User talk:Toddst1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is Toddst1's talk page, where you can send messages and comments to Toddst1.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Contents


[edit] Delection of StylePointer.com and the Hong Kong comment

I am new to wikipedia so I am confused about some of your comments. It will be great if you give more clarification.

  1. I found the wiki page of my some of my competitors (e.g. theFind.com). What is the difference between theFind.com and StylePointer.com pages then? Is it because that you believe theFind.com page is created by non-theFind.com staff? please clarify.
  1. On Dicover Shopping article, I truely think that my addition is not promotional but it adds value to the quality of the article and is relevant. Why did you delete it then?
  1. in Hong Kong page, a lot of comments written there were not sourced and are kind of subjective. For example, under the culture section, it says that "A number of Hong Kong filmmakers have also achieved widespread fame in Hollywood, such as John Woo, Wong Kar-wai and Tsui Hark". What is the difference between this and my addition? Btw, Andy Lau, Tony Leung and Alan Tam are really the most popular stars and singers there.

Please kindly give me some hints.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vivianwonglee (talk • contribs) 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] User:Teenvideogamenerd

[1]

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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] Jack Graham Page

Hi Todd. I'd like to ask that you remove the 3 week extension of the block on the Jack Graham (pastor) page. The user who asked for this block has been a disruptive editor, challenging and deleting anything on the Prestonwood Baptist Church or Jack Graham (Pastor) page that has the smallest negative impact on the church or it's pastor, no matter how true, sourced, and notable. Essentially, I believe that he and a couple of other editors (I suspect sock puppeting, but don't have any real evidence) are using Wiki as a PR machine for their church and it's pastor. The page was suspended from editing on it a few weeks ago with unsourced and untrue information on it that this user placed there. I saw what was happening (I wasn't involved at that time) and decided to just let it stay for a couple of weeks and then to see if I could reason with this guy on the discussion board. I suspect that he asked for the extension to keep his false information on the page, and any true, notable, and source information off the page which may not be positive. He's starting to learn how to use wiki admins to get what he wants. Will you please reverse your extension? If things get to heated and vandalism starts, etc. you can always protect the page then. However, for now, now one is making threats of vandalism or destruction on that page and I think that continuing to keep the block is just telling new editors to "go away" rather than giving them a chance to learn and contribute.

I'd also like to ask that, if you should decide to keep the block, that you first correct the information that is there. Specifically, I'm referring to this:

"Dr. Graham also falls in line with the 90% of Southern Baptist pastors who do not consider themselves Five-Point Calvinists. [6] On the subject of five-point Calvinism, he was quoted in The Baptist Standard in 2003 saying "he would not want to see Southern Baptists embrace an elitist doctrine or to minimize the importance of evangelism, which are common criticisms of five-point Calvinism."[7]"

The sourced article doesn't say that 90% of Southern Baptist pastors do not consider themselves Five-Point Calvinist, and the article says "which are common criticisms of five-point Calvinism" Dr. Graham did not say that part, and this makes it look like he did. It says that they polled a small group of SBC pastors and that 90% of them were not 5-Point Calvinist. Can you change the paragraph to this:

Dr. Graham is critical of Five-Point Calvinism. In 2003, Dr. Graham told The Baptist Standard that he would not want to see Southern Baptists embrace "an elitist doctrine" or to minimize the importance of evangelism. Romans9:11 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You mean I protected the m:The Wrong Version? Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As I asked you yesterday, Todd, it is pretty obvious that there will be another edit war on this page if it is unlocked so I would still ask that the lock continue for the time you set forth yesterday. As you can see in the log of this page in question there were several editors trying to make this page a Calvinist debate for some reason even though this covers about .05% of Pastor Graham's preachings and he doesn't even mention this issue on the beliefs page on his ministry website. The only source for this statement was a quote 5 years ago that puts him in agreement with 90% of Southern Baptist Pastors according to a survey produced so either both sources need to be there or none as far as i'm concerned. No one is trying to make this a "PR page" or remove "negative" information but I do wish for this and every other article to be correct and not misleading.Johnb316 (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That was my point. It's always the wrong version and folks are waiting to fix it. Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I hear ya...thanks ToddJohnb316 (talk) 20:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So are you just going to blow off any request to correct poorly sourced material on locked pages because there is always another party who disagrees? I mean, The Wrong Version was funny, and I can see how it's a constant problem, but there's still poorly sourced information on a Bio page that your lock is keeping on this. Remember, I BLEW OFF the first lock leaving this information on this, but Johnb316 is just using you guys to keep his info in place. If you'll review the history you'll see that Johnb316 is one the disruptive people that caused the lock in the first place. You'll also notice that he has not contributions to Wiki - just reverts and complaints. Again, you can always lock the page if a edit war starts, but as you've said before, there's no crystal ball. There will always be some chance that an edit war will happen on any page. If the likelihood of an edit war was good reason to lock a page, pages such as the Abortion page would always be locked. If you feel that vandalism is an imminent threat to the page, then semi-protect the page. I noticed that you did not lock the Prestonwood Baptist page, where vandalism and edit warring did happen - it was semi-protected. Anyway, I'm respectfully asking once again for your assistance in this matter.Romans9:11 (talk) 13:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hey.

You sure have made/worked on a lot of pages.76.189.13.127 (talk) 20:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Warning regarding user

Toddst, with all due respect, I highly disagree with your accusation that my comments regarding the user you referred to were without basis. I think that if you'll review his actions you'll find that he is very disruptive, and only causes problems, instead of contributing anything to Wiki (he's made no contributions). However, out of respect of your position, and to not appear as a troublemaker myself, I'll refrain from calling him disruptive. I will, however, use proper wiki channels to report disruptive behavior.Romans9:11 (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] need help

Hi Toddst1 - I need your help with a situation; wasn't sure if it is purely vandalism so I am coming to you instead of WP:AIV. This User:59.91.210.225 removed information, stating it was "irrelevant" - I gave reasons as to why the removal was unjustified - [2]. This individual has responded with personal attacks (in Hindi, btw) and vandalism - [3], [4], [5]. What shall I do? Vishnava talk 00:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Another attack - [6]. I've warned the user several times. Vishnava talk 00:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)