User talk:Toddst1/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page, Toddst1/Archive 6 contains archived talk page discussions for Toddst1 (talk) beginning June 2008.

Archive
Archives

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

Archival courtesy of MiszaBot III

Contents


Videomaker Magazine

Hi, I wanted to take a crack at writing an acceptable stub for Videomaker Magazine. Could you restore the deleted text to my sandbox so I can work on it? Thanks. Philly jawn (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a stub article at User:Philly_jawn/sandbox. Could you please restore the article? You may take what i have written and paste it in. Many thanks. Philly jawn (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I took a look at what you have and I'm sure it would be speedily deleted if you moved it to mainspace. It needs some more work. I've added a few tags to help you get it in shape. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I've updated it. I think it's enought to be published as a stub, and I think the references and g-hits establish norietey. Philly jawn (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks much improved. I removed a link to amazon (you don't want spamlinks in your article). What I would do if I were you is :
  • opening User:Philly_jawn/sandbox for editing in another window or tab,
  • copying all the text from User:Philly_jawn/sandbox in the edit window (ctrl-c or edit->copy)
  • pasting all the text in the newly opened Videomaker Magazine article (ctrl-v or edit->paste).
Hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • It does, thanks! Philly jawn (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ogle family

I was surprised that you reverted my cosmetic change to this article. Don't you agree that to have minor headings in a heavier bolder format than the main subheadings creates an inbalance in the presentation of the article?Ordyg (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just following WP:MOS. Doing so allows linking to individual people (from other articles) who don't have their own articles. Toddst1 (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, that is my point really - that big chunky characters in the centre of the piece do nothing whatever for the style. It has nothing to do with your content; merely with presentation. The present teatment looks clumsy and is clearly not in accordance with MOS. It is hardly a big issue and that is why I was surprised at your reaction Ordyg (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I think you're right that it's not a big deal but wrong about WP:MOS. I think what is there now is in compliance with WP:MOS, speicifically, Wikipedia:MOSHEAD#Section_headings. I can't understand why you think using italics for section headings is within WP:MOS. Using italics in to delineate sections about individuals, as you did is disjoint from both Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Main_uses and Wikipedia:MOSHEAD#Section_headings. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I quite accept your point about italics, but with respect you have totally ignored the point that I am actually making. Please have a look at my new effort and see whether you can accept that presentationally it looks much neaterOrdyg (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I usually try to avoid discussions about my opinion vs. your opinon, but it appears you want an answer: My opinion is that it doesn't look better with bullets or italics. Perhaps if you kept the discussion on the same line as the bullet and the person's name it might look better, but as it is now, I don't think it does.
My further opinion is that my opinion shouldn't carry much weight on stylistic issues. 8-) That's why we have MOS. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nickymark21 (talk · contribs) vandal

Hi, Todd. Another admin clobbered his IP with a short block and I'm of the opinion that the main account is deserving of a permanent block. Just my $.02. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

what's the ip? Toddst1 (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

98.217.7.158 (talk · contribs). --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

looks like Spellcast (talk · contribs) beat me to it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User

The editor User talk:BanditoLoco who you just indef blocked is asking to be unblocked I suspect it is this other blocked editor notice the same mistake with the unblock template using the round bracket and not the curly ones thanks. BigDuncTalk 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

James Woodward disambiguation

Greetings. You removed my addition to the James Woodward disambiguation page, but I don't really understand why you did so. Would you be willing to explain this to me? Victor Gijsbers (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See my edit summary and the note on Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_pages about blue links (vs redlinks). Toddst1 (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I tell you, doing NPP used to get me in trouble with users with attitudes, which is why I quit for a long time and gave back the admin tools while I was at it. Lots of new templates since then and I thank you for bringing them to my attention. This is such a useful resource that it just burns me to see idiots abuse it. The nice part is, we win in the end. Thanks for the compliment. Much obliged.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Real Life Barnstar

Thanks! I just did what needed to be done. :) – ClockworkSoul 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:142.25.110.50

You last blocked for 1 month, so this time I put 3 months... Is that reasonable? xenocidic (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think so. Frankly, it would have to be pretty egregious for me to question another admin's blocking period. I might have gone for 6 mos, but I tend to be a bit heavy handed for repeat vandals. Toddst1 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Chadwell O'Connor entry

Hi,

Thanks for your edits on the page I created for Chadwell O'Connnor. This was my first wikipedia entry so it was a little rough. I have added in-line citations for most of the content although there are still a couple of sections where I'm still looking for references. I'd like your assessment that it is now well-enough documented to remove the caution label at the top of the article.

Regards, Jim Jlg1953 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Jlg1953. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your swift response to the vandalism by the editor with the handle Dogface1234. I was afraid he would be something of a nuisance. Be well Ecoleetage (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That one was pretty obvious. Thanks for reporting it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well, for your participation in my recent RFA. i've left some thank spam for you below! if you enjoy reading overly detailed analyses of RFAs, feel free to check out mine here (comments welcome). cheers, xenocidic (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam

Why deleted?

umm you just deleted my information on North Allegheny. 1. You did not go to the school and have no idea what your talking about. 2. I was quoting myself, because I am the webmaster, so I was providing information about myself. 3. You just made the North Allegheny page less informative -- oh well, I could care less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironj221 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


I am creating a post about a notable person and you deleted it, despite its explanation of context. Why? RealEstateGuru (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Bio Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. "

There are at least 12 regional and local (and 1 national) articles written about Mr. Nelson's contribution to real estate brokerage. He is doing now what Charles Schwab did to stock brokering. RealEstateGuru (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting omission in the (now deleted) article. Toddst1 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend that comment as an "attack". If links/scans of the articles in question are added to TCN's page, will that keep it from being "swiftly deleted?". RealEstateGuru (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's how it works: If the article asserts WP:Notability then it won't be speedily deleted. It may however be deleted after discussion if it doesn't demonstrate WP:Notability. You demonstrate notability by adding WP:Reliable sources to ensure verifiability. Sorry for the gobbldygook but to keep wikipedia from being filled with high school students' rumors and such we have to have rules. Hope this helps. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will gather my sources together and try again soon, when time permits. I appreciate your dedication to this great site and I share your distaste for high school students' rumors. RealEstateGuru (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bruce C. Kone

What do you know about the facts of Bruce Kones termination. The only vandalism occurring is you deleting the truth about the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micah2020 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Never pretended to know anything about the matter. I do know about WP:V as you should too. Toddst1 (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Do I really need to add the numerous amounts of articles railing Bruce Kone, for allowing a Republican connected student into the medical school? Or giving equal pay to women in the Medical department. Or firing old sexist, bigot men? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micah2020 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes. See WP:Reliable as well. Toddst1 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

VegitaU is posing as an admin

I noticed that you blocked this user briefly a few weeks ago. He recently reverted my comments on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and threatened to block me on my talk page. He is not an admin and I assume not authorized to make such threats. Kauffner (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how VegitaU is posing as an admin at all. He issued two warnings which at the surface may appear legitimate. Discuss the warnings with VegitaU. Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
So if you don't agree with a comment on a talk page, the proper response is to delete it and then put an unsigned warning with a templete stating that the user will be blocked if he continues to post? I guess you learn something new everyday. I'll have to try it myself sometime. Yes, I have already warned VegitaU to stop vandalizing the page. Kauffner (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
No, not at all. However, where arbitration has decided that "disruptive information or comments related to the promotion of conspiracy theories to the September 11, 2001 attacks" should not be promoted here, you will be blocked if you try such. I'll be glad to help there if necessary. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing in the decision about conspiracy theories. You're quoting from a templete that VegitaU wrote. He wasn't even an arbitrator. Here is the relevant part of the decision:
Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Kauffner (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The entire arbitration is about conspiracy theories. Perhaps you should read it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
That's not the same as banning them, is it? VegitaU is making up rules as he goes along and you seem to think I should follow them. He also claimed he removed my comment because it continued a closed discussion--another bogus rule. A rule banning conspiracy theories would make no sense anyway. Everyone would start accusing each other of promoting conspiracy theories. I write what the best of my knowledge is the truth. I can't help it if you think its a conspiracy theory. Kauffner (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI ANI

There's an ANI thread about you here. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

I saw you warned Angelo De La Paz (talk · contribs) that he was close to violating 3RR on Matilda Mecini... but the WP:3RR policy clearly states that reverting the "addition of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons" does not count towards 3RR. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What I saw was removal of peacock terms, saying she looked like Marilyn Monroe. I tend to agree with the Angelo's actions, so I didn't block him/her as I did the person he/she was reverting. Am I missing something? Not trying to be confrontational, honest question. Toddst1 (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
You didn't block him, but you did warn him he was potentially violating the rule [1]. Cheers. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 08:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess this does fall under that exception for biased. I shall remove my warning. Thanks for pointing it out. Toddst1 (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Article PikKirby deleted?

PikKirby (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC) I know the uprising level of useless articles about just themselves or just useless in total, but PikKirby, an group name for my claymation group my school last year was really important to people in my school and to all my freinds. I wish that I can keep this article so that my freinds, family and others can see what we did during that time at school. Thanks :)

(new at wikipedia.. ) --PikKirby (talk) 10:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

MainBody

I listed it, it would appear twinkle messed up. It appears not to be there anymore. I am relisting it. Thanks for the note!  Asenine  13:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

White men marches on

Why have you deleted this article? I know it's a racist song but it quite famous song sang for white supramecist groups. I think that the song is enough important to be on wikipedia. Thanks, Gabriel Vidal Álvarez (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean White man marches on. You are correct - that was a bad nomination for speedy deletion. I should have declined it as it asserted notability. I have restored the article. It may be deleted in the future for other reasons. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tanthalas39 2

You made added a comment to your opposition stance in this RfA. The syntax you used messed up the numbering/tallying scheme. I fixed the typo, but it is unclear to me whether you were striking out your opposition, or clarifying it. If my edit is wrong, please make the appropriate fix. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The fix is fine. I may change my position, but I wanted to get that diff out there either way because I don't want it to seem like I have a vendetta or anything. I wasn't even wikistalking him when I found that edit - I came across that edit from ANI. I'm still thinking about whether to change my endorsement. Toddst1 (talk) 18:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Teenvideogamenerd

[2]

Wasn't actually vandalism, but spamvertisement. A block might be in order, but it shouldn't say he was vandalizing, because I don't think he was. In any case, I've temporarily salted the page.

Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 19:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

You are correct - I have changed the block and and notification message. Thanks for pointing that out. Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted because article is perceived to be advertisement, copyright infringement or both?

I'd like to know why the article I created this morning is being sent for "speedy deletion?"

The firm I'm writing about (Kiesel Boucher Larson) just last summer settled one of the larger Clergy Abuse cases in the country ($660 million alone from LA County) totaling over $1 billion.

They're also getting involved with Ed McMahon and his foreclosure situation, along with a number of high profile cases. I see that other prominent attorneys are listed on Wikipedia. Do I need to create individual Wikipedia pages for each attorney, in order to comply with this site's rules?

I'm just wondering. Also, I am self-employed and writing about the firm as Paul Kiesel is a friend of mine and I thought his acheivements and his firm's were worth noting, particularly surrounding cases with mass appeal.

I can clean up the biographical information. I used most of that from their website.

Please let me know.

Ben Lingle kbl8648 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbl8648 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Both copyvio and advertising. No, you don't need (and probably shouldn't) create individual pages for each attorney. You should, however, read the following before proceeding:
and since you're likely to run in to these too:
Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


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

LOL

haha! this just really struck me!

Oh, man. This is the only way to describe my reaction. J.delanoygabsadds 01:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Vegaswikian1

Thanks for the heads up. It is me. I decided that I did not want to use my admin account while on open networks. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User 38.116.202.170

Hi, Can you block the above again for continued vandalism to the "German Battleship Bismarck" page even after a recent barring you imposed? Thanks, bigpad (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)