)

User talk:Palmer-Ridge

Should User talk:Palmer-Ridge be deleted? User seems to not exist and is only being made as an article. -WarthogDemon 19:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. The user has made edits, and while strange, User talk:Palmer-Ridge doesn't seem to be hurting anything. Perhaps the editor has parked the text there to reuse. I may be wrong though. Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

your RfA

your welcome, but I must say, if it closed with 42 supports, it must be a sign. 101010 --Pewwer42  Talk  17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam disguised as user pages

Perhaps you missed the template I add to the talk pages:

{{subst:spam-warn-userpage|User:XXX|header=1}} ~~~~

That ought to be sufficient, in my opinion. --Calton | Talk 22:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Samuel

Do you now see why I put a speedy delete tag on the article, because it was nonsense and a hoax. Someone in the AFD even commented that it shouldn't of gone through AFD. D.M.N. (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I saw it might have been a hoax when I declined speedy, but a hoax is not a reason for speedy deletion. See Wikipedia:Patent_nonsense and Wikipedia:Don't_create_hoaxes#Dealing_with_hoaxes. Many folks don't like that, but that's the way things are set up. Toddst1 (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

iNorden.org

Hi Toddst1, You recently deleted INorden.org on the grounds that the text was copied from this page: http://inorden.org/?page_id=31&language=en. The only propblem is: I wrote that page, too, (as iNorden.org editor) and have given myself permission to re-use it here. As I'm new to Wikipedia (as a contributor, that is), I'm not familiar with proccedings needed in order to re-publish deleted pages, but I expect there's a backup of sorts somewhere. Hope you may be of some assistance, as you deleted the page. Thanks a million for your kind help. Jarle Petterson (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Block

Hi! I noted you have just blocked the IP address User:169.244.35.11. In view of some overlapping vandalism from a new 'user account on the John Dalton article could you please take a look at User:Balla207 to see if it could be the same user. If possible could the User:Balla207 account be blocked as a vandalism only account? Also in view of the persistent vandalism history from the User:169.244.35.11 account and the 16 vandalism warnings, of which 3 are final warnings, that have been posted on the users talk page, so far, this year, would not a 12 month Anon Account / School block be more appropriate than a 48 hour one? Richard Harvey (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

hang on tag

Thankyou for the info. Besides that, where may I find this article's AfD?Dædαlus T@lk\→quick link 21:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

re: User talk:Wikimania08

Since an attorney was invoked at User talk:Wikimania08, that looked too clearly like a legal threat, so I blocked. I could also have blocked as a sockpuppet, so it was almost a case of which reason yielded the longer block.

By contrast, with the comments left apparently by the same person at User talk:Eeihq, I gave the benefit of the doubt that, even though it's a threat, it's not a legal threat. —C.Fred (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So Very Sorry <(**,)>

Hey, sorry about that personal attack earlier, I was just in a very bad mood. Everybody gets mad sometimes, and I'm just sorry that I vented my anger towards you. Good Luck with being an admin tho! Once again, I'm very sorry I acted that way.

Tool-apc (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

So Very Sorry <(**,)>

Hey, sorry about that personal attack earlier, I was just in a very bad mood. Everybody gets mad sometimes, and I'm just sorry that I vented my anger towards you. Good Luck with being an admin tho! Once again, I'm very sorry I acted that way.

Tool-apc (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of articel Kristoffer ericson

Hi,

Looks like you misread the debate, if you read it more carefully you would see that the consensus was "Yes to keep" and not yes to delete. Please revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.209.186.97 (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You are correct. I have restored the article and removed the db tag. Sorry for the mistake. Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article Daniel Boey

Hello,

Why did you delete this article? I just spent three days dealing with three different admins and was approved by Discospinster to have this article online. I am sorry for my tone but I can't keep dealing with all these admins different opinions. No article will ever satisfy everyone and it's not fair to have me keep defending my post just because someone decides they don't like it, or has no meaning to them etc. An Admins decision should be respected by all other admins otherwise what is the use? Can you please repost the article?

Thanks Succisa75 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:CSD#A7 Toddst1 (talk) 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have read that and the A7 ruling does not apply. If you read the article and followed up on the links you would see that this person is a prominent and influential figure in the fashion industry through out South East Asia. No other admin that has contacted me about this article has ever brought that into question.

If Motorola has assigned this person as one of its ambassadors for its Project Red Campaign to fight Aids in its South East Asia I think that would support the argument this person as being important or significant. Succisa75 (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should stop re-creating the article that causes you to be in contact with so many administrators. It's been deleted seven times. Toddst1 (talk) 18:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been deleted seven times because admins like yourself don't take the time to read the history of the article, nor try to contact the writer to try and rectify the problem in a supportive way before deleting. Also every deletion thus far was always overturned because any valid issue an admin had with it I rectified it, in a timely manner, or they corrected their mistake. It's obvious you have no valid issue. Also it shows the lack of respect on your part for the other admins decisions in allowing it to stay active. I will be contacting the Admin notice board to have this handled further. Succisa75 (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

No. That's not the reason it's being deleted. It's exactly what I and the others have been telling you. Good luck with ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Who are you and what are you doing?

I'm new to Wikipedia. As best as I can understand from the reams of instructions and rules I've been scrolling through, you have something to do with deleting an article I was working on.

1. I did not intend to post my article yet. I must have pushed the wrong button. I wanted to save it and work on it somemore, adding references and such.

2. There is no copyright violation. I am the original author of the text as it appears on my website and in the revised version I was working for Wikipeida on before you deleted it.

3. I am happy to give Wiki editors the right to edit my posting. I do NOT want to put an announcement on my website to the effect that anyone anywhere can use and edit the text there. Are you telling me I can't use my own writing, which I retain all rights for, when I write for Wikipedia? That's quite a muzzle.

4. Why can't you send a notice that I could respond to instead of, within less than 24 hours, deleting an article I was working on?

5. Who are you and what's your expertise in copyright law anyways?

Thank you.

Will Roscoe, Ph.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willrsf (talk • contribs) 17:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Carnegie Mellon University Rowing Club

Toddst1, I saw that the article regarding the Carnegie Mellon University Rowing Club was deleted upon the criteria that it was not encyclopedic. The club has a rich history, and significance in Pittsburgh, and as the publicity chair representing the organization, I have been requested by university officials to create a wikipedia article lending to the history of the organization. I also understand that Wikipedia encourages that we, the users, should not write about subjects in which we have personal interest/affiliation with, however, I feel that someone from this small organization would be the only person qualified to write a credible article about the organization. Can you restore this article and provide me with some suggestions on how to make it more Wikipedia appropriate. I will do my best! --Nicksmarto (talk) 04:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

yılmaz bektaş

hi, can i learn why our "yılmaz bektaş" article is deleted, bec i didnt get it why delete, the arctile is from yilmaz bektas himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ybektas (talk • contribs) 13:50, 19 March 2008

See User talk: Ybektas#Speedy deletion of Yılmaz bektaş Toddst1 (talk) 13:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Snoopdobi

Thank you for your report - just a quick point, though, that new cases go at the top of the list on WP:SSP, not at the bottom. I've moved it for you, and dealt with the case (pretty open and shut). The case won't, therefore, appear in the list at all in a few minutes, as it will have been archived. Thanks. GBT/C 14:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I must have edited a section by accident instead of the whole doc. I put it at the top of the list but thought he header comments were missing. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Solid Look article.

Raffaellogalli (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Hi, I am trying to satisfy the wikipedia requirement and I believe that the previous attempt was not fitting 100% but I do not see any reason for deleteing the article this time. Can you please explain. Thanks.

Wikipedia:CSD#A7 Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

--Raffaellogalli (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)I understand your point, but you should consider that I have created the article with information regarding the utility and the advantage of the subject and it was deleted because consider blatant advertising. After that I recreated the article without the information and you declared as an article that doesn't indicate why its subject is important or significant. So can you please advise on what should I do? Thanks.

Macalla Software

This article has just been deleted when I thought I had put a "Hang On" message on it. I removed some text and left it quite simple with statement of fact. I also asked somebody somewhere in Wikipedia why even if after I removed the text it might still be deleted as other company profiles (and I named a few) were live. I couldn't see the difference between mine and the other companies that I mentioned.

Whilst I completely understand that advertising is not good for this site, I still think that a company name with a statement of what that company does is a definition, not advertising. My article was deleted and it was simply a definition.

Please explain. Thanks Aislingfoley (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A different administrator deleted it because An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. I just left you a note trying to help you understand some of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Toddst1 (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

A question as to why you are deleting my edits

I'm new to Wikipedia. As best as I can understand from the reams of instructions and rules I've been scrolling through, you have something to do with deleting an article I was working on.

I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to delete the content I uploaded to the Y&R page.

I am simply updating information about the company so that it is factual. There is no self promotion involved.

As on of the largest advertising companies in the world, it is important that any information in the public domain be as accurate as possible.

I am greatly disappointed that you felt it okay to delete this content without even the thought of contacting me to ask any questions you may have had.

I have re-uploaded the content and would appreciate it if you would not delete.

Any questions please contact me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcaplan243 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read User_talk:Mcaplan243#March_2008_2 and take it seriously. Toddst1 (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

1998 South Carolina Gamecocks football team

You recently tagged 1998 South Carolina Gamecocks football team for speedy deletion as an attack page. I fail to see the attack. Please explain. Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Look at the author's contrib history and it will quickly become apparent. Plus, this EXACT article was speedy deleted the first time it was posted as an obvious attack piece used to disparage its subject, the author has added nothing of substance to merit keeping it the second time around. It's not even an article, it's a table that sums up a football season. Please talk to User:Pegasus if you need further info on the subject. Thanks. ViperNerd (talk) 01:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can explain how this is an attack page, I will decline the speedy deletion a third and final time. If you continue to add the template without explaining how this is an attack page you will be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I just explained it. This is not even an ARTICLE. It is a table of results for one single season of South Carolina football, one of the worst in its history. Do you think the author just picked this season out of a hat to write about? Please think about why this article is being posted. Wikipedia is not simply a repository of information. If this author can write an actual ARTICLE about this subject, let him do that and then post it. He shouldn't be allowed to simply post a stub and then promise to finish it up at some future date. ViperNerd (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've already mentioned this page to the admin who originally speedy deleted it. You can take it up with him. I can't help you if you want to be stubborn and insist you can't see the obvious. ViperNerd (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Ellen's Stardust Diner

Good evening. I have a question as to why the article I wrote about Ellen's Stardust Diner was deleted. Mind you, I don't take any offense to the article being deleted, but I assure you the article included actual information from the restaurant's website. Is there any particular reason why the article was deleted? And can you please tell me what kind of information I would need(if any)to avoid deletion in the future provided the article be written again? Mr. Brain (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted under Wikipedia:CSD#A7, "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." If you go to that page's deletion log, you'll see it's been deleted 4 times. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

user:ClockGameJohn

How could making a test page result in being blocked? Don't Feed the Zords (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Replied on User_talk:Don't_Feed_the_Zords#user:ClockGameJohn. Toddst1 (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Article Ponty Mython the quest for a better ending

Toddst1, I saw that Ponty Mython the quest for a better ending was deleted on the basis that it was not significant or didn’t have any references. What happened was, I was typing it and saved it and went to bed. i was going to put all the references on it in the morning. I have several references that I would like to put on it. could you please either post it on my user page or undelete it so I can put the references in? thanks. Spy boy360 (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

See User:Spy boy360/sandbox. Please don't move back to userspace unless it is ready. Toddst1 (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Martin Lindstrom

Dear Toddst1, I must start by saying I am having problems finding out how to chat with you and please may I request your assistance, could you please explain why you deleted Martin Lindstrom, please find below the text which you deleted, I would be more than pleased to learn from you how to fix the below text, All the very best,


Martin Lindström

Martin Lindström (born March 7, 1970) is a Danish brand futurist, researcher and writer. Martin was born in Århus, Denmark; his professional life began at 12 years of age.

These remarkable beginnings heralded ongoing startling achievements. Still in his thirties, Martin is one of the world’s most respected author and branding gurus, an honor bestowed by the Chartered Institute of Marketing.

Throughout 20 years of book writing, marketing experience, Martin has conceived a revolutionary set of principles that achieve positive business results from transformational marketing strategies. His unique vision is scientific and process-based, all supported by global studies conducted by a team of more than 600 researchers. Reference site www.MartinLindstrom.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterhenery (talk • contribs) 01:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

DELETION OF PAGE Swami Jyotirmayananda

I still cannot edit a new article for Swami Jyotirmayananda because it is now "protected", and previously deleted by you. I did create a page (showing up as a Project) but I cannot create it as an article. Please view the Swami Jyotirmayanmanda "Project" page, as I want to use that content to be published as an Article. What do I need to do to make that happen? Gbito (talk) 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 21 Toddst1 (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin Lindström

Dear Toodst1, could you please explain why you have deleted Martin Lindstrom, I have the copy below, and if it is advertising as you state, could you please show me why and I will correct it, All the very best,

Martin Lindström

Martin Lindström (born March 7, 1970) is a Danish brand futurist, researcher and writer. Martin was born in Århus, Denmark; his professional life began at 12 years of age. These remarkable beginnings heralded ongoing startling achievements. Still in his thirties, Martin is one of the world’s most respected author and branding gurus, an honor bestowed by the Chartered Institute of Marketing. Throughout 20 years of book writing, marketing experience, Martin has conceived a revolutionary set of principles that achieve positive business results from transformational marketing strategies. His unique vision is scientific and process-based, all supported by global studies conducted by a team of more than 600 researchers. Reference site www.MartinLindstrom.com

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterhenery (talk • contribs) 01:39, 21 March 2008 (and unfortunately left on User:Toddst1/awards, moved to here and formatted) by Toddst1)

Dear Mr. Lindstrom,
In response to your comments left onUser:Toddst1/awards, moved to User talk:Toddst1: Your autobiography, Martin Lindstrom, has been deleted 4 times by 4 different administrators in violation of Wikipedia:CSD#G11 as "Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Please consider the following Wikipedia policies:
before you consider recreating the article and ensure any future contributions comply with these policies. Otherwise, they will continue to be considered disruptive and will be quickly deleted and may lead to you being blocked. I hope this helps. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Alien Abduction Lamp

Hi Toddst1

I can understand that you flagged my article since it was about something that I myself created. I have to argue that I attempted to keep the article as objective and as little as possible about myself.

The reason that you gave for deleting it - that this is "blatant advertising" does not seem right to me. The mere fact that there is no product to advertise for should talk strongly enough against that. I mentioned in the article that it is becoming a product, but that sentence alone could be removed if that is what you reacted against?

I feel that the Alien Abduction Lamp has as much a place in Wikipedia as the Lava Lamp. It may not be a product yet, but it has become quite an interenet phenomenon. A quick google search will tell you that it har earned some reputation.

Is there any way that I can recover the text that I entered? I did not expect it to be deleted, so I did not save a copy, and there were formulations in the entry that I would have liked to keep.

Lasse Kleinsan (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)kleinsan

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kleinsan (talk • contribs) 11:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Kurt St. Thomas

Sorry for sticking my nose in but i seen that the user you reported claims they own the photo but you may already know but the photo is from Kurts myspace. here is the link to the page, hope this helps and again sorry for butting in.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=1726537 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thuringowacityrep (talk • contribs) 11:55, 21 March 2008

No problem. I didn't report him/her- I removed him/her from AIV after discussion. He/she may need to go back though. Toddst1 (talk) 11:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Usa-grant-inc

Was blocking email and account creation really necessary? When we block at UAA where usernames are promoting a company we just disable autoblocks. Rudget. 12:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I think I've fixed it. I didn't mean to second guess you - it was collision, and apparently an uninformed one. Toddst1 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Rudget. 13:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad report

Hello. Would you explain to me what makes this a bad report, so I do not make the same mistake again. I take it the user was told twice, and continued. Please advise. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you took no offense. The user was clearly vandalizing, but here's why I declined to block the user: You had left a level 2 warning for the user after his vandalous edits to Wirral Grammar School for Boys. After he/she recieved the warning, I saw no further edits from the user. I generally don't block someone who hasn't had a level 3 or higher. Obviously another admin saw the situation differently and blocked the user. That being said, thanks for your vigilance in fighting vandals. We need all the help we can get. Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, I don't get offended. I just don't want to make many mistakes. Thank you for getting back with me. In the future I'll pay better attention and try to monitor the editors after a graduation of warnings. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear Gravitation

Hey. I saw you PROD'd this article. The author removed the prod tag, so I nominated it for AfD. You can view it here. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Zeleno zvono

You speedily deleted this article after an editor nominated this claiming that it was spam in Czech. The article was actually written in Serbian, so I don't think we can take the nominator's translation at face value if he didn't even know what language he was translating from. Could you please restore it to allow it to go for proper translation before we judge it? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Restored and {{db-spam}} removed, so it will stay restored. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Catalin Dragomir

I found it quite appalling that you deleted my article about Catalin Dragomir. I was a piece of research that took hour and effort to compile, yet your vile assumption is that we advertise. We asked permission to write about this architect. Can you please restore this article ASAP. Mihai Sima —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattouk (talk • contribs) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:Advert. I see nothing encyclopedic about that article. It has been deleted 4 times - each time for valid reasons. Please do not recreate it without addressing these problems. Toddst1 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Yes. It was deleted each time for copyright violations, which is wrong, as long as we have permission in writing from Catalin. This time it was deleted for "blatant advertising" reason which I personally find ridiculous. What give you the right to be a judge and jury at the same time about its encyclopaedic merits? We find this particular architect quite interesting to be in your sorry encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattouk (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In my talk, you refer to me as Mr. Dragomar, which is not my name. Mihai Sima is my name and I wrote an article about "MR Dragomir". Also you gave me a warning for my article. I think this is a flagrant violation of our freedom of speech. I find your tactics and position as judge and jury as being not only disruptive but also extremly fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattouk (talk • contribs) 05:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

On 12:14, 10 April 2007 you, Cattouk(talk • contribs), signed Talk:Catalin Dragomir as:

Yours sincerely,
Catalin Dragomir


METHAMORPHIC

www.catalindragomir.com

so it seemed appropriate to refer to you as "Mr. Dragomir". Now you claim to be Mihai Sima "his PR agents". I'm not sure which it is, and it doesn't really matter to me. I am sure of Wikipedia policies on WP:Advert, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Copyright (among others) which you do need to follow, as I have politely and clearly indicated on your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Re You Do (Family Guy)

This originally consisted only of the lyrics to the song, but the author ripped them out after I tagged it. Sorry to have wasted your time. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what it looked like. Good call and keep up the great work. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of article Grid5000

Tichadok (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the Grid5000 article that you just deleted looks very similar to these articles :

From the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_computing#National_Grid_Projects

So I was wondering why you deleted it.

Thanks


Tichadok (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Hi Todd, if you want to be consistent, I think you either have to delete the three articles above or undelete the Grid5000 article. Thanks

Thank you for your suggestion regarding GARUDA . 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). Same goes for D-Grid and VECC. Feel free to take them to AfD.Toddst1 (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Tichadok (talk) 14:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Could you please undelete the Grid5000 article, if the GARUDA exists for India, then the Grid5000 has to exist for France. The Grid5000 article is written as the same manner as the GARUDA article, that's why I see no reason why you deleted it. Thanks

Copied by User:Fritzpoll from main User page to here... just trying to help!

Yes, I see you reposted the same reason for deleting, but did you actually take a look at it? The original article that was deleted was a cut/paste from the Swami's own website, so I now understand why that was deleted. The new content I last posted is completely and utterly different! I spent over five hours creating the new content and digging up references and links. I can name many other articles with much lesser content, references, etc. that have been deemed "OK" to keep in Wikipedia. So now I am now at a complete loss as to what would make you happy in getting this article in. I've read the pages that I was told would help me, followed the instructions as best I could, and you simply re-enter the same information you did last time for deleting the page. Can you please spend a moment looking over the content and compare it to the original that was submitted? If it is truly not satisfactory, rather than pasting the same reason again (which is obviously not helping me understand) can you help me a bit by being more specific as to what I need to change to make the article OK? I am not trying to flame you in any way, I am just not understanding your criteria and asking for your help. Thanks in advance for helping me understand. Gbito (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm kind of lost here: What I deleted was a misplaced article called Article:Swami Jyotirmayananda not Swami Jyotirmayananda. . Swami Jyotirmayananda was deleted by someone else and salted, and is both in deletion review now and it also appears to also have been restored. In case the subtlety isn't clear - the one I deleted is mis-titled and appeared to be an attempt to get around the salting without going through deletion review. Toddst1 (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Rolling Stone

I don't see how a single article in the Rolling Stone instantly makes someone notable for their own article, but I suppose I'll have to take it up with WP:AfD. Sillygostly (talk) 03:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

To put things into perspective, an Australian teenager named Corey Worthington became instantly famous for throwing a house party (where around 500 people attended) which required police intervention in order to end the party. Over the following weeks, Corey received a ridiculous amount of coverage across every conceivable medium (i.e. TV, newspapers, websites, YouTube parody videos etc.). While there have been efforts in order to create an article on the teenager (and I understand it has since been deleted) as the event in question was historically insignificant (and the subject of the article has failed to make any substantial contributions/achievements in order to justify his own article). I believe the Jonah article is similar in that the article is historically insignificant, and the individual in question is not noteworthy enough to justify his own article (being documented in a tabloid magazine for having large genitals and playing an extra in a small number of television shows doesn't grant notability). I suppose merging his article with a Wikipedia article which documents other people with large genitals would be acceptable, however a completely separate article on an (arguably) unknown individual is excessive IMO. Sillygostly (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Larry Dablemont

I see you've had some issues with this hoax before. We could use your wisdom on the deletion page: [2]. I just eliminated a ton of wikilinks from the hoaxer. This should be salted, don't you think? Qworty (talk) 03:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Catalin Dragomir

I found it quite appalling that you deleted my article about Catalin Dragomir. I was a piece of research that took hour and effort to compile, yet your vile assumption is that we advertise. We asked permission to write about this architect. Can you please restore this article ASAP. Mihai Sima —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattouk (talk • contribs) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:Advert. I see nothing encyclopedic about that article. It has been deleted 4 times - each time for valid reasons. Please do not recreate it without addressing these problems. Toddst1 (talk) 21:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Yes. It was deleted each time for copyright violations, which is wrong, as long as we have permission in writing from Catalin. This time it was deleted for "blatant advertising" reason which I personally find ridiculous. What give you the right to be a judge and jury at the same time about its encyclopaedic merits? We find this particular architect quite interesting to be in your sorry encyclopaedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattouk (talk • contribs) 21:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

In my talk, you refer to me as Mr. Dragomar, which is not my name. Mihai Sima is my name and I wrote an article about "MR Dragomir". Also you gave me a warning for my article. I think this is a flagrant violation of our freedom of speech. I find your tactics and position as judge and jury as being not only disruptive but also extremly fascist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattouk (talk • contribs) 05:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

On 12:14, 10 April 2007 you, Cattouk(talk • contribs), signed Talk:Catalin Dragomir as:

Yours sincerely,
Catalin Dragomir


METHAMORPHIC

www.catalindragomir.com

so it seemed appropriate to refer to you as "Mr. Dragomir". Now you claim to be Mihai Sima "his PR agents". I'm not sure which it is, and it doesn't really matter to me. I am sure of Wikipedia policies on WP:Advert, WP:Neutral point of view and WP:Copyright (among others) which you do need to follow, as I have politely and clearly indicated on your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Zeleno zvono

You speedily deleted this article after an editor nominated this claiming that it was spam in Czech. The article was actually written in Serbian, so I don't think we can take the nominator's translation at face value if he didn't even know what language he was translating from. Could you please restore it to allow it to go for proper translation before we judge it? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Restored and {{db-spam}} removed, so it will stay restored. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing it did turn out to be spam? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
It appears at least User: Kubek15 and user: David Eppstein thought so.Toddst1 (talk) 16:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

upv

Aw, six reverts to the same page within a half hour is nothing. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Yilmaz Bektas

Hi,

i need to learn something that about cant add and article about Yilmaz Bektas. i copied your latest answer to me for remembering. As i understand u said that we cant add an article about someone unless he's not notable, but i can see other results when searching "yilmaz bektas", from pages "ruffa gutierrez" etc. Yilmaz Bektas is a famous business man in Turkey, he got profile from Imdb and many many results from google and images... Why u think that not notable and we cant add an designed his profile article to wikipedia, i need learn that.

Thanks and regards

You said:

You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved, as you did at Yılmaz bektaş. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your band, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest. Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged. If you create such an article, it might be listed on articles for deletion. Deletion is not certain, but many feel strongly that you should not start articles about yourself. This is because independent creation encourages independent validation of both significance and verifiability. All edits to articles must conform to Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Verifiability. If you are not "notable" under Wikipedia guidelines, creating an article about yourself may violate the policy that Wikipedia is not a personal webspace provider and would thus qualify for speedy deletion. If your achievements, etc., are verifiable and genuinely notable, and thus suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, someone else will probably create an article about you sooner or later. (See Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.) Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.247.188.72 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 25 March 2008

See WP:COI and WP:BIO Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Socialroster

I am incredibly frustrated. You deleted my article that met all of Wikipedia's policies and was contributed to by another user with sources and verification. The reason for deletion was that another user felt it wasn't notable???? Isn't that the purpose of wikipedia that information can be available that USERS think are notable not a consolidation of power? Just deleting a site like that where where was no previous listing for the keyword is downright irresponsible and detrimental to the community. Thanks for ruining the freedoms of a good thing.

Btomasette talk —Preceding comment was added at 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SO much!

Thanks for giving that young man a bit of a timeout. I was worried I'd get sucked into a 3RR myself in trying to revert him. Hopefully, he'll get the message. Tried to help him, but he just went on his merry way. Much obliged.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

PMDrive1061 (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you SO much!

Thanks for giving that young man a bit of a timeout. I was worried I'd get sucked into a 3RR myself in trying to revert him. Hopefully, he'll get the message. Tried to help him, but he just went on his merry way. Much obliged.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:Godspy on my talk page

Thanks for letting me know. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Tyson (Percy Jackson)

I was getting ready to redirect to Percy Jackson & The Olympians. It really is not an attack page. It's about a fictional character who happens to be-- a Cyclops. <<LOL>> Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Would it be OK for me to unprotect, redirect to the main article and then reportect? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Thanks for asking. It's been deleted like 8 times, so I put a protect on it. Toddst1 (talk) 03:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I Like to ask before I undo. Dlohcierekim 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

RyRy5

Hi. I noted the odd removal of one of your blocks by RyRy5. On March 24 I had a concern with RyRy5 on an AfD page as I noted here. Although it was a disturbing mistake, I accepted the user's explanation that it was a good faith mistake and withdrew the uw-v1 I had issued. Since then I have encountered other concerns about questionable actions/ideas from this user here, here and here. Since RyRy5 is aggressively promoting a user adoption program, I am concerned that this pattern may end up being transferred to other users. Just thought I should let you know. --- Taroaldo (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, that was an honest mistake. I'm sorry and go ahea and revert it.--RyRy5 talk 06:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I just read the notice above. I was a little too enthusiastic back then. And I felt so sorry of what I did I wanted to apologize. I don't think that was wrong. Also, the adoption Program wasn't really my idea. Two other users (that I know of) have an adoption Program too. I'm also not trying to start another adopt-a-user program. I is only for my adoptees to learn better while giving out tests. I also let admins grade the tests after I do.--RyRy5 talk 06:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

IP Block of 76.10.176.221

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that I think you used the wrong template for this user block here. I'm guessing you wanted to let them know they were blocked for 1 week, instead of telling them they vandalized the '1 week' article? Anyway, thanks for the assist. Tnxman307 (talk) 16:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I clearly need more coffee this morning. 8-) Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:AGK#User talk:Animal00

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at AGK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

Regards, Anthøny 18:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Lucky Busker

Hi, I see that you have deleted the page I created for Lucky Busker. I read an article in Billboard magazine how so many artists were not using Wikipedia to it's full potential, so having discovered this artist on MySpace I thought I would get in there early. Lucky Busker is signed to a major label, RCA Sony BMG and the entry was no different from that of any of RCA's other artists entries. I would appreciate if you could reconsider this deletion. Many Thanks. --Maddogjb (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

Just a note, it's not our normal procedure to warn users twice for the same edit, especially with a {{uw-vandal4}}template. Be sure you use all the templates, from 1 through to 4, in order, before reporting. Cheers Steve Crossin (talk to me) 12:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

UPV

No problem babe... that was some seriously intense vandalism too. Make my computer choke up for a second or two. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 14:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

I can has mop?
 Hi Toddst1/Archive 3! Thank you for your support in my RfA (87/3/3).
I truely appreciate the many votes of confidence, and I will exert myself to live up to those expectations. Thanks again!
- CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

get less strict

dude , that was a self bio ands the signefics was for my casemanger to read it and see my intire story and aslo freinds if i ever got any ,just cuz its not a clad heart movie star dont mean its not worthy of being here that was how i was going to interduce my self to everyone was that wiki page i rember when you could post anything on wiki but i guess not now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glyth (talk • contribs) 08:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Try myspace. Toddst1 (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)