User talk:Toddst1/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page, Toddst1/Archive 1 contains archived talk page discussions for Toddst1 (talk).
Please do not edit this page.

This editor was formerly known as Toddstreat1.


Welcome Toddst1!

Hello Toddst1 and Welcome to Wikipedia!!!.

Thank you for showing interest in editing the free encyclopedia, and your contributions. If you would like some help getting started, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Toddst1 20:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see how to get started for more information on editing wikipeida :)

Native American tribes in film

Native American tribes are very rarely featured in U.S. films, despite the fact that they have lived in North America for more than 11 thousand years. Thus, when documentaries or Hollywood films focus on a tribe, we generally include this in the individual tribe's article. Badagnani 20:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Barnabas Church

Hi, Thanks for allowing me to add pics to your excellent articles. I have enjoyed your contributions and appreciate the fact that I can add to them in a small way. It would be my pleasure to take some photos of St Barnabas Church. Right now I am traveling but will be back in Washington in a few days and so will head out there sometime in the next week. Best regards, John Quarterczar 16:29, 29 September 2007

Hi, I've added pics to the three articles you told me about. For St. Barnabas, I added a gallery becuase I had three pics I thought were interesting. Its alright with me if you want to move them or reposition them. I'm only glad I could help out. BTW Maybe you could help me with an article for Oden Bowie. I've tried four times to put together a memorial page to him at findagrave.com but the powers that be on that site kep telling me it isn't good enough (i.e. not long enough, not detailed enough, etc.) -- John Quarterczar 11:16, 2 October 2007

{{unreferenced}}

{{Unreferenced}} should be used only on articles that have no sources (references or external links). The {{Refimprove}} template is appropriate for articles with some sources but not enough. {{Unreferencedsect}} , {{Primarysources}}, or {{Citations}} may also work well for your purposes. Thanks--BirgitteSB 15:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, if you know enough to see that something is unreferenced, it would be nice if you provided some of the references yourself.Tedickey 23:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I have spent enough time referencing articles to know which topics I can find a references on and which ones I cannot. I imagine everyone has similar issues, unless they happen to be sitting in a university library. At least this editor leaves messages for the creators [1]. That is better than most. If anyone means to add references, they should jump into the backlog at Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles rather than search through new pages. But if someone means to do some New Page Patrolling, they should feel good about adding the appropriate tags. You have to focus on the task you mean to do. I discovered an editor with a history of copyright violations in my referencing task, but I did not give up on my referencing and go through the editor's contribs with a fine tooth comb. Instead I left him a note asking him to clean up his mistakes from his early days and continued on. Hopefully when I check back in on him he will have done so. One person can't fix everything they come across.--BirgitteSB 00:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oden Bowie

That's right, I was referring to governor Oden Bowie.  :) Here is a link to the page I created:

http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=bowie&GSfn=oden&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=20993283&

I hope it is OK to be talking about this page on wikipedia. Let me know if not. Thanks!

Thanks

Thanks for the help, I'm new to this and that is a great feature to use. Hopefully I can create some good pages and edits. Thecinderellastory 15:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Michigan revert

Hello! I noticed this revert which you made to Michigan. While it was a good revert (the same information appears in the article lead, and adding trivia is generally bad), it was not nonsense. Michiganders actually do use their hands for to indicate locations in both peninsulas. Just thought I'd let you know! :) -- dcclark (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

I've reverted this edit - since the user in question is not blocked (although if he continues uploading inappropriate pages, I agree he will be), and you have no power to block him, please don't issue misleading warnings. — iridescent (talk to me!) 23:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - Wasn't clear about that - I checked the template doc page and it didn't say you had to be an administrator, although I thought I read that somewhere. Toddst1 23:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbschmidt

Why do you think the article is a hoax? The article itself mentions that he may not be real so where is the hoax in it?--E tac 23:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone pretending to be a person (but maybe not) sounds like a hoax to me. I guess it's in the context. From Yahoo reference:
hoax   
1 An act intended to deceive or trick. 
2 Something that has been established or accepted by fraudulent means.
Call it what you want. It doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. I have no skin in the game. 8-) I've updated the AFD page as well Toddst1 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an article about a potential hoax, with local notability, which apparently is ok for WP. Toddst1 01:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carl Gerbschmidt

Hi Todd. Saw your AfD nomination here. A hoax would be an article that is not based in reality; The article asserts that its subject may be fictional (and based on what I see on Google, probably is). Therefore, it's a little like a double-negative. Want to see some good old fashioned hoaxery? Anyway... Google/Yahoo are always good friends in sniffing out hoaxes. Happy editing. Into The Fray T/C 23:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK OK, nobody likes the word hoax. See above. 8-) Toddst1 00:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

Domthedude001 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Nice work with the CSDs! -Domthedude001 02:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 8-)Toddst1 16:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Lehmann

I rewrote the article, with seven refs. Does this pass muster now? Zagalejo^^^ 04:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound Lounge

A nationally syndicated radio show in a country of 31 million people is notable by definition. Bearcat 07:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe as an administrator, you could provide sources or references that appear in reliable, third-party publications. Alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article. Right now, it's just your OR, written into wikipedia. Toddst1 07:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOR refers to the promulgation of theories that aren't suitably referenced; it does not apply to a simple summation of neutral facts about a topic, such as what radio stations a show airs on. Bearcat 08:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L.A.S.A.

I've removed your {{db-repost}} tag from this article. G4 covers material that has been deleted as a result of consensus at XfD and specifically does not cover reposted speedy-deleted material. — iridescent 17:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for pointing that out. What's the best way to handle a recreation of a speedily deleted article? This one was NN. Toddst1 17:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it's the same article, it will generally be deletable for the same reason as before (you can see the previous reason in the deletion log), so in this case it would potentially be {{db-group}}. In my experience, it's generally good practice to give it a while before you tag it, as quite often reposting means someone's continuing to work on it — iridescent 17:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Lodge of New York copy vio

I think you are correct that the text was originally just copied from the Grand Lodge's website, ... but it has been substantially edited since it was first posted... I can do more re-writing if needed, to make it even more different (and thus no longer a copy vio.) Please remove the tag. Blueboar 17:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I'm allowed to do that. The template says:
Do not edit this page until an administrator has resolved this issue.
I think you're supposed to provide the rewrite that way. If I'm wrong, please point me to the page that says I can remove a {{copyvio}} template if I was the one who added it.

Toddst1 17:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the tag - I see no resemblance between the two other than them being on the same subject. (Incidentally, be aware that under certain circumstances even a word-for-word reposting doesn't qualify as a copyvio.) — iridescent 17:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. I see two paragraphs that are verbatim. Are we looking at the same page? Toddst1 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see the first five sentences as virtually identical; however, since these are "it was founded in... by..." pure factual information, I can't see any way they could be substantially rewritten. The remainder of the section in question doesn't seem to bear any resemblance at all to the alleged copyvio. — iridescent 17:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're on the same page now (pun intended). Thanks. Toddst1 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I will continue to work on the page to make it even less of a copy. Thanks for being patient. Blueboar 18:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Todd McEwen

Why deleted?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousehead (talk • contribs) 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP with unsourced facts about his personal life and poorly sourced overall. Glad to help you work it up if you want. It looks like you got Lucy Ellmann into shape. Its probably worth starting with Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Citation_templates. Another good idea would be to develop your articles in a user subpage of your own and when it's in good shape, copy it in to the main space. Toddst1 22:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poorly sourced isn't a reason for tagging something for speedy deletion, unless it's negative in tone, which this certainly isn't. You should use AfD or PROD if you think an article is too poorly sourced or fails WP:BIO. WP:CSD#A7 is for articles which don't offer any hint of notability whatsoever, like "John Doe is a student at Smalltown High School. He likes The Simpsons, and would like to be an astronaut one day". Please don't use it for published authors who write for notable magazines - the article as it stood clearly asserted notability. Best, Iain99Balderdash and piffle 23:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Not English Content on the Phitsanulok page

Please bear with me. I'm trying to put all of the data up for the Thai tambons and then batch translate them to English. There are several hundred of these tambon sites I'm doing at once. It's much easier to do it like that than to translate one by one. An example of one that's already in English because I did it that way (before I realized the project would take for ever if done one-by-one) is Nakhon Pa Mak. They will be in English, and they will have much more content. An example of one of my near-complete geo-cites is Phitsanulok Province. I'm trying to get the whole province up as quickly as possible. If there's a better way to mass-start several hundred sites on a template for a wiki-project, my ears are open. Thanks.Kevin Borland, Esq. 18:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC) By the way, in case you wanted to know the names of the villages in that tambon, I went ahead and transcribed that particular page for you. (I didn't do full translation yet, or add detailed content; I'll put in etymologies and stuff like that later).Kevin Borland, Esq. 18:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Franksbnetwork (this talk relocated from elsewhere in the page by Toddst1)

sorry im a newbie Thanks for the help --Franksbnetwork 13:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou also for helping me, im also new and it was good to know what you can and can't do.
--Franksbnetwork 13:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the quick reconsideration on Daphne, appreciated.--Alf melmac 14:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your NPWatcher application

Dear Toddst1,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

SQL(Query Me!) 07:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been checking it out. It's slower than Twinkle, but in some ways much nicer. Still evaluating. Cheers! Toddst1 00:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help!

Hi Toddst1,

Thanks a lot for the helping hand in keeping that Acmar Group nonsense in check. I may have Twinkle as my sidearm, but nothing beats some good ol' fashioned backup =)

Just wish I'd thought to report them for username violation before it escalated.... --jonny-mt(t)(c) 14:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me how it should be improved

Hi! I recently created a page for Paul Adam (English novelist), I did it by researching the info that's available on the Internet, as well as reading several book covers that include a mini-bio. I'm not sure how this info should be worded.

Can you tell me how to improve it, so that the signs you placed at the top of the page can be removed?

Thanks.

Margamanterola 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. I replied on User talk:Margamanterola. Thanks! Toddst1 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joie Davidow

Hey! I removed your PROD of Joie Davidow because I believe I was able to address your concerns. So I just want to make sure you agree that the concerns have been addressed. Cheers! --Mark (Mschel) 19:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work!! Toddst1 19:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Talented Tenth, Inc.

I am the administrator for http://www.shsu.edu/~org_tt. I am trying to add the page to wikipedia but am running into errors. what do i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datboyjeff (talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#For_text. It has all the info you need. Be sure you understand the rights to the text that you will be giving up. Then, you'll be granted an ORTS ticket and can post the material verbatim. Thanks for asking!! Toddst1 00:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

I am confused as to why this was vandalism I was in the process of writing a page and only the first paragraph was posted as I meant to preview what I had so father but published it by accident long before the article was finished. It was then put up for speedy deletion so i contested the by inserting ((hang on)). I went to write my explanation and when I came back my ((hangon)) messege was gone so i reposted it and you accused my of vandalism, which I don't understand as I am the author of the page and was only trying to contest its deletion.

Thanks, Please Respond. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nheeter (talk • contribs) 01:44, 25 October 2007
The preceeding question was moved here by User:Toddst1 because it was left on my User Page.

Creating an article with nothing but {{hangon}} is clearly vandalism, and bait for speedy deletion. Addding a {{hangon}} template to an empty article tagged with a speedy deletion template is also vandalism.
BTW, please don't create user pages for other folks like you did to mine - that's what talk pages are for. Toddst1 04:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article Deleted: eClerx

Hi Todd, I am the author of the eClerx article. By the time I could put up the hangon tag, the page was (very speedily indeed :) deleted. I am trying to inititate dialog with the two users who put the page up for deletion. Meanwhile, I will try to create the page all over again. Please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Eclerx and let me know if there are still any reasons why I should not put this article on Wikipedia. Nshuks7 08:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. If I remember correctly, I don't think there was anything in the article other than "eClerx is a company that... " without citing any WP:Reliable Sources. Unless you assert that there is something WP:Notable, vandal patrollers like me will probably tag articles describing a company for deletion. There are a lot of WP:Spam articles that get created every day.

If the issue is not having time to complete the article, here's what I suggest to everyone who is working on a new article: Create new articles in a personal subpage rather than the mainspace. This way you can save, preview, edit and pretty much do whatever you want to get the article in shape. Then when it's ready, open the article in the mainspace and copy/paste it in from your personal subpage. See Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_create_a_user_subpage.3F. Then, if anything happens, like your article gets deleted, you'll have a copy in your subpage to start improving it from.

I spent a fair amount of time doing vandal patrol yesterday and tagged over a hundred articles so I apologize if I didn't remember all the details. Hope this helps. Toddst1 11:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Todd. I have inserted some sources now and tried to keep it as factual as possible. I would appreciate it if instead of deleting it, you could help me bring the article to an acceptable form. I will continue developing content, citing sources and so on. Cheers.Nshuks7 12:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good start. Unfortunately, the one reference isn't considered reliable as eClerx was the source for the finextra article. If you're actively editing the article and adding sources, consider placing the {{inuse}} tag in the article until you get some secondary sources in there. Happy editing Toddst1 12:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions once again. I have added two references and corrected some language. Let me know if there are further changes required before the article can be UNmarked for deletion. It's kind of uncomfortable having a judgement like that hanging mid-air while you edit :-) Nshuks7 12:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Needs Citation Tag

Toddstrea1, I have cleaned and added all the references to my Group_development article. I also removed the tags you had put on it. Is that ok? Can you take a look? Thanks! Jsarmi 22:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC) P.S. Btw, how can I request somebody to review the content and give feedback or does that just happen organically as people get interested in the content?[reply]

That looks much improved! Nice job. Regarding the second question, that pretty much just happens. The article will evolve on its own from here. Good luck and happy editing! Toddst1 23:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Can I suggest that if you're not going to have a user page, you set it up to redirect to your talk page (just create a page with #REDIRECT [[User talk:Toddst1]] as the only text). At the moment, we've had to delete it five times so far due to people mistakenly leaving messages on it. — iridescent 23:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Several of them weren't accidental, rather I blanked it and db'ed it after vandalization. Thanks. Toddst1 00:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse

Oda Mari told me he made a mistake by calling my edits vandalism Kevin j 19:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]

agreed and reverted Toddst1 19:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why the tag?

Why, dear Todd, did you tag my recently created article on Sensory Sweep for speedy deletion?Umzingeli 19:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Sensory Sweep Studios. I've changed the {{db-corp}}/{{hangon}} to {{Notability}}{{singlesource}}{{primarysources}}. Toddst1 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better?Umzingeli 20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few more sources from online gaming review sites, so hopefully everything is sitting pretty now.  :)Umzingeli 20:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


What the??

I created the Bianyifang article and haven't even gotten a chance to put the contents in. And you are flagging it for deletion. Benjwong 21:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being an old restaurant doesn't make a company notable. It was tagged for deletion because it didn't appear notable.
If the issue is not having time to complete the article, here's what I suggest to everyone who is working on a new article: Create new articles in a personal subpage rather than the mainspace. This way you can save, preview, edit and pretty much do whatever you want to get the article in shape. Then when it's ready, open the article in the mainspace and copy/paste it in from your personal subpage. See Wikipedia:User_page#How_do_I_create_a_user_subpage.3F. Otherwise, if it's in mainspace, it will come under scrutiny and modification of others, potentially, deletion. Hope this helps. Toddst1 21:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas-Mary Delest

I don't know if you can read French, but this article was about a child who was born and died today. You were of course correct to tag it for speedy deletion, and I have deleted it, but I must say that this one of the hardest experiences I have had on Wikipedia. Dsmdgold 23:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand any French (some Spanish, German and Italian), and I really appreciate your note. I just left a note from the author as well. Toddst1 16:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion

Hi Toddst1, this page Garden_Networks was marked as speedy deletion. This was because i was still editing the page. Thanks for the tip above. I wasn't aware of this trick when I first created the page. Due to lack of experience, I copied and pasted and that override your speedy deletion tab. But still put on the hangon tag at the top of page to acknolwdge the speed deletion tag. I hope I didn't cause too much problems by overriding the original tag. I'd like to improve the page to meet the standard. Now my question is, if it's an issue (overriding the speedy deletion tag and not meeting some requirements) what am I supposed to do to fix them? Is it OK for me to remove the hangon tag?

I took care of it. Cheers. Toddst1 16:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfairipedia

I think it was unfair that you are going to kick me out of here if I "vandalize" this site. I don't get how adding a tag I was allowed to add and TOLD I COULD TO A CERTAIN PAGE is vandalism.

Landhermie 02:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on User talk:Landhermie to be sure he/she'd see it. Toddst1 16:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stage Gate Process

Hi Toddst1

I enlist your help in making Stage Gate Process so it adheres to your guidelines and policies. This is a process used in over 80% of companies in new product development. It is not blatant adverting...it talks about the process not the company.

````Sunil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunil Bechar (talk • contribs) 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have posted that article a couple of times, violating copyright and posting promotional material which is not good. Please stop doing both of those behaviors. I would start with writing original text and citing WP:Reliable Sources. Better yet, take Ronz's comments on your talk page to heart and avoid posting in areas where you have a Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest or do so with extreme care. Good luck. Toddst1 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Joyner

I have a question about why the article is up for deletion. I found out as many facts as I could about Joseph Joyner to make the Wikipedia article thorough. I understand that there is many outside references, but that was to show validity to the site. Not only does Joseph star in one movie, but he also competes in Poker tournaments and is currently in medical school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvferr (talk • contribs) 02:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think he meets Wikipedia's criteria for notable people. Rather than let me be the judge, I asked my peers at wikipedia to weigh in. Feel free to fix the article and/or persuade the community on the issue through the article's "Articles for Deletion" page. I suggest you voice your opinion there either way. Good luck and whatever you do, don't take this personally. Toddst1 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey we are college students doing a research project, and we everything that we are typing is true. You can delete this after we have presented this at 11 am tomorrow, for now just let it go. We are not anti-Disney, I love the Lion King. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Disneykids (talk • contribs) 03:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patuxent River

"removed incorrect stmt" appears to apply to "British launched their attack on Washington, D.C., from their boats along the Patuxent at Benedict 22 miles (35 km) from the Chesapeake, Nottingham". What's the correct statement to add in its place? Tedickey 10:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, Yes, unfortunately. The source I was looking at stated
"Within several days of the flotilla's destruction, Washington, D.C. was in ruins. When the British withdrew from the Patuxent, the flotilla remains became the target of significant scavenging".
The author didn't mention the actual landing. On the previous page he mentioned that the Americans were concerned about the possibility of it. Since you pointed this out, I did some further checking, and that seems to be a pretty big omission from the account of the skirmish, and that the fact was indeed true. I've restored the statement and added a citation. Thanks for pointing this out. Toddst1 17:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HCA: Hermit Crab Association

The HCA: Hermit Crab Association was founded in March 2001 as a place for owners of land hermit crabs to get together and exchange information, and ultimately raise the awareness of the needs of land hermit crabs in captivity. On November 21, 2006 the name HCA: Hermit Crab Association was registered as a trademark (tm serial no. 78783774)

Recently a member of the HCA attempted to create a Wikipedia article about our organization, to detail its history, but Toddst1 told our member that the entry was considered vandalism (!!!) and the article was marked for speedy deletion.

We are hoping this was not done maliciously. The HCA: Hermit Crab Association has had to endure unfortunate attacks by disgruntled members in the past. This problem has died down a bit but we suspect there may still be some animosity on their part.

Thank you for your time.

Crab Diva 18:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at User_talk:Landhermie and Special:Contributions/Landhermie. Landhermie is a serial vandal with numerous warnings. He She created a new (empty if I remember correctly) article with the {{hangon}} tag upon creation which is vandalism. I have addressed this on His/her talk page. Any questions?
Good luck with your crabs. Toddst1 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters but Landhermie is actually a teenage girl. She's been a member at our site for going on three years now, so we know her well. She generally leaps before she looks, so to speak, but is harmless.

One thing I am concerned about. If the HCA: Hermit Crab Association were to get its members together to write an article detailing our founding, our mission and history, our annual conventions and unique form of government, would that article be considered advertising? I've looked at the 5 Pillars and the other rules about self promotion but there are gray areas that I am not clear on. Also what could we do to prevent our former disgruntled members from engaging us in an edit war? We really don't want to cram our trademark down their throats and get nasty with them. Thank you again. Crab Diva 19:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out my pronoun bias. I've fixed it above. (best of intentions).
I would ensure that your article has sufficient citations from WP:Reliable Sources when it is posted in the Mainspace. Toddst1 19:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Subliminal Messages

I believe you are unfairly removing content from this page. Snopes may be a rumor page, but their coverage on Disney is documented. Besides, if you would leave the content alone long enough, others would be able to add the citations that are lacking. There are credible sources out there that do state this information. Please stop removing content. This page is fairly new and deserves a chance to be developed. Stop tagging my edits as vandalism. I believe yours are doing far more damage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nilast (talk • contribs) 21:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the {{POV-check}} tag back to the article. It was very biased against the company when written and I have no affiliation or particular affinity for Disney.
Regarding vandalism, reverting others' edits without explanation fits the bill. I've asked for comments on the talk page. Please use it. Toddst1 21:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, Sometimes we need to be tolerant that not everyone is as correct as yourself. Somnabot 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I've placed a {{POV-check}} tag on the page - so that it's flagged for others to notice and so others will get involved. Please do. Toddst1 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho Baron

I have responded to your accusation, and would like to know what you have to add. Thanks, Somnabot 23:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the page - I just asked Somnabot to capitalize the "B" in Baron in the title (could not figure out the rename function), and he saw the copyright violation that was posted. Actually, the information on the TSOS site was written by Ho and I, not by the TSOS. I have responded in more detail on the Talk Ho Baron page. Sorry for the bother. Hobaron 03:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not big deal folks. Hobaron, you're a new guy - we're used to helping newbies through issues like this. Here's what you need to do:
Check out Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#For_text. It has all the info you need. Be sure you understand the rights to the text that you will be giving up. Then, you'll be granted an ORTS ticket and can post the material verbatim. We do this all the time.
It's more of an issue when experienced editors knowingly violate copyrights - even their own. There's no two ways on that. Toddst1 15:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What I feel is more of an issue, not only in this example, but also on a macro level, are the actions that some editors with the best intentions tend to take blind to understanding or reason. This isn't some kind of meandering personal attack. I understand that you felt there was a copy violation, however, you never did anything other than point your finger in a generally offensive manner. I really hope you didn't scare this new Wikipedian away; they have a plethora of time and talent that they are willing to share with this community. Come on, this is Wikipedia. Always be polite. Always assume good faith, and above all, always be welcoming. Oh, and no personal attacks, man. Somnabot 16:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I invite everyone to see what Somnabot thinks is a personal attack is: Take a look at what I wrote here. Toddst1 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Todd. I simply rewrote the thing this afternoon. Think I successfully added the image copyright tag, too. Still learning.Hobaron 18:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Angel Moxie

Hi there. I added {{hangon}} to Angel Moxie after discovering that there was an extensive edit history for a previous version of that article, which did not at any time include a CSD tag. It appears that an admin deleted that article without review back in January. I haven't had a chance to investigate other articles that User:Frank Lofaro Jr. has been re-creating yet, though I did find one with no delete history. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. That makes sense. Cheers. Toddst1 18:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On further review, Altermeta also has the same problem, though its content was far more lacking. But it appears that someone just went and deleted the articles per A7 without there being a CSD review, PROD or AfD. These articles should be recreated and tagged appropriately. I'll restore them so they can be handled properly. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 18:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. The current recreations are a bit ... anemic.8-) I've struck my comments on User talk:Frank Lofaro Jr. accordingly. Cheers. Toddst1 18:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page, Toddst1/Archive 1 contains archived talk page discussions for Toddst1 (talk) November 2007.


Dorothy Morrison

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

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

eClerx Deletion

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

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Ulrich

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

Jozef Baker and User:Buneeboi

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

Message

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

entrepreneurs of tomorrow deleted article

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

Landhermie 23:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Friendly bug

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

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

User talk:Lydiauhlir

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

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

Baleet

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

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

All my recent changes

Hello Toddst1,

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

Please explain.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Story of a Noble Family

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

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

Re: Megadim (journal)

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

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

match.com

Hi Todd,

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

Kind Regards

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

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

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

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

esther muncaster

this is not a memorial

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

ManhattanGMAT

Toddst1,

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

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

Asami Edoh

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

Attack pages

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

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

Speedy Deletion

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

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

Tagging of ASIX Electronics

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

My Article Was Significant I Believe, Thank You Very Much

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

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

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

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

Faithfully,

Andrew Henderson

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

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

ICOF

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

Maleflixxx Television

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

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

Eric Delony

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

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


Speedy deletions too speedy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoai Anh Pham

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

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

Jack Clemmons

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

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

Haley Industries

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

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

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

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

Speedy deletion of Shitty bands

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

IAHGames and its hanlding of Hellgate London

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

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

You asked why I was editing 'another' users page

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

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

Regarding deletion of Nitish Mishra

Dear Toddst1

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

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

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

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

Regards

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

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

Problems editing Abdul Qadeer Khan

I'm trying to add the following:

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

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

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

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

Return to Abdul Qadeer Khan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfD nomination of Zavvi store locations

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


Speedy deletion warnning

Hi,

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

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

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

What is the possible reason for singling it out.

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

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

Cheers,

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

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

Speedy Deletion of The Steve Best Collection

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

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

Improper accusations

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

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

AfD nomination of Virgin Megastores store locations

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

Zachery Tims

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

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

Photo of Thomas Sim Lee

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

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

Dmitry Sitkovetsky

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

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


Erin Dolgan

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Rolf Solli

hi, I added 3 refs and removed the tag. Looks ok? Pundit|utter 15:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Thanks! Toddst1 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok, it seemed way too broad to be a top priority when I looked at it. Toddst1 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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[reply]

Thanks! Toddst1 21:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've removed the template. Nice article, BTW. Toddst1 (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great--thanks for your help!--Orygun (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Flag officers tend to be notable. Toddst1 (talk) 13:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

It seems like the references in the associated articles should be easy to use. Toddst1 (talk) 21:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Tagging Midnight Snack Break at the Poodle Factory

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Tagging an article for speedy deletion that was declined twice before is a silly thing to do, don't you think? Please do remember to check the history and remember that A9 also does not apply when the article has claims of significance even when the artist has no article. Regards SoWhy 06:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SS Pendleton

See WT:SHIPS#SS Pendleton - I messed the ping up, so making sure you are notified. Mjroots (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rehs Galleries Edits

I am not sure why you have decided to remove most of the content on the page, but a similar matter arose back in 2014 and was looked into by a number of higher-up editors. All the content was put back and the only thing requested was a notice at the bottom of the About Us page ... which was done and is still there. http://www.rehs.com/aboutus.html?contemporary=N "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts)."

I would ask that you please reconsider your edits to this page. All the best Howard L. Rehs (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There are no higher-up editors.
  2. You can't have both Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike and Copyright. Take your pick, then WP:OTRS is ->that way.
Toddst1 (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is what was requested by the previous editors to make it good: Unless otherwise noted on the specific page, all information and images displayed on this web site are the property of Rehs Galleries, Inc. and may not be reproduced in any manner or from without the express written permission of Rehs Galleries. Inc.

And the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike and Copyright is the 'otherwise noted'.

Also, why was the Scholarly Research section removed? There were plenty of references for all those projects:

  1. Julien Dupré: http://www.ifar.org/artist_book_detail_in_progress.php?id=50024&nameid=1351
  2. Daniel Ridgway Knight: http://www.ifar.org/artist_book_detail_in_progress.php?id=50033&nameid=1288
  3. Emile Munier: http://www.ifar.org/artist_book_detail_in_progress.php?id=50011&nameid=1436
  4. http://www.emilemunier.org/
  5. Antoine Blanchard: http://www.ifar.org/artist_book_detail_in_progress.php?id=50312&nameid=1751
  6. http://www.antoineblanchard.org/

Thanks! Howard L. Rehs (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTRS is ->that way for the copyright stuff.
I understand why you might want it in the article to promote your gallery. However, I don't know the imact of this research nor do I understand why It should be included in the article, other than to promote your gallery. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that the definitive research on a particular artist is not important? Or that you do not understand what a catalogue raisonne is? Howard L. Rehs (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying Wikipedia is not a place to promote your business. Now, per WP:PAYTALK, please stop hounding me on this. Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tramp (Lowell Fulson song)

Please explain how your deletion of the covers list dovetails with WP:COVERSONG. There was no discussion of any version in the deleted itesm. Tapered (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For TPSers, I believe Tapered is referring to Tramp (Lowell Fulson song) ‎. Let me see if I can explain:

"When a song has renditions (recorded or performed) by more than one artist, discussion of a particular artist's rendition should be included in the song's article (never in a separate article), but only if at least one of the following applies:

  • the rendition is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song,
  • the rendition itself meets the notability requirement at WP:NSONGS."
    — as stated verbatim in WP:COVERSONG
There was no indication that either of those criteria was met by any of the covers listed. Does that help? Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Toddst1 List ≠ discussion. Tapered (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's to discuss? Neither of those criteria apply to the deleted renditions. Disagree? WP:PROVEIT Toddst1 (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You removed songs from a LIST, and justify the action by referring to a policy about DISCUSSION. The was no discussion in the article of the covers that you removed. There is no policy, that I can find, prohibiting or circumscribing cover lists in a Song article. Your edit was a mistake. Tapered (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tapered: It is very possible I have made an error. Let me help us get to the bottom of this with a question: Which of those renditions is discussed by a reliable source on the subject of the song? Toddst1 (talk) 04:02, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Listed or discussed? If you wanted to delist them because there was no reference, I wouldn't have lifted a finger. I used a Wikipedia article to verify (for myself, not for editing) that Salt N Pepa did indeed cover the song. My guess is the others also did. Which means that BMI isn't doing very well by the estate of Lowell Fulson, because the last version they list is Johnny Winter with Roy Head, whereas other BMI material on the Salt N Pepa album was listed in their records. So tell me, if the deleted covers were listed in BMI's database, would those be list-ready? Tapered (talk) 04:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tapered: If there's a reliable source that discusses them, then they should be in the article. Just a database saying they were published isn't enough. Wikipedia articles are WP:Circular and not suitable. The whole point of COVERSONG is WP:GNG for renditions of songs. Toddst1 (talk) 04:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First, I know that the Wikipedia article isn't a reliable source, which you might just have inferred from description. The BMI song database lists performers of works in their catalog. I dare you to remove any information verified by the BMI database—same for ASCAP. Tapered (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just because they're in BMI's list or ASCAP, doesn't make them WP:Notable. BMI released a lot of non-notable stuff. ASCAP lists everything where royalties are due. I think you're missing the point of WP:COVERSONG but you shouldn't take my word for it. Perhaps you should raise this on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. This is how I've always interpreted it but I could be wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is a straw man—what I claimed is WP:RS. Both organizations exist to collect royalties. Tapered (talk) 05:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:N is not a straw man. It is a guideline. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability policy

Hi. I hope you are online.
Is there any essay which states "a good online presence does not mean notability"?

Also, your input on this issue will be appreciated a lot. Thanks :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 20:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernamekiran: I think WP:INVALIDBIO is as close as we get. I'm not sure how to handle the mobile issue. It seems like something that should go to WP:AN. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD courtesy blanking

Hi there. Re. this edit. I originally blanked the AfD back about 5 years ago in my capacity as an oversighter. A request came through requesting that it be deleted as some of the commentary was considered borderline defamatory and the article was appearing high in pageranks. Rather than delete/suppress, which definitely wouldn't fly, I opted to blank as a courtesy. The history, etc, would still clearly be there if needed. Anyways - that was the rationale. - Alison ❤ 06:45, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Alison:. It did seem a bit out of character.  :) Toddst1 (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) also @Alison: If you don't mind me saying- off the cuff, like- it doesn't seem to have been a particularly hi-octane discussion?! Not questioning your judgment, just wondering what I've missed. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it wasn't. But their take on it was that, given the original page had been deleted, all that was left was the horse-trading on the AfD and they felt that was really not okay. I was basically ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ so opted to blank in deference to them. Easily undone/redone as needed and a compromise vs. deletion which was definitely a no-no - Alison ❤ 19:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Hudson New Yorker

Hi there.

I noticed you had spoken on this talk page of the user User:The Hudson New Yorker. They have made further disruptive and unessacery edits on all five of the New York City Borough pages by changing the lead for no reason. With the possibility of them being a sock puppet of an account which already has a bad history, what should be done about this user? Thanks, WikiImprovment78 (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Harris

Hi User:Toddst1, can you add a bit to Calvin Harris please? How his musical influences are Jamiroquai and Fatboy Slim (he says here [2]) Because you'd phrase it properly and know which section it belongs in, hope you can help. :)--Theo Mandela (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feldenkrais page

dear Toddst1, You have written that my text is unsupported, but it isn't- I was quoting from the Brain's Way of Healing by Dr. Norman Doidge. Maybe you would like to read it, and then re-edit this article. It seems that whoever has written the page has a negative bias which is damaging the reputation of the Feldenkrais Method: the sources to which are pretty out of date, as has neuroscience advanced a lot since 2009. If I have cited things wrongly, my apologies, I am not an academic, but have tried to follow protocol as I read it on Wikipedia. Any advice would be gratefully received. Yours sincerely, FGUK1

@FGUK1: I encourage you to restore that material with references. Toddst1 (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply- I did add references. But will try to do it better when I have a little more time. Which bits in particular did you object to? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FGUK1 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • And do NOT just re-type in what is in the book. That would constitute a copyright violation. Also remain neutral in your writing. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Et tu Brute

In response to your information re COIs - please could you respond to the below comments?

Dear Toddst1, I have corrected a citation of myself BY SOMEONE ELSE, not added my own self-reference. The original citation: 1) had my name as "Kristy"; 2) referred to p.34 when that was the quotation number and it should have been pp.10-11; 3) was written in a way to suggest that it was my opinion that Brutus was Caesar's son (which is extremely erroneous).

Therefore by removing this entire section, you are removing someone else's section of work, which I was merely correcting as it was misquoting me and that was not acceptable.

Yours sincerely, Dr Kirsty Corrigan.

That's fine, but WP:EXCEPTIONAL still applies. Toddst1 (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how can the edit be requested through the proper channels, when the entire section has now been removed?

Also it is extremely concerning that anyone can write anything and misquote someone, but an expert cannot correct the errors - please explain how this can be possible?

Please note this is not my own theory, but is the well-known theory of all modern historians. Furthermore I did not cite myself, but was misquoted in this - the person who wrote the article was quoting the ancient historians' theory and attributing it to me incorrectly. How can I correct all of their errors? khc 18:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

It's removed now. I don't believe it belonged in there in the first place. Take it to the article talk page if you disagree, but there already seems to be consensus that my removal was appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 22:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Liberty Conservative as a source

I'm disappointed you reverted, but I invite you to contribute here. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grey's Anatomy (Season 14)

So even though the source linked shows a picture (of the actual script that the actual cast and crew read at the table read, which is EW's only source for the title) that lists the title as Break down the House, I'm supposed to leave the wrong title because Entertainment Weekly can't possibly have mistyped the title in the article text? Librarynerds (talk) 02:07, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Additionally, none of my edits to the page were me "protecting [my] preferred version of the page. They were, as I noted, me removing unsourced changes. Librarynerds (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I should have said "Stop the fucking edit warring." Toddst1 (talk) 06:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What edits are you thinking are edit warring? There are no edits I've done on the season 14 Grey's Anatomy page that I've done multiple times. The title thing was one. Someone also removed an actress. The names of two actors were inverted from credited order. Someone added unsourced guests a couple times. All the edits were different. How is that edit warring? Librarynerds (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[3], [4], [5] seem to fit the definition. Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three of those are different, none of them are sourced, and one of those edits wasn't even me. Librarynerds (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OneClickArchiver at DAYS

Hi Toddst1. I'm not sure why this happened, but I wanted to let you know that when you used OneClickArchiver at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Days of the year, it was archiving things to /Archive 1 when they should be going to /Archive 12. I went ahead and moved those threads to Archive 12. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 00:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: Facepalm Facepalm. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 13:42, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jeff King (consultant) for deletion

Could you offer further explanations as to why Jeff King (consultant) is unworthy of an entry? Many sources, campaign involvements, lineage, newsworthy and notable; all which are easily verifiable via the google machine. I thought that a post in your talk page would be appropriate because of your interest in the political arena and references cited.

Furthermore, there certainly does not seem to be any demonstrated desire for privacy; very much the opposite..

http://www.rollcall.com/news/hoh/baby-announcement-by-steve-king-gets-political --Wikipietime (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see my comments and question on your talk page? Toddst1 (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and thank you!

Just a quick heads up, I've restored this to Draft:Jeff King (consultant) after I closed the debate as debate (3x delete, 1x keep, all using policy arguments but just a straight disagreement on "enough sources"). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: Thanks for the heads up. No worries. Toddst1 (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Christian Page

Hi Todd,

Sorry about that, I just worked out what I did wrong!

your report

Why are you reporting me to the edit warring noticeboard? Clearly you are not familiar with this conversion. Please stop with this. LittleJerry (talk) 15:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Let the discussions continue and the edit wars stop. Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for speedy deletion of Martha'r Mynydd

Hi! I'm new to Wikipedia so this may simply be a lack of understanding, but could you please explain why you're deleting my article? It has three sources referenced as evidence of its legitimacy. It's a story told in Welsh schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEDupont (talk • contribs) 14:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it isn't something you made up, you should give it more context - like saying "Martha'r Mynydd is a legendary character from <adjective> folkore/mythology." As you wrote it, it looked like a sham. Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of new Katharine Gorka BLP on same day of creation.

I see that SPEEDY deletion was successful derived from a consensus of editors. Would you please move the deleted article and talk pages to Draft or sandbox space? There were significant new news events that would have further distinguished her notability and worthiness for this revised BLP article. What is the a procedure for formally contesting this deletion? This action, deletion, does not "sit" right with me and a wider consensus of editors is warranted, in my respectful opinion. --Wikipietime (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot restore or move the article. Toddst1 (talk) 12:35, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Toddst1, your edit to Wikipietime's talk page yesterday, plus this unhelpful response, is really rude. I can tell from their talk page the user has a habit of creating bad articles, but that doesn't mean they're all bad. Your attitude (along with your questionable interpretation of the discussion outcome) is downright terrible. I don't agree with the user's claims about censorship, but your actions (and other users on this topic) certainly don't help to dispel them.
To answer your question, @Wikipietime:, you can request a review here or request User:Metropolitan90 (the deleting admin) to move the article to your sandbox. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Argento Surfer: If you think either of these two edits ([6], [7]) were rude or otherwise unhelpful, I suggest you develop much thicker skin. Toddst1 (talk) 12:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think your response above was akin to a person asking for directions to a restaurant you had been to before, and you saying that you weren't hungry. Your statement at face value is true and accurate, but in no way helpful to the person asking the question. But hey, feel free to suggest I be the one to re-evaluate my behavior when I was the one expanding the article in question and providing the requested information. That's cool too. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your point is taken. I may have been more verbose if I had had my coffee before I replied. Toddst1 (talk) 13:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented" -Wiesel

As recipient of;

"... If you can't go along with this consensus, re-creating this article, you may be blocked from editing..."

I do interpret as a threat which bothers me none. Maybe I get it, due to you familiarity with my contributions, most lately the failed attempt to creat an article on Steve King's son Jeff King. That is why I would have wanted a broader consensus with a more objective history. --Wikipietime (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could interpret warnings about violating Wikipedia policy and the likely consequences of your actions if they continue as threats to be blocked. These "threats" are fully appropriate and in line with our policies, and you almost certainly will be blocked from editing if you ignore our policies.
However, your recent editing and posting of quotations smack of WP:BATTLE. Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion of the article should have stayed on the talk page of deleted article, not spread on multiple talks. Excuse me if you feel a personal attack; but in case you may not have noticed I am battling for inclusion into Wikipedia a BLP who has obtained stature deserving of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipietime (talk • contribs) 16:27, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but calling those that hold differing opinions from you "bullies" is personal. Toddst1 (talk) 18:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
was something about skin thickness that may have sparked the outrage. --Wikipietime (talk) 13:43, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That comment wasn't directed towards you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi -- I'm unclear why you made this change. It was better before. It was accurate before -- though the word currently is not needed. We don't say in Trump's article "he is president as of ..., using that template." Why do it here? Plus, it inserts the British date format. Improperly, for a US person, where we did not have the British date format before. 2604:2000:E016:A700:F9A5:6FB5:9D46:809F (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:ASOF? Toddst1 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First -- that does not explain why you would force a British date for a non-British, American person. Isn't that flat-out wrong?
Second -- It says "The "as of" technique is a method to deal with information that will date quickly." But we don't know that it will date "quickly." We know that it is an interim appointment, and that there is intent to have a full-time person (but the last full-time person in that position lasted only 10 days, so the title is not all-telling). People in interim positions can last for long periods of time. If there were a person replacing a President for example 10 days before the President's term ended, then we would know it would date quickly. We don't know that here, just because the appointment is "interim" in name. Given that the goal is to make sure people will update it in the future, I don't think there is much risk here that people will fail to do that here -- it is a very prominent article. I just don't see the real-world reason to use that. And the British date thing is awful, and simply wrong. 2604:2000:E016:A700:F9A5:6FB5:9D46:809F (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're kinda worked up over this trivial edit, huh? What's up with that? Toddst1 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "let's use British dates for an American in the White House" bit is somewhat open and shut in my mind. One rarely is able to comment on open and shut issues! Beyond that ... blame it on two cups of coffee? 2604:2000:E016:A700:B5FF:B936:D6B1:D1D2 (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of agree on the date thing, but WP:SOFIXIT applies. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Town

Thank you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. That was a mess! Your efforts there are appreciated as well. Toddst1 (talk) 14:08, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As is often the case, it's a mess again, with much of the same content, poorly sourced. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond

The wiki page was not put up by me. I do not understand why you have removed the page. I merely added some minor edits yesterday to make it accurate. It is now not accurate after your changes.

Category:Parents of criminals has been nominated for discussion

Category:Parents of criminals, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Opencooper (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dam article

Hes referring to the the reference article headlines not being accurate, I just checked with archive.org and a couple of the website have changed their headlines since I posted the original references.Pastorma (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

edit

Bt sir why remove my editing section of Sonu nigam?? I think my information was true Sonu123456789 (talk) 17:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared to be something you saw yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilizers

Hi Toddst1, Thank you for your message. I am one of the two principals of The Stabilizers and can confirm that the information in the wiki is currently correct - or close enough. I am the source for most of the other articles cited. This is why I removed the warning tag. If I've made an error, please advise. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentAudio (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll follow up on your talk page with some info about how you should be influencing this article and how you shouldn't. Toddst1 (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Todd, Thanks again. I have withdrawn the info that caused the COI and will limit contributions to the Talk page in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentAudio (talk • contribs) 20:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Arbcom statement

My apologies, they have a 500 word limit and I played with what I wanted to say for over an hour so some stuff that was there originally got removed, trimmed, condensed, etc. I've noted that in the statement; if you spot any other inaccuracies lemme know and I'll fix them as soon as I am able to. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thanks for tending to the COI editing on Jay Town the last few days! Marquardtika (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marquardtika:, so you prompted me to find a stroopwafel - I had never had one. Pretty tasty! Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intheclouds

I'm glad there's another set of eyes on the page. I think the three editors are coordinating or otherwise working together. (and one seems to be the founder) I had considered tagging it as A7 (and I'm not going to remove it) but at least some of the bands have articles which might mean this label has a credible claim of significance. I was considering starting an AfD. 331dot (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: It looks like a walled garden where the bands and the label reference each other for claims of importance/notability. There appear to be entire flocks of socks / WP:SPAs working on this. I've seen scenarios like this before. Toddst1 (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I will trust your good judgement then and keep the page on my watchlist. 331dot (talk) 21:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
According to CensorMe the record label is asking people to edit the page. Just FYI. 331dot (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It sure did smell like that. I've RPP-ed here. Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not me

Hey Todd, just to inform you in the context of your message. I have made no edits at LoginRadius page. Please do not assume that I am doing the changes. If I will make any changes, I will do it being logged it :) Thanks, Prince — Preceding unsigned comment added by Princekapoor (talk • contribs) 10:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It must have been a heck of an imposter! [8] Toddst1 (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strange fruit

Stop edit-warring on this page: this is disruptive. Write your opinion on the talk but don't revert any of these covers again without discussing it first, thanks. What is laughable is that you let UB40's and Annie Lennox's names appearing in the lead whereas there ain't one single word concerning them in the body of the article. Valboo (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content once is hardly an edit war. Go study your basics. Toddst1 (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Poppycock, you had already removed this content in 2016. Next time you make this arbitrary amputation, I report you. You're warned and don't even try to un-edit one of my contributions elsewhere or I report you for harassment. Valboo (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow 2016. Report me now. Perhaps @Valboo:'s eyesight is failing as the diff s/he provided shows me removing different material, most of which is unambigously failing WP:COVERSONG. I sure hope this doesn't go to Wp:ANI - people might find out about me! Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Upsilon Sigma Phi brothers

Any idea how I can be "good cop"? I'd like to salvage both the list and the editor. And I'm not sure he's deleting any entries, just doesn't think that anything other than the 90 years is useful in that way.Naraht (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I left notes on the IP's talk page, as did you and I left a note on the article talk page as well. I've also requested semi-protection. I won't revert again so as to steer clear of any issues around WP:EW. I don't know what else to do besides requesting a block if this continues, but I don't think that that's the best outcome. Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A block might be best, *but* in the state that he edits it to in one of the cycles, and then edit it by hand, I think. I'm pretty sure he's copying and pasting given the speed that he's adding thousands of bytes. And *some* of the people added have pages. It will just take a lot* of editing. (and he's removing people who are just top notchers, so it isn't everything.Naraht (talk) 17:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've converted the 1920 generation, and I'm going with a fairly loose (though not as loose as the IP editor) criteria. For example one of the people in the 1920 became a member of the Congress of the Philippines. Even though he doesn't have an article yet, I think he belongs on the list.Naraht (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a great approach. Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, let's just hope he sees what I've done. The length of the list actually doesn't surprise me Upsilon Sigma Phi is the oldest of the Greek Letter Organizatations in the Philippines.Naraht (talk) 20:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wall of Severus

Hey Todd,

Thanks for your message, admittedly it's been about 12 years since actively using HTML etc., prior to the broadband/'"Brazil"' era, I was a little more capable - so after my first attempt to alter/stumble through the edit, I found the visual editor much simpler as I wasn't having to rely on what is now just a vague memory!

I hope you can see what I meant re the edit too, would appreciate your insight on the matter as I think it's quite a hot subject potentially, i.e. might go against currently held opinion... and it could be interesting to then try to work out where it could have been, if you follow my train of thought of course. And presuming you are interested in debating currently held views on this matter - if not please appreciate I'm not a 'n00b' I'm simply briefly re-familiarising myself with it, I'm sure there is probably a page for actual debate but I just thought given that you're there you might be interested etc, etc. If so:

Apart from what I said in the edit, and edit summary - the source provided on the Wall of Severus page confirms its' existence if you only interpret the texts as they were written by the authors. They were highly regarded and educated historians and scholars nearest chronologically and are saying in quite strong terms that he had himself built an entire wall from one sea to the other. What is perhaps a matter for debate is whether or not Severus' efforts were successful in providing fortitude. If that were the case, I suppose it'd still be standing today. There is not really anything to prove on the main page of Septimius Severus that he only re-strengthened Hadrians wall, other than suggesting he did.

Moreover, there is nothing other than 'previously held thought' on the main page of Hadrians Wall to assert he had only strengthened Hadrians Wall - whereas the texts included in the Domesday source I provided earlier and the Latin source I added to the page all seem to strongly support that he had built 'a wall', and I appreciate that what I'm suggesting means it would then have to be found to be proven but I really don't see anything that does prove that he didn't, other than.. like I said... just... because?? Right? :)

Thanks again

Rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.150.101 (talk) 01:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I'm assuming Yellow Sunstreaker (talk · contribs) is either the Nazi troll or is merely generally trolling. What do you think? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This bullshit says yes. Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize you were no longer an admin. I turned him in to AIV, but no action has been taken. I'm inclined to revert the troll again anyway. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANIISLOUSY as you and I both know. Toddst1 (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bertha Isaacs

I am completely baffled by your insertion of verify information on her birth and "provide quotation", as I provided that in my comment which you reverted. This source [9] states her name was "Albertha Madeline Hanna at birth on April 18, 1900". This source [10] of births in St. Matthews Parish, New Providence, states (entry #4) her birth occurred on 18 April 1900 and her parents were "Robert Samuel Hannah and Lilla Celeste Hannah Formerly Minns". This source, [11] her marriage record, shows that her middle name was actually Magdalena, confirms her spelling of the last name as Hanna and gives her father's name again as Robert. It should be irrelevant if you can access them as off-line sources are allowed and I find that often, since I do not live in the US that I cannot open sources others can open. I don't participate in edit warring and hope that you will remove your tag, as it is incorrect. The cited sources do confirm the information provided. SusunW (talk) 18:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SusunW:. Thanks for your note and explanation. I clicked on the note[1] in the article twice to verify and the wayback machine came back with nothing both times. It appears that this was a transient problem with the wayback machine as it is now providing the archived text. The note[2] in the article is to the birth record. When I searched on the transcription of the cursive for Isaacs, it came up with nothing. With your more specific guidance pointing to line 4, I see that it does also confirm her birth (pesky primary sources) I'll remove my tag. I'll also add those sources to her entry on April 18. Toddst1 (talk) 18:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Toddst1. I am pretty much a stickler for not putting anything in a record that I cannot confirm, as women's biographies seem to be particularly scrutinized. As I have often been written as Susan, I am sensitive to misidentification in secondary sources and usually try to confirm those things with primary records. Thanks for your note, and yes, Wayback has been having some really weird issues lately. SusunW (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delia Weber

Citations on her birth are already given in the text as well. Even without a subscription to the oxford dictionary, you should be able to see [12] "Delia Mercedes Weber Pérez in Santo Domingo, the Dominican Republic, on 23 October 1900" The full source goes on to say her father was Johann Stephan Weber "a goldsmith who had immigrated to the Dominican Republic from Curaçao" and the second source [13] "Delia fue hija única del matrimonio de Juan Esteban Weber Sulié y Enriqueta Pérez (Santo Domingo, 1883-1950), nació en 1900" (Delia was the only daughter of the marriage of ... born in 1900). SusunW (talk) 20:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping me honest. Toddst1 (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
de nada. :) I am a wee bit anal about sourcing. SusunW (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy

The article is involved in WP:COI, so I think it should be deleted. Adityavagarwal (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Adityavagarwal: (talk page stalker) It has been, as a copyright violation. Adam9007 (talk) 22:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good call, Adam. I'm digging the role-reversal. :) Toddst1 (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. Adam9007 I did not check for copyvio, as I thought the username was almost resembling coi (Dan Stalfire was created by dstalfire?). So, I thought it fell under G11 according to that. Correct me if I am wrong, as I would amend myself for the future! Adityavagarwal (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G11 typically does't apply to drafts as that's where they're supposed to be improved. Autobiographies are not prohibited - only frowned upon. Usually drafts like this are never accepted, time out and WP:CSD#G13 applies. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Toddst1 - Any CSD criteria that begins with the letter 'G' (for "General") can apply to any Wikipedia page. Expanding on this further: any CSD criteria that begins with an 'A' (for "Article") - can only be applied in the mainspace. 'R' for redirects, 'F' for file, 'U' for user space, and so on... :-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:12, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) To follow-up though: If G11 is used correctly, it's for blatant advertising (pages created with the sole attempt to spam or advertise). I agree with you that G11 should not be applied on drafts that are not blatant advertisements. This essay I wrote helps explain what I'm talking about (for those here who may not understand) ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Oshwah: Any CSD criteria that begins with the letter 'G' (for "General") can apply to any Wikipedia page Except G1 and G2, which do not apply to user pages. Adam9007 (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adam9007 - Ah, yup good call. So, to revise what I said earlier: Any CSD criteria that begins with the letter 'G' (for "General") can apply to any Wikipedia page*
*Certain restrictions apply, see store for details! :-P ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 23:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you're zealously enforcing it. It would be silly to hit a draft with a G2 and G11 isn't too far behind. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Stabilizers. I noticed that when you added the image to the infobox, you added it as a thumbnail. In the future, please do not use thumbnails when adding images to an infobox (see WP:INFOBOXIMAGE). What does this mean? Well in the infobox, when you specify the image you wish to use, instead of doing it like this:

|image=[[File:SomeImage.jpg|thumb|Some image caption]]

Instead just supply the name of the image. So in this case you can simply do:

|image=SomeImage.jpg.

There will then be a separate parameter for the image caption such as |caption=Some image caption. Please note that this is a generic form message I am leaving on your page because you recently added a thumbnail to an infobox. The specific parameters for the image and caption may be different for the infobox you are using! Please consult the Template page for the infobox being used to see better documentation. Thanks! Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 23:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Toddst1 (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grei Allen discographies

Thanks for your help with the Geri Allen discography. Each section has been referenced now DISEman (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia Lousy Article contributors has been nominated for discussion

Category:Wikipedia Lousy Article contributors, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 06:10, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Category:Wikipedians who are under investigation by the categories police might be a good example to follow. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have to disagree on that. Hard redirects don't work in category namespace (see WP:R#CATEGORY; basically, the category is a grouping of pages in addition to being a page itself), so that effectively amounts to recreating pages deleted at XfD. I will be clearing out Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages in the near future, but my preferred approach is to talk to the users affected and offer alternatives. One of the alternatives is {{fmbox}}, which could produce the following display:
Would you be open to using that instead of the category code itself? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could use the fmbox, but I don't understand what problem you're trying to solve. Toddst1 (talk) 13:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James Hickey Don Bosco Prep OC

I'm trying to create a Wikipedia page for my self and Football coaching career. I've been a HS football coach and a College Football coach I'm now at one of the top coaching positions in the country. How do I make a page? James Hickey (talk) 06:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Autobiography. Toddst1 (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for lists of articles...?

Hi Toddst1, thanks for your note. Could you elaborate on what you mean by adding sources to the 'Days of the Year' entries? I've tried to stay consistent with the style of the pages, and none of the 'Days of the Year' pages I've seen have citations attached to the list entries. I've been linking all new names to their Wiki-articles, and I've been fairly careful about choosing biographical articles which cite sources for birthdates.

I'm currently a member of WikiProject Women, and that's keeping me pretty busy right now, but I'll consider adding my name to the 'Days of the Year' project. There are definitely overlapping interests in these projects. I've actually been focusing on the year pages this week (e.g. "1900"), because I've only just realized that there's a pretty big gender gap in these year/date lists -- almost 7 times more men than women in lists of notable births, deaths, etc. I thought I'd work on bringing some of them up to parity. All the best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was a recent change to the requirements for Days of the year pages regarding sources. They used to have an exemption from WP:V but no longer. Take a look at the long gory discussion on the project talk page for details.
Keep up the great work on WikiProject Women!
Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Adelheid of Hohenlohe-Langenburg

Hello again -- I don't understand what the issue is with this article. In the "Life" section of the subject's article, it is stated that "The Duchess died at Dresden on 25 January 1900", and this statement is accompanied by an inline citation from a 1900 obituary from The Times. What do you want? Do you want me to cite that Times source next to Princess Adelheid's entry on the January 25 page?

I read the 'Days of the Year' proposal to change project guidelines re: sourcing, and you're right -- it's gory. I'm unclear how it's planned to be implemented. Quite a few of the already existing entries on 'January 25' don't have any inline citations to back up dates of birth and death. I'm sure you have better things to do than police my edits, and I certainly have better things to do than make edits that may be promptly removed, so until I understand how the new guidelines are operating, I'll avoid adding anything to the DOY pages. Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:59, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanna the Brave: all you have to do is copy the source from the article to the DOY page when you list the person on that page. The article itself seems fine. Toddst1 (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, alrighty then -- that's what I'll do. Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One last question: do the citation guidelines also apply to the year pages? I had assumed WikiProject Days of the Year and WikiProject Years were two separate things, with different domains (i.e. calendar days versus years), but you also reverted a few of my edits on the "1900" page. I knew about citations being necessary for notable events on year pages, just not births/deaths. Thanks, Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't, they should. Toddst1 (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't. Mill 1 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We can fix that too. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mill 1: Wikipedia:WikiProject Years, do not have an exemption from references like WPDOY used to, so WP:BURDEN fully applies. Toddst1 (talk) 21:29, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is see. You are going to be busy. Oh wait, try to get consensus first. Mill 1 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if you're serious or trolling. IDK/IDC. Toddst1 (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Yardi Systems

The article Yardi Systems has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Promotional, but no significant coverage in reliable sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Huon (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Yardi Systems for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yardi Systems is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yardi Systems until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Huon (talk) 04:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Glauben können wie du

Glauben können wie du, - why would you remove "Christian"? I'd normally say hymn which is generally understood as churchy, but - without the image of the Franciscan - there'd be no warning about religous context. "Catholic" would be wrong because the content is quite ecumenical. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: My German is pretty rusty but from what I can tell, and as you say, it's quite ecumenical. No direct or indirect mention of Christ, only God (Gott). Labeling it Christian seems like an opinion and an exclusionary one at that. Toddst1 (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus is mentioned in the second stanza (not in the article, admitted), the addressed "du" is clearly his mother, three biblical quotations in the lyrics, reference to faith/hope/love: it can't get more Christian than that, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - quite prominently. Maria too. I was apparently looking at the wrong text. I should have followed the external link instead of googling it. Thanks for pointing that out. I've restored it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Toddst1. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Toddst1.

As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 04:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Toddst1. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 17:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Wikipedia! If you are interested in editing more often, I suggest you create an account to gain additional privileges. Happy editing!

ANI Experiences survey

The Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (led by the Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) is conducting a survey for en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Please be aware this survey will close Friday, Dec. 8 at 23:00 UTC.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PEarley: When will the results be available and where? Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Toddst1, I've updated the survey page with a timeline - because we're running a quantitative analysis as well, it's a bit longer than if we were just releasing the survey data alone. As for location: we'll make it as visible as possible, definitely uploading to commons, but also hosting a wikitext version on enwiki. We'll do a group ping for survey participants, and make sure the word gets out. Happy holidays, Patrick Earley (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of birth dates linked to existing Wikipedia articles

When adding a missing significant person's birth (I typically add musicians/entertainers of note) to the "Births" section of a calendar date, should I make sure the Wikipedia profile page (not created/edited by me) to which I've linked has accurately sourced the subject's birth date? I assume this has been the reason for the reverted edits.Crumptyjack (talk) 18:19, 9 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crumptyjack (talk • contribs) 07:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Crumptyjack: Nope - they need direct citations. See the added requirement at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Style. The community is trying to raise the bar on those pages. Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1 - The NY Times On this Day external links on each date page are no longer functioning. Neither the BBC nor Canadian links seem to have comprehensive data on significant events/births/deaths for each date. I've been searching for an adequate database to cite for my notable birth listings, but many of those have reliability errors. Are you aware of a comprehensive database of notable births by date that meets Wikipedia standards for source material? Crumptyjack

No, I don't. Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference sections

If you're going to add references to every item in every day of the year article, e.g. this, please format the citation correctly, and please add a "References" section to the article to which you're adding the singular reference. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you too could fix things that folks do in good faith. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And this where you remove J. Cole whose date of birth is clearly verifiable. What are you doing? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please go harass someone else. Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you consider this harassment, please revise your editing approach to removing so-called "unreferenced" additions to days of the year articles. That's disruptive and harassment to the editors doing so (and who have been doing so for years). Your own approach is inconsistent and inaccurate, so please stop trying to impose your standards on others when theirs' is already superior and effective and helpful to our community, our encyclopedia and our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not perfect, but at least I'm trying to improve things and I'm not being a dick. Go away. Toddst1 (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is this trying to improve things? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:ISAWIT listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:ISAWIT. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:ISAWIT redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mathglot (talk) 07:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Toddst1, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 12713 pages. Please consider reviewing even just a few pages each day! If everyone helps out, it will really put a dent in the backlog.
  • Currently the backlog stretches back to March and some pages in the backlog have passed the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing some of them!

Outreach and Invitations:

  • If you know other editors with a good understanding of Wikipedia policy, invite them to join NPP by dropping the invitation template on their talk page with: {{subst:NPR invite}}. Adding more qualified reviewers will help with keeping the backlog manageable.

New Year New Page Review Drive

  • A backlog drive is planned for the start of the year, beginning on January 1st and running until the end of the month. Unique prizes will be given in tiers for both the total number of reviews made, as well as the longest 'streak' maintained.
  • Note: quality reviewing is extremely important, please do not sacrifice quality for quantity.

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL has resulted in a significant increase in the quality of new submissions, with noticeably fewer CSD, PROD, and BLPPROD candidates in the new page feed. However, the majority of the backlog still dates back to before ACTRIAL started, so consider reviewing articles from the middle or back of the backlog.
  • The NPP Browser can help you quickly find articles with topics that you prefer to review from within the backlog.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Little Quacker

It was a revert to a much older version, including previously removed interwiki links and unreferenced trivia. Trivialist (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brief Talk

No, it's a fact that it has been used as a slighting term. BlackAdvisor (talk) 21:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tiangong program

Hi, I'm the one who added the section about being able to view the Chinese Space Station.

You said you deleted the section due to lack of a reference/source/inline citation.

I didn't think that information that is available at numerous satellite-viewing websites -- like https://in-the-sky.org/satmap_radar.php or http://spaceweather.com/flybys/flybys.php?zip=85051 -- needed to be referenced. To me, if the info is available at numerous places, I tend to consider that to be "common knowledge" that is easily found/accessible.

Maybe a caveat of something like "visible to the naked eye within two hours before sunrise and/or two hours after sunset" should be included. But if anyone is familiar with satellite-viewing, they already know that. Plus, viewing times, and other info, are given at these sites.

But I leave it up to you as to whether or not to keep the section in the article.

As a side note, the same type of section could also be added to the entry/article on the International Space Station (ISS). 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 15:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Toddst1.
AfC submissions
Random submission
2+ months
2,414 pending submissions
Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Years new page backlog drive

Hello Toddst1, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:

  • The total number of reviews completed for the month.
  • The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Hrithik Roshan January 2018

I did not add anything unsourced in January 10. I only added a person with an article born on this day.Neel.arunabh (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: This article contains content that is written like an advertisement.

Toddst1

I need to know what the concern is. All sources on this page are from university archives where Professor Winquist taught, including Cal State, Chico, and Syracuse University. Like the archivists at Chico State's library, archivists at Syracuse University requested their information be sourced with a simple acknowledgement. All the information from the info box, for example, comes from a curriculum vita sent from Syracuse University Libraries Special Collections University Archives (the photo was sent from California State University, Chico). Perhaps this the problem? All the other material comes directly from Charles E. Winquist's writings (what I have added, anyway). Perhaps the list of his books is the problem. I would hate to remove this; it is from the original stub, but it certainly is an ad-like reference. Please let me know how to improve this page. Thank you.Clyde DeForest Switzer (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could start with "Known for: making significant contributions to students and like-minded professionals in philosophy, theology and religion (e.g., student-centered learning, postmodern religion)." Toddst1 (talk) 22:29, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How is classified spam link?

Hi Toddst1, I recieved "the next time you insert a spam link, as you did ..." could you please clarify more what is the reason? As the reference is well aligned with the topic page. Or was the problem with formal presentation? Jak sky (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COI. Toddst1 (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attack @ User talk:RoguePilot

Can you please enlighten me on what you deem as a personal attack on my talkpage? Other than the time where CBG17 left his first message, I revisited my recent edit summaries, and see no such offense. All I was doing was removing peoples messages and request they leave me alone... Rogue1 20:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't be serious: [14]. Toddst1 (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly said “Other than the time where CBG17 left his first message”. That was the first message he left, which specifically implied that edit summary I wrote. So I still fail to see what you are trying to prove. Thus, you had no business to warn me. Try again if you want to. If not, please leave me alone
Rogue1 23:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To add, I love how we are talking about my edit summaries, when your[15] edit summary should be addressed as well. So consider your actions wisely instead of trying to tell me to consider mine. FYI, Wiki made the right decision to revoke your admin rights. You didn't deserve to be one. Carry on with more important matters.
Rogue1 23:48, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Lammin Sullay

Hey, Todd. Why do you think the article Lammin Sullay is of no importance? Because you don't know the individual yourself? If you put his name on Google you'll find quite a lot of information, mostly in Finnish or Swedish, but considering you're American, you must only speak English. However, fortunately for you there is information about him on English as well. Newspapers include articles about him, books by several authors include information about him, even the page from the Swedish Immigrant Institute includes a whole page specifically about him. In what way would this man not be important enough to be considered worth mentioning on Wikipedia? It's unfair how only one individual determines who is important and who is not, despite the evidence supporting otherwise. Regards, Sullay (Let's talk about it) 11:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would appreciate it if you didn't claim that a "major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" when I've merely chosen my username after him. Regards, Sullay (Let's talk about it) 11:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of that article appears to fail all elements of WP:AUTHOR which is the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia for authors. As I explained on your talk page, your username impression that you are connected. I take you at your word that you are not. Toddst1 (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Toddst1, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Help?

Hi. You helped earlier in the month with this editor, leaving warnings on his talk page. Now he did this. Very odd revert. It had a cite. I added another one since. But his revert and his edit summary made no sense. But now I am blocked from leaving messages on his talk page, so I am telling you because maybe you can help again. Thank you. --2604:2000:E016:A700:C8B1:1AA4:8F8E:BB14 (talk) 08:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

The account that you tagged is almost certainly a sock of User:Nsmutte, rather than BattleshipMan. Joefromrandb (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case reminder

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. We would like to remind you that the case is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 27

You removed the Bill Belichick thing I put on January 27. Here is the source of his hiring on that day. Please put it back in for that date. Its in the 3rd paragraph of the link. [16]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsinger121 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jsinger121: Thanks for finding a source for that and adding it back. For the record, the WP:BURDEN to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Keep up the good work! Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

van Dongen

Quick question, why did you add a citation needed tag next to Kees van Dongen's birth day, in the infobox? Is that date listed differently elsewhere? Coldcreation (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Coldcreation: Because I couldn't verify it. I went looking for a source after someone added him to January 26 and I couldn't find one. Thanks for digging one up and adding it to the article. Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:18, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KT, Shane, "Tom Dooley," et al.

Hello Toddst1 - I may have misread the tone of your Shane edit summary, so sorry. I appreciate your attempts to give some source muscle to some fairly loose sections in these articles. Of particular interest to me at the moment is your recent tag to the "Cover versions" in the "Tom Dooley" article. FYI, I have had rather little to do with the article overall and that section especially, though I can say from long and broad experience writing about folk music that pretty much all of those listed versions are legitimate significant recordings. My question here is simply how to proceed. Getting RS for each of the recordings listed would be relatively easy if a bit time-consuming, but the RS can establish mainly that the recordings were made and exist. Pls let me know if that will satisfy the WP:SONGCOVER protocol, which I have read and find a bit ambiguous on this point. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sensei48:Thanks for your reply. Please don't take my actions personally. I find things pretty sloppy around here these days. I don't want to find Wikipedia being the next platform manipulated for political gain, so I take WP:RS pretty seriously. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 07:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah - I jumped the gun there a bit and will rmv my unnecessary dig. Couldn't agree with you more regarding the sloppiness and the need to combat it. regards, Sensei48 (talk) 07:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Jansing

So what would valid evidence for he date of birth be? I had the day and month, and used math to get the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw843 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mw843: What you've done is synthesis. We need a WP:RS that states her date of birth. IMDB is explicitly not reliable. Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review Newsletter No.10

Hello Toddst1, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Test

Hi. 76.243.120.241 (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Short explanation

Hello Toddst1. You rejected my change in the "Briefs" article because of "copyvio". You have the right to refuse my additions, i respect it. But I am asking you very much, do not accuse me of infringing on copyright. I didn't stole any photo. Best wishes Stan old (talk) 16:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry

If May 20 is the day when Cuba celebrates its independence, then how do explain this? https://publicholidays.la/cuba/independence-day/ 2600:8800:5A80:1394:402B:9598:36A8:D238 (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your source contradicts your statement. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, it says Independence Day for Cuba is on October 10. It also says that Cubans do not believe that Independence Day is May 20.2600:8800:5A80:1394:402B:9598:36A8:D238 (talk) 23:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My bad - I looked at the diff backwards. Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. 2600:8800:5A80:1394:402B:9598:36A8:D238 (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous Editing

Hi Toddst1,

You messaged me about anonymous editing. I have no idea how to do that - I remain logged in as Indianink all the time. I was not even aware one could edit without being logged in. As my computer skills are strictly limited, if you can explain what went wrong and how to avoid it in future I will. You also messaged me about adding the year of death of Roy Bentley to the births section on the page dedicated to May 17. I got the information from the Wikipedia page on Roy Bentley, and as far as I can see on the May 17 page, no other year of death is supported by an outside source, so I did not realise this had to be done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indianink (talk • contribs) 10:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018

Hello Toddst1, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Deletion tags

  • Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

Backlog drive:

  • A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

Editathons

  • There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Paid editing - new policy

  • Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

  • The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.

Not English

  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.

News

  • Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
  • The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Oddie's birth date

Just a quick note to let you know that I have reversed your edit - where you stated that the date for Bill Oddie's birth was unsourced. Actually, the date that had been given was correct (and sourced), and a reference has now been added by me (a long-time Goodies fan). Best wishes. Figaro (talk) 05:28, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Liza Weil. If in doubt, source it, which was easy as the subject herself certainly doesn't deny her birthday, nor does the AP. Nate • (chatter) 19:57, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Robert Rave

Hello Toddst1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Robert Rave, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: published novel on notable publisher and claims coverage in RS (which probably still exists somewhere). Thank you. SoWhy 09:29, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Birthdays

Can you stop changing the celebrity birthdays! Matt Campbell (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bring a source. Toddst1 (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you shouldn't be on this Wikia!!!!! Take that!!!!! Matt Campbell (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 02:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict

Just so you know about Chris Pratt, that is his date of Birth so I don't know why you are going around changing that, and another thing you edited my profile page without permission, you don't edit other users profile pages without permission from the user!!!!! Matt Campbell (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could read all those warnings on your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page Name Change

Thank you for taking the time to alert me to the potential conflict of interest with my username. This account is not shared with anyone else; however, I understand the name is generic. Should I request a change to a username that would uniquely identify me within the organization? If so, how? Also, I am still getting up to speed on the Wiki markup, but I can provide citations for the changes I made and will make over the next couple of weeks. My employer, Tusculum College is moving to University status, so the entry on Wikipedia will need to reflect this. I researched a few other institutions that moved from College to University status, and it appeared the name change was made on their existing page, rather than to create a brand new page for the University status. We do want the history of Tusculum College up to the move to University to be part of the Wikipedia reference. I'd appreciate any guidance or best practices to follow for making these updates. Thank you. Tuswebmaster (talk) 14:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you post a question on the talk page of the user whom you'd like to respond to said question, it's not necessary to use the {{help me}} template. You only need to use it when you want to get help from some random editor such as myself. Since I'm already here, my take on your questions is as follows: 1) a name change is indeed necessary as usernames that denote a position within an organization that can be held by different people are against our rules (see Wikipedia:Username policy); 2) a disclosure of conflict of interest is also needed, see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Paid editors; 3) you can change the title of an article either by performing a WP:MOVE yourself (once your account is WP:AUTOCONFIRMED) or by requesting it at Wikipedia:Requested moves. The latter is probably better given your circumstances. 78.28.45.127 (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied on User talk:Tuswebmaster. Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

St William of Perth

Hello, I don't know what I need to add St William of Perth. The link I added was a Wikipedia article. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardson mcphillips: Per WP:USERG, "a wikilink is not a reliable source". You should add a regular WP:RELIABLE SOURCE. For more info, see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. Toddst1 (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPP Backlog Elimination Drive

Hello Toddst1, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.

Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!

  • As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
  • Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar: Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 100 review coin, 250 review coin, 500 review coin, 1000 review certificate.
  • Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks, note takenDr Ugbede-ojo (talk) 11:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John Spenkelink

In my effort to add the John Spenkelink execution to the May 25 page, I linked to his biographical article. Isn't that enough verification? John Paul Parks (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"A wikilink is not a reliable source" per WP:USERG. Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mosman

Hi, I’m entirely sure that a former assistant US attorney who did these things for many years for a living saying that Judge Mosman’s conduct is highly irregular is a reliable source. Moreover, his viewpoint was the experts’ consensus viewpoint until politics got involved. Wikipedia needs to be reliable; it doesn’t matter whether people who don’t like facts feel the facts aren’t neutral. If you have other the material facts that add to the discussion feel free to add them

I am reverting. Alterrabe (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are. :) Toddst1 (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have now cited McCarthy, a legal commentator of national repute, in a mainstream national publication, whose description is much less diplomatic and restrained than mine was. I hope you enjoy it.Alterrabe (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the citation, it really escaped my mind.Dr Ugbede-ojo (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Better image of Galileo's tomb.

The tomb of Galileo, in the church of Santa Croce, Florence, Italy.

Hi, I added this today, and I've changed the image of the tomb for the page of the church itself, but it would be great if you (or someone else with editing privileges) could replace the rather poor image on Galileo's main page to this new image. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenjaminJamesCousins (talk • contribs) 09:33, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Days of the Year changes

Hello Todd, I was not aware of the change, so thanks for the heads up. I don't see that my edits have been reverted on DOY pages or on person pages where I've added a date of birth or death. I've read the links you provided, but am not clear on if I need to provide inline references for every person I add to a day of the year. Regards, Natalie Bueno Vasquez (talk) 08:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. WP:BURDEN applies to DOY pages. Thanks for checking. Toddst1 (talk) 08:05, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Barnstar!Natalie Bueno Vasquez (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 21

I'm unclear why you are citing me for unverified content. The article in question had a reference for Bub's birthday prior to your feedback, and I tagged the reference in the infobox directly after your feedback. Please let me know what I'm missing, or restore the June 21 page to its previous state. Thank you. Sunsetastoria (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you didn't read what I wrote on your talk page before you deleted it. You need to include direct sources on DOY pages now. Toddst1 (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 1

Although I'm a bit perplexed why adding publicly available information about a significant figure at a significant university should be considered "controversial", given that all previous office holders have that same information displayed in full, I will respect this decision. I'll perhaps avoid adding this for any person going forward now that I am aware of this guidance. Thank you. Ash243x (talk) 23:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC-5)

@Ash243x: If it's publicly available, please provide a WP:Reliable Source as a citation and restore it. What we can't have is un-sourced (potentially incorrect or non-public) personal information about living people. Toddst1 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 14

I'm confused by the message I got from you saying that changes I made to an article on July 14 didn't have a reliable source and that it's been removed. The small item is still there (1938 event, re Howard Hughes) and there is a source linking to the front page of the July 15, 1938 New York Times which confirms the info in the item. Gbevan55 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gbefan55: That's because I cleaned up after you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Danger Mouse (musician)

Hi there, you may or may not have read WP:DEADREF, which details the steps you should take when encountering a reference that contains a dead link. I have restored the citation you removed (along with the information that was cited by it) via point 2. It took me less than 10 seconds to do this. If you could try harder next time, that'd be great. Cheers, Nzd (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with deadref. However, WP:BLPPRIVACY trumps deadref. We shouldn't publish personal info unless well sourced. Toddst1 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, and I applaud your efforts in this regard. The point I was making was that it probably took me less time to fix it, than it did for you to remove the information.. Nzd (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Cardellini

I fixed my first edit by sourcing IMDB which gives her birthday. What gives with the ban-warning? --Volvlogia (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry

I did not Relize the DOB were unsourced I never added them ... someone else did Jena (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jena Fi: Thanks. You don't have to be sorry - just as long as you understand why we don't publish folks' personal information willy-nilly. Toddst1 (talk) 00:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

re: C.T. Vivian

His page says he was born 7/30, citing the same source as the 7/28 page.Stuartkau (talk) 02:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I forgot to fix that too. Apparently I got distracted with RL, thanks for pointing that out. In cases like that, this link works pretty well. Toddst1 (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. (Purge)

Hello Toddst1, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

June backlog drive

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.

New technology, new rules
  • New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
  • Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
  • Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
Editathons
  • Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
The Signpost
  • The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Casual Games

It'S Because i create articles on game of this genre, but Wikipedia don't considared them as notable. so i think this genre of game is not notable for Wikipedia because...

  1. All casual playing releated site are not reliable on wikipedia.
  2. Many user don't consider this games as notable.

So no casual games on Wikipedia is constructive. Thank you72.10.135.251 (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you take this to WP:AFD, listing the articles you wish to delete. Repeated addition of {{PROD}} templates is not constructive. Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Problem it's all the Casual Games Cathegory articles i want delete.72.10.135.251 (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MULTIAFD is how you do it. Toddst1 (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It'S better? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Casual game72.10.135.251 (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POINT would seem to apply here, if a bit unintentionally... ansh666 19:48, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 30th editing

Hi Toddst1,

I did not intend any 'disruptive editing' I saw your first message about references, thus I attempted to edit again, this time with reference tags in an effort to verify the birthday of the person mentioned. My intention is to edit the page properly.

Thank you

Cas96 (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesian parties

What you did on my edits are unacceptable. The other parties have that as well (those are not my edits) and not erased. They were merely breakdowns from the elections pages (Indonesian legislative election, 2014 for instance). About August 5, there are no other reference besides yours, so in order to make consistency, the other events, births, and deaths should have reference as well. Just saying. If you want references so bad on those parties, I will have it presented in an hour. In the meantime, I will undo your edits. Thanks for the notice. – Flix11 (talk) 01:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the sources but you report me to the WP:AIV? What is wrong with you? I have followed your request. – Flix11 (talk) 04:05, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Improper use of warning or blocking template

Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:32.218.43.187 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. 32.218.43.187 (talk) 20:13, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Save it for the roses. Log in to your account if you want to start fights with people. Bishonen | talk 20:24, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Accusing other editors of sockpuppetry without a single shred of evidence is WP:UNCIVIL.
Information icon Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.
Information icon Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 32.218.43.187 (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What a lot of templates and jargon you know for an innocent new user. Impressive. Stop trolling before you're blocked. Bishonen | talk 21:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Admins who don't know what dynamic IPs are should be removed. Admins who threaten editors who request a modicum of civility should be removed. 32.218.43.187 (talk) 21:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do it. And it's a static IP. Bishonen | talk 22:07, 8 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Read and take to heart, please

People would be a lot less snarky with you if you followed the guidelines at WP:PRESERVE. Reverting should be a last recourse, not the first step you take. Krychek (talk) 14:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IP user

Hello. Thank you for taking care of the IP troll. However, it that this IP has several connected IPs with similar numbers. I reverted a couple of them at the Raymond Leo Burke article. This must've been what spawned the personal attack on my talk page. You might want to consider looking in that article's edit history and blocking some of those for the same length of time in order to prevent block evasion and more inappropriate behavior over the coming week. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome @Display name 99:. I'm not an admin though. Toddst1 (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Oversight on my part, Bishonen, can you consider this request? Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Display name 99: I'm afraid the range is too big to block. I could semiprotect Raymond Leo Burke for a while, but I'd rather not; what the individual is doing there isn't exactly vandalism, but more a dispute. The problem is instead that they feel entitled to crap on people's talkpages. :-( I think WP:DENY is best in this case. Please let me know if a need arises to semi your own page. Bishonen | talk 07:43, 9 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
@Display name 99: @Bishonen: The IP range 32.218.0.0/16 has gone through a couple 1w/2w corner-sits this year (thus an additional ping to blocking editor @TonyBallioni: for their 2¢) (they're a thorn in the side of Wisconsin editors, including me, and absolutely refuse to collaborate/just get a username already; I get some talk regular-templating from them when I try to work on WI articles they like to OWN), so a reinforcement block may be justified; there's also them reverting Coldcreation's great contributions for years of their long reviews about art per a very dumb definition of WP:BLOGS. I'm sorry you got a needless lecture, DN99. Nate • (chatter) 02:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting, thank you, Mrschimpf. I did take a look at the contribs from the range, and figured there were some constructive edits in there, presumably from other people; but I may well have looked too superficially. Also, IP editors, even if/when constructive, need to realize that getting caught up in a range block is an occupational hazard, and it's surely not unreasonably onerous for them to get an account. Range blocked for a month, and thank you, Toddst, for hosting all this confabulation. Bishonen | talk 05:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks for the action, Bishonen; honestly if they got an account and took responsibility for their edits and cooperated there wouldn't be all this going on, but their taking advantage of a very dynamic IP to evade responsibility and accountability needs to stop. Like Bishonen said, thanks for hosting this all on your talk page (even if it drove your pings up a wall), Toddst. Nate • (chatter) 06:59, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All good. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Deborah Lurie

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Deborah Lurie, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! I've made some additions to the article which should be helpful in establishing notability. There is still work to be done, but it's a start. LovelyLillith (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tao Porchon-Lynch

I'm not sure if a direct social media account from the person can apply. Could it be interpreted as a primary source since it's directly from her? https://www.instagram.com/p/Blbn6vQgBJg/?taken-by=taoporchonlynch

Thanks - TDI19 (talk) 04:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good find, but is that really the quality of source that you want to build an encyclopedia on? Toddst1 (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a good point! I can understand that Instagram is not a typical source but I feel in this case it’s basically the same as the person confirming their birthday in an interview or something? TDI19 (talk) 05:24, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are folks that would accept this at WP:RSN but I'm not one of them. Your mileage may vary. I can tell your heart is in the right place. Toddst1 (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:GUAJATACA DAM NID Detail Report.pdf

A tag has been placed on File:GUAJATACA DAM NID Detail Report.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pkbwcgs (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Sharon Pincott page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello @Toddst1, Please could you read the comments that I have written on the 'history' page of Sharon Pincott. I think these are very valid. I wish to speak back to Swister Twister (plus the other key Wikipedia editor whose name escapes me at the moment) re this page - which they were both instrumental in creating - and editing - with me, re both format and content. Is this okay with you? Note too that this page was also, at the time of approval, said to adhere to Australia Wikipedia standards. Arnie1000 (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on User talk:Arnie1000. Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

/* August 3 2018 */

I have been trying to contact somebody from Wikipedia regarding this for days now, so I really hope you are able to help me. I am quite unclear on why my edits have all been deleted, stating it was "conflicts of interest" and because they appeared to be promotional. None of this is valid or accurate, and nearly every one of my sources is cited from newspaper clippings from the state's official newspaper, The Tennessean. I would appreciate if you could assist me in understanding why this has happened, and also to help me get back my edits since i put time into them and did so accordingly to all rules and regulations outlined by Wikipedia. Hsi2018 (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hsi2018: Just because you can cite something doesn't mean it should be included in an encyclopedia article about a subject. WP:NPOV is critical. This is exactly why we discourage folks with conflicts of interest, as you appear to have in this case, from editing articles with which they have a connection. Toddst1 (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Abdelaziz Khourdifi

Hello Toddst1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Abdelaziz Khourdifi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: minor claim of significance with RS mention and book publishing. Since this was tagged for 5 days without anyone deleting it, I'm going to assume no one felt comfortable with speedy deleting this, so take it to WP:AFD please. Thank you. SoWhy 07:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Fairbanks

Hello, if you would stop your vandetta and actually take a moment to read the source information, instead of assuming "Bad Faith" you would find toward the bottom of the article the following passage.

"Fairbanks was born June 10, 1933, and played football at Michigan State under legendary coach Biggie Munn. Fairbanks coached three years of high school football, then joined the Arizona State staff of Frank Kush. In 1962, Fairbanks moved on to Bill Yeoman’s staff at the University of Houston, where Fairbanks occasionally would visit the Arkansas spring practices of Frank Broyles’. It was there Fairbanks met Mackenzie, and when Mackenzie became OU’s head coach, he hired Fairbanks as part of a staff that included Switzer, Galen Hall, Larry Lacewell, Pat James and Homer Rice."(CTRL + F is your friend, it helps you find key words like I don't know, dates of birth)-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@UCO2009bluejay: What citation backs this information up? I can't find it. Ctrl+F back at you. Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1: Look I understand where you are coming from, we don't need false assertions, and unsubstantiated clutter. As such, I've even added DOB citations to some pages that I noticed didn't have citations for the dates. Such as Fairbanks. Notice the edit history for those pages, the past day or so. But I did link this article in the infobox for Fairbanks, and Barry Switzer. [17] where at the end it had the specific quote I listed in the comment above. I agree with the citation needed tag for his birthplace Detroit. I didn't put it there. I will admit I can be testy yet I am also reasonable. But in regards to June 10, or Fairbanks. The Oklahoman is a reliable source, and it does have that in the article. So I don't see what the issues are.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marc J. Cohen

Hi! Thanks for your note. I deleted that text as Cohen is not seeking a seat in the State Assembly at this time, and will not be present on the ballot come September or November. I didn't want folks to be mislead! Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.9.24.66 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pending Changes Mistake

Hi, I am a somewhat new pending changes approver, and i stick mostly to the pages of topics that i am familiar with. I am aware of the responsibilities that this right gives and am willing to positively contribute to wikipedia. When there are high pending changes left, i usually open 2-3 at a time and verify them at the same time, and i believe this is the first time someone has pointed me out as i have overlooked an edit.

August 7 change: Apologies if i might have overlooked something. The logs show that i accepted a revision including Lighthouse day, but i remember seeing(and approving) a different edit, something related to a massacre by the "Kingdom of Iraq", atleast that's what was shown to me by the Interface:

Old Text: 1933 – The Simele massacre: The Iraqi government slaughters over 3,000 Assyrians in the village of Simele.

New Text: "1933 – The Kingdom of Iraq slaughters over 3,000 Assyrians in the village of Simele.

I am not sure how I overlooked Lighthouse day. I will be more careful next time, i am at fault here. I was a bit busy at that time, and forgot to look down further than the blue highlighted text.

Regarding Edit war on Soap opera villians page: I approved a single change on the edit war, yes. There were 2 references to confirm the same thing, that "Adam newman" is a villian in a soap opera, I thought it was unnecessary as the first reference already points it out. I left a detailed reply on User talk:--XenaDance--, one of the parties in the edit-war. I also pinged a senior user JuneGloom07 who recently made an edit on the same page, because my approval was somewhat of a gray area. That Senior user reverted the edit in favor of Xenadance. In this case, what would you recommend I could have done? I guess i could have rejected the edit, then made a fresh edit of my own removing the reference and citing a proper reason in the edit itself. Again Apologies Daiyusha (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Cardellini

I fixed my first edit by sourcing IMDB which gives her birthday. What gives with the ban-warning? --Volvlogia (talk) 04:09, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CRussG's violations continue

Hi. Since you issued the last two final warnings to CRussG, and informed him that he'd be blocked if he continued, I thought I'd inform you that he has indeed continued his addition of uncited material to articles. Would you like to alert the proper admins, or would you prefer I do it? Nightscream (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nightscream: I'm on my mobile and off to bed. If you can take care of this, it would be best. Toddst1 (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Do you know which noticeboard or resource is best for this? I forget. Nightscream (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Either WP:AIV or if it's too complex for them, WP:ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream:, you realize I'm not an admin, right? (although I play one on TV) Toddst1 (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Myfreeimplants

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Myfreeimplants, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, proposed deletion is disallowed on articles that have previously been de-prodded, even by the page's creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{proposed deletion}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! — Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And how does that help the quality of the project? Toddst1 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reviewing Ike Vern

Hi @Toddst1:, thank you for your very prompt review of Ike Vern; I had barely got the article uploaded and you were on to it! Much obliged, Jamesmcardle(talk) 06:08, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Pincott article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi @Toddst1:, Please know that I'm not trying to 'own' the Sharon Pincott page. I am merely the original creator of it. I do not know Sharon Pincott personally but have followed her elephant work, and book writing, for 18 years. I am a wildlife conservationist and a lover of Africa. I ask, please, for you to reconsider any deletions you've made that have been adequately and professionally Referenced. Zimbabwe is hot in the news right now, and so is Pincott with her documentary. I can see that the number of people viewing her page has been substantial each day of late. Please know that there are still various people with hidden agendas still out to belittle her solid achievements for elephant conservation in Zimbabwe (with key elephant things still ongoing) and this is most unfortunate. I'm just asking you to please relook at it and consider if there is anything you could perhaps add back. I have read your page, as it now stands, and cannot see anything there that is not referenced fact. I would be grateful too therefore if you could remove the banner across the page that suggests it is promotional and like an advertisement. I can assure you that alot of work has been put in by myself and I know of two other wildlife conservationists (all of us unknown to Pincott) to ensure that just facts are stated. We each have been extra careful to ensure lots of References have been used well. I thank you in advance. Arnie1000 (talk) 00:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again replying on User talk:Arnie1000. If there's more to discuss, let's move it to Talk: Sharon Pincott as others have joined the discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Coldstream Guards / August 13

Hey, just a head's up: I undid your revert on August 13, because there's a source for that date in the Coldstream Guards article. I don't feel it's necessary to add that ref to the August 13 list as well, but I'd gladly do so if you want. rchard2scout (talk) 12:23, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rchard2scout:. Thanks for the notice. You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. The burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, must've missed that. Thanks, I've added the ref, and I'll be more careful when reviewing Pending Changes. rchard2scout (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Taha Afshar

Thanks you for your edits to Taha Afshar. I took the speedy off for copyright vio as the copyvios detector was only showing 17%, which is low. Closing it at Afd, where it will likely be deleted, allows the admins to SALT it. Obviously someone is pushing the article, so SALt will be helpful.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now I see you are a retired admin, so maybe you know better... i could always be (ad am frequently) wrong.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the automated tools only show 17% but it looks like a few words were tweaked here and there to get that down. It's clearly lifted in my opinion, but as you say, AFD will take care of it. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Thanks for clearifying the sources issue on the Suis La Lune page! Iliketoknitfool (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

added None
removed Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz
renamed Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

added Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

  • Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
  • Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
  • Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kosha Dillz DOB removal

Hi,

I saw that you removed his DOB information due to a lack of references. I found a couple and will be adding them. Just wanted to let you know so that you will understand when I revert the removal.

Thanks! 1980fast (talk) 22:31, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback: Nils von Barth, Hard sigmoid

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Nbarth's talk page.
Message added 04:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Deborah Marquit

Hello Toddst1. I was creating a reference edit on the page Deborah Marquit, for her designs in the music video, Aint None of Your Business, not at all as an advertisement, as you inferred, but as genuine fact. The credits for the designs are not in writing on the video credits, so I thought a link the video would work, not realizing that this is not the correct way to reference the work. The credits are for designs used for costume and if you would please note all the other references on the page as such. It is not an Ad, it is a historic reference to the designer's work. As I was trying to correct my errors and find the proper references, I was cut off from the page. Is it possible you can remove the content that is in anyway incorrect and reinstate the page to its place on Wikipedia? (I understand that the reference cannot be from tabloid journalism or from Youtube) Many Thanks, :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dvmarquit (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea: Why don't you read WP:COI and stop using Wikipedia to promote yourself? Toddst1 (talk) 05:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you are incorrect, it is not a promotional page. You removed a beginning of a timeline spanning 35 years of historic fashion references with dates and work done for each, including the costume description for films, and videos. Can you put them back?--Dvmarquit (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2018 (UTC) thank you.[reply]

Hello Toddst1 ~ Would you kindly reinstate the status of the page Deborah Marquit as you found it. We were in the midst if editing and adding refernce updates, and much of the intense work involved was removed by you without prior notification.--Lovestar Horatio (talk) 18:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018

Hello Toddst1, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.

Project news
As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
Other
Moving to Draft and Page Mover
  • Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
  • If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
  • Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
  • The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
  • The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing

  • Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
  • In terms of other gadgets for NPR, HotCat is worth turning on. It allows you to easily add, remove, and change categories on a page, with name suggestions.
  • MoreMenu also adds a bunch of very useful links for diagnosing and fixing page issues.
  • User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to your common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
  • User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (Recommended 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
  • User:Primefac/revdel.js(info): Is requesting revdel complicated and time consuming? This script helps simplify the process. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your diff IDs and you can drop them into the script Popups and it will create a revdel request for you.
  • User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
  • User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
  • User:Evad37/rater.js(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC) [reply]

your blocking threat

It is in the NFL article that the APFA was founded on Sept 17, 1920 and again I do not see any..ANY sources for anything on these date pages.... 02:50, 15 September 2018‎ Newyearbaby

Re. Replace broken Canadian history link

Greetings. I am not sure why you reverted my active link to a Canadian History page and replaced it with the previous broken one. I've updated many, many of the On This Day Wikipedia pages.

quist (talk) 09:13, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Quist: See here Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You messaged me regarding Sharon Pincott page

Hello Toddst1. I've been abroad and don't understand message addressed to me. I can see tho that you've made substantial deletions to the Sharon Pincott page I've inputted to in the past and you ask about conflict of interest? There isn't any conflict of interest. Why should there be? I've been assisting to keep page on specialist in a field I keep well abreast of updated with useful info. You've deleted such worthy info. You've left few references to published interviews but even deleted Forbes Africa. How many people get into Forbes magazine! There's also no mention anymore of all of the political intimidation and threats endured inside Zimbabwe which strikes me as terribly strange. Grateful please advise how I contribute to this page now although it doesn't appear conducive to updates any longer 01:52, 15 September 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaderUSA (talk • contribs)

That article was nothing but a promotional piece. See WP:NPOV. I'm sure that she has done wonderful things but this is not a fan site. Toddst1 (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem on September 18?

You've twice reverted my edit on the page for September 18. In the last revision, you explained "you need a reference for the dates of birth". But I didn't add or change any dates of birth. I added to Kerry Livgren's entry the name of the band he's associated with, because that is the more familiar name, and I added "politician" to Ben Carson as at this point that's at least as important with him as his medical and literary work. Am I missing something? Brettalan (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You added slagel & celis with their dobs. Toddst1 (talk) 20:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly did not. Please stop saying that I did. That was someone else's edit. Brettalan (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Brettalan: This diff says you did, Lines 237, 322 and 422. Toddst1 (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because I was undoing your edit, which you mistakenly listed as an undo of mine when in fact you were also changing someone else's. So I unwittingly did, but it didn't originate with me. I've never even heard of those people. Brettalan (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Brettalan: . Nope. No mention of you. To which you responded by restoring the unreferenced stuff while the WP:BURDEN was on you - which I reverted twice. You may be interested in the Law of holes. Toddst1 (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Dominique Monféry

Hello Toddst1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dominique Monféry, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: previous version of the article contains claims of significance. Thank you. SoWhy 08:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Lucy Ellmann

Hello Toddst1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lucy Ellmann, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: multiple claims of significance: Won notable award; Has notable family and spouse; Book reviews in NYT. Thank you. SoWhy 08:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: September 7 page edit

I am a novice in templating and such. You asked for sources, I can provide them, but I do not know how to add them. https://insomniac.games/game/spider-man-ps4/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0465602/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.65.44 (talk) 22:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use IMDB as a reference - see WP:IMDBREF and the second source doesn't support your statement. Toddst1 (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The first one is fine for sure. It is the developer's own website. If IMDB is not acceptable, that's fine. I do not know the criteria for acceptable citations, but here. Take your pick:
http://madeinatlantis.com/movies_central/2007/shoot_em_up_production_details.htm https://www.allmovie.com/movie/shoot-em-up-v329115/releases https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/shoot_em_up/ https://www.metacritic.com/movie/shoot-em-up

Received your message.

Thanks for reverting the edit.BUT Some users are constantly changing my user pages and this leads to conflict more.I have decided now not to place any images in my user page account .its fine --Manavatha (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CHI Records

I'm pretty sure this was complete bollocks. I did a google search for "CHI Records" "Spencer Durham" and got back some teenage kid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:34, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ritchie. It looked fishy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:54, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

Good work on keeping the crap out of articles recently.

BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Been! Toddst1 (talk) 03:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2018).

Administrator changes

added Justlettersandnumbers • L235
removed Bgwhite • HorsePunchKid • J Greb • KillerChihuahua • Rami R • Winhunter

Interface administrator changes

added Cyberpower678 • Deryck Chan • Oshwah • Pharos • Ragesoss • Ritchie333

Oversight changes

removed Guerillero • NativeForeigner • Snowolf • Xeno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks should be available for testing in October on the Test Wikipedia and the Beta-Cluster. This new feature allows admins to block users from editing specific pages and in the near-future, namespaces and uploading files. You can expect more updates and an invitation to help with testing once it is available.
  • The Foundations' Anti-Harassment Tools team is currently looking for input on how to measure the effectiveness of blocks. This is in particular related to how they will measure the success of the aforementioned partial blocks.
  • Because of a data centre test, you will be able to read but not edit the Wikimedia projects for up to an hour on 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee has, by motion, amended the procedure on functionary inactivity.
  • The community consultation for 2018 CheckUser and Oversight appointments has concluded. Appointments will be made by October 11.
  • Following a request for comment, the size of the Arbitration Committee will be decreased to 13 arbitrators, starting in 2019. Additionally, the minimum support percentage required to be appointed to a two-year term on ArbCom has been increased to 60%. ArbCom candidates who receive between 50% and 60% support will be appointed to one-year terms instead.
  • Nominations for the 2018 Arbitration Committee Electoral Commission are being accepted until 12 October. These are the editors who help run the ArbCom election smoothly. If you are interested in volunteering for this role, please consider nominating yourself.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Hi! I'm a long term wikipedia and donator. I've stumbled upon Paul Reiffer's page, and I was shocked how fake it is! Thanks for emending it a bit.

But anyway it made me want to start to edit articles. Where should I start? D1kiz (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hi Toddst1, thanks for reviewing the page Sharifa Akeel. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johanry (talk • contribs) 09:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Days of year

Hi. User:JoeyofthePriuses has re-added a lot of entries that I previously removed, mostly about racing drivers, with references, but in some cases these appear to be unreliable. I don't want to get involved in an edit war with them, so I'll leave it to you to decide what action is appropriate. Deb (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: Hmm. I'm assuming you're referring to this edit. Racing-reference.info is part of the NASCAR Digital Media Network. As the governing body of that type of racing, I'd think one of NASCAR's properties would be relatively reliable in terms of info about their drivers - especially their reference site. I could be wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 18:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was thinking more of this one and this one. Deb (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I've un-done and left him notes on his talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cooper article and COI

Hi Todd Re: Jim Cooper There is no COI. Jim Cooper and I have not seen each other for years. Many years ago we lived together and I knew his mother and siblings. That's why I have some documents on his life before 2000. My desire to edit his Wikipedia page is not done for pecuniary reason. I was just trying to correct the minor problems and to add facts I know from documents I have and can cite. Cheers Steve Farrow SteveJF (talk) 14:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SteveJF:, your relationship with Jim is the textbook definition of WP:COI. Please read the policy before you continue editing. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit of Odenton, Maryland page

My edit of Odenton, Maryland was deemed less than neutral and removed. I only added the information on an upcoming high school opening and cited the news article I sourced from. Not sure as to how that is not neutral?

Jdynasty76 (talk) 00:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like WP:Advocacy, as was noted in 2015. At the very least it's WP:RECENTISM. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was it the line about many parents want a new high school? That was already on the page before my edit. Or was it the whole paragraph? It was my first edit, I am just making sure, so I am more careful in the future. Thanks Jdynasty76 (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jdynasty76: Yeah - it was the whole paragraph. It was tagged in 2015 as being an advocacy issue. I removed the whole thing. Wikipedia is full of stuff like that. I can tell you're editing in the best of faith. Sorry you ran in to this on your first edit. :) Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for the help! Jdynasty76 (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

others' user pages?

This from August 2018

"You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours for disruptive creation of user pages for other users."

I have absolutely no idea what this means or why it appears aimed at me. I have no idea how to create user pages for other users, nor would I do so. Perhaps my page has been hacked by malicious spyware?

Further, "speedy elimination...User Kgrad" is equally puzzling. Kgrad (talk) 02:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kgrad: I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't believe I've ever edited your user page. Toddst1 (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Toddst1, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Backlog

As of 21 October 2018, there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.

Community Wishlist Proposal
Project updates
  • ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
  • There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
New scripts

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Garr

My edit for listing actress Terri Garr in the December 11 "Births" was removed. One only needs to look up Teri Garr in Wikipedia to confirm she was born on December 11, 1944. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artwohl (talk • contribs) 15:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Artwohl: Yup, and all you have to do to not have an edit like that reverted is to provide a reliable source as a citation. I'm sure you know that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Toddst1 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Andrews

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The edit which you have linked to, claiming that she is trying to add false information, dates from 2014. Her only recent edit was to remove one mention of her correct birth date, which was unnecessary anyway as it is mentioned elsewhere in the article. However, your edit removed reliably referenced information - her birth name. I think that an "Oops, sorry!" might be required, along with removing the unjustified new warning on her talk page.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A WP:SPA here only to edit her own biography, using multiple accounts and adding incorrect autobiographical information. Me thinks not. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain why you thought it was appropriate to give her a 'final warning' now, for something she hasn't done since 2015. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely does. If she uses Wikipedia to publish phony info about herself (or anything else) again, she should be blocked site banned. Toddst1 (talk) 17:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But she didn't, and hasn't since 2015. So, why slap a 'final notice' on her now? Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"She didn't and hasn't since 2015" are two contradictory statements. To be explicit, she did. I put that link in the warning so even the folks not paying attention could find the previous offense. There is no statute of limitation for using Wikipedia as a platform for propaganda and was never warned for that BS. It's clear that she is WP:NOTHERE to do anything other than promote herself. Toddst1 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your link is to an edit from 2014 - over four years ago. After that, she received two warnings on her talk page, in 2014 (by me) and in 2015, and since that time has done nothing worthy of a further or 'final warning'. You claimed that she had "vandalize[d] Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information". But, she hasn't vandalized or introduced any incorrect information since she was last warned in 2015. All regular editors occasionally make mistakes - we all do and it's nothing to be ashamed of. But you should simply accept that, on this occasion, you made a mistake in misinterpreting what she had done (i.e. removing a duplicate mention of her birth date), and remove the 'final warning'. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, time for you to move on. I'm done discussing this with you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:28, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

reversion

Savina Petrilli is not a redlink, and he did die in 1923. Why should I have not accepted the revision? HarryKernow (talk to me) 20:29, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All new additions to WP:DOY articles require direct sources, which is a reason to reject. There is no source in the linked biography that could be added to the article. Toddst1 (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would this or this work as a source? And none of the other additions have sources, to be fair. HarryKernow (talk to me) 20:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to re-add it with both citations, this should be fine. HarryKernow (talk to me) 20:54, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thumbs up. Toddst1 (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2018).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Partial blocks is now available for testing on the Test Wikipedia. The new functionality allows you to block users from editing specific pages. Bugs may exist and can be reported on the local talk page or on Meta. A discussion regarding deployment to English Wikipedia will be started by community liaisons sometime in the near future.
  • A user script is now available to quickly review unblock requests.
  • The 2019 Community Wishlist Survey is now accepting new proposals until November 11, 2018. The results of this survey will determine what software the Wikimedia Foundation's Community Tech team will work on next year. Voting on the proposals will take place from November 16 to November 30, 2018. Specifically, there is a proposal category for admins and stewards that may be of interest.

Arbitration

  • Eligible editors will be invited to nominate themselves as candidates in the 2018 Arbitration Committee Elections starting on November 4 until November 13. Voting will begin on November 19 and last until December 2.
  • The Arbitration Committee's email address has changed to arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. Other email lists, such as functionaries-en and clerks-l, remain unchanged.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additions to DOTY articles

Someone started adding a lot of new entries to DOTY articles without references and I undid most of these. I would be grateful if you could take a look at these recent additions and tell me what you think of the sources used. Reliable? Deb (talk) 09:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: Yeah, that is a heavyweight addition, but I didn't see any sources that do not seem reliable. Thumbs up both to the editor and you for your diligence. Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of this as a reference? Personally, I don't think it's good enough. Deb (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello Toddst1,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
  • Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Toddst1. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2018).

Administrator changes

readded Al Ameer son • Randykitty • Spartaz
removed Boson • Daniel J. Leivick • Efe • Esanchez7587 • Fred Bauder • Garzo • Martijn Hoekstra • Orangemike

Interface administrator changes

removedDeryck Chan

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, the Mediation Committee is now closed and will no longer be accepting case requests.
  • A request for comment is in progress to determine whether members of the Bot Approvals Group should satisfy activity requirements in order to remain in that role.
  • A request for comment is in progress regarding whether to change the administrator inactivity policy, such that administrators "who have made no logged administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped". Currently, the policy states that administrators "who have made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least 12 months may be desysopped".
  • A proposal has been made to temporarily restrict editing of the Main Page to interface administrators in order to mitigate the impact of compromised accounts.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • In late November, an attacker compromised multiple accounts, including at least four administrator accounts, and used them to vandalize Wikipedia. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. Sharing the same password across multiple websites makes your account vulnerable, especially if your password was used on a website that suffered a data breach. As these incidents have shown, these concerns are not pure fantasies.
  • Wikipedia policy requires administrators to have strong passwords. To further reinforce security, administrators should also consider enabling two-factor authentication. A committed identity can be used to verify that you are the true account owner in the event that your account is compromised and/or you are unable to log in.

Obituaries

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018

Hello Toddst1,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.


Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.


Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you look at a listing?

Would you be kind enough to look at the listing for Rehs Galleries and at least put in the actual periods of art the gallery handles? The gallery specializes in 19th and 20th century European and American art with an emphasis on 19th century Academic, Barbizon and Realist paintings. Artists would include Julien Dupre, Daniel Ridgway Knight, Emile Munier, William A. Bouguereau, Jean B.C. Corot, Henry Moret, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rehs_Galleries

Thank you.

68.198.0.203 (talk) 19:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

As you can see, I've done a lot of work on this, adding references and removing unreferenced entries. But there is still a lot more to do and I've been working on it intermittently for months. This gives you some idea how long it's going to take without anyone else chipping in. It's difficult enough just to stop people adding more unreferenced entries when I'm not looking. Any suggestions? Deb (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays!

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Administrators' newsletter – January 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2018).

Guideline and policy news

  1. G14 (new): Disambiguation pages that disambiguate only zero or one existing pages are now covered under the new G14 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-disambig}}; the text is unchanged and candidates may be found in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as unnecessary disambiguation pages.
  2. R4 (new): Redirects in the file namespace (and no file links) that have the same name as a file or redirect at Commons are now covered under the new R4 criterion (discussion). This is {{db-redircom}}; the text is unchanged.
  3. G13 (expanded): Userspace drafts containing only the default Article Wizard text are now covered under G13 along with other drafts (discussion). Such blank drafts are now eligible after six months rather than one year, and taggers continue to use {{db-blankdraft}}.

Technical news

  • Starting on December 13, the Wikimedia Foundation security team implemented new password policy and requirements. Privileged accounts (administrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, oversighters, interface administrators, bots, edit filter managers/helpers, template editors, et al.) must have a password at least 10 characters in length. All accounts must have a password:
  1. At least 8 characters in length
  2. Not in the 100,000 most popular passwords (defined by the Password Blacklist library)
  3. Different from their username
User accounts not meeting these requirements will be prompted to update their password accordingly. More information is available on MediaWiki.org.
  • Blocked administrators may now block the administrator that blocked them. This was done to mitigate the possibility that a compromised administrator account would block all other active administrators, complementing the removal of the ability to unblock oneself outside of self-imposed blocks. A request for comment is currently in progress to determine whether the blocking policy should be updated regarding this change.
  • {{Copyvio-revdel}} now has a link to open the history with the RevDel checkboxes already filled in.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Accounts continue to be compromised on a regular basis. Evidence shows this is entirely due to the accounts having the same password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately.
  • Around 22% of admins have enabled two-factor authentication, up from 20% in June 2018. If you haven't already enabled it, please consider doing so. Regardless of whether you use 2FA, please practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2019).

Administrator changes

added Enterprisey • JJMC89
readded BorgQueen
removed Harro5 • Jenks24 • Graft • R. Baley

Interface administrator changes

removedEnterprisey

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment is currently open to reevaluate the activity requirements for administrators.
  • Administrators who are blocked have the technical ability to block the administrator who blocked their own account. A recent request for comment has amended the blocking policy to clarify that this ability should only be used in exceptional circumstances, such as account compromises, where there is a clear and immediate need.
  • A request for comment closed with a consensus in favor of deprecating The Sun as a permissible reference, and creating an edit filter to warn users who attempt to cite it.

Technical news

  • A discussion regarding an overhaul of the format and appearance of Wikipedia:Requests for page protection is in progress (permalink). The proposed changes will make it easier to create requests for those who are not using Twinkle. The workflow for administrators at this venue will largely be unchanged. Additionally, there are plans to archive requests similar to how it is done at WP:PERM, where historical records are kept so that prior requests can more easily be searched for.

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2019 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2019, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2019, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • A new IRC bot is available that allows you to subscribe to notifications when specific filters are tripped. This requires that your IRC handle be identified.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding - Edin Velez Article

FYI - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edin_Velez - let me know your feedback as you have reviewed the article of "Edin Velez" in 2010. Thanks Srirammedfri (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

It's me. 173.11.92.205 (talk) 20:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Back again? Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am. 173.11.92.206 (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello?

Please explain how a reference and link of an established page that is about a Mar 14 observance in the Mar 14 section on observances is vandalism. Dlhyndman1964 (talk) 15:48, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted an edit I made for no obvious reason and haven't responded to my query regarding it. Should I just make the edit again since you aren't responding? Dlhyndman1964 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new tool is available to help determine if a given IP is an open proxy/VPN/webhost/compromised host.

Arbitration

  • The Arbitration Committee announced two new OTRS queues. Both are meant solely for cases involving private information; other cases will continue to be handled at the appropriate venues (e.g., WP:COIN or WP:SPI).
    • paid-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private evidence related to abusive paid editing.
    • checkuser-en-wp@wikipedia.org has been set up to receive private requests for CheckUser. For instance, requests for IP block exemption for anonymous proxy editing should now be sent to this address instead of the functionaries-en list.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

It's me. Toddst1 (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rickover article

Please explain your reversion. It's a standard thing to do. And in this case, you restored a factual error along with deleting cited/encyclopedic content. Regards, --67.48.200.162 (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. I misread the diff. Toddst1 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing vandalism on DOTY

There's a person using multiple IP addresses to keep adding unreferenced births (mostly Australian sportsmen) to these articles. I have protected a few of them to prevent IPs editing but obviously this can only be a temporary solution. I would be grateful if you look out for them as well. Take a look at recent edits on January 23, 24, 25, etc. Deb (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb:, Sorry - I haven't been on-wiki much in the past few months. RL got interesting. Thanks for your vigilance. I'll try to pitch in when things settle down. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. Hope all's well. Deb (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Toddst1,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2019).

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Two more administrator accounts were compromised. Evidence has shown that these attacks, like previous incidents, were due to reusing a password that was used on another website that suffered a data breach. If you have ever used your current password on any other website, you should change it immediately. All admins are strongly encouraged to enable two-factor authentication, please consider doing so. Please always practice appropriate account security by ensuring your password is secure and unique to Wikimedia.
  • As a reminder, according to WP:NOQUORUM, administrators looking to close or relist an AfD should evaluate a nomination that has received few or no comments as if it were a proposed deletion (PROD) prior to determining whether it should be relisted.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion on May 2

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

Administrators' newsletter – May 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • XTools Admin Stats, a tool to list admins by administrative actions, has been revamped to support more types of log entries such as AbuseFilter changes. Two additional tools have been integrated into it as well: Steward Stats and Patroller Stats.

Arbitration

  • In response to the continuing compromise of administrator accounts, the Arbitration Committee passed a motion amending the procedures for return of permissions (diff). In such cases, the committee will review all available information to determine whether the administrator followed "appropriate personal security practices" before restoring permissions; administrators found failing to have adequately done so will not be resysopped automatically. All current administrators have been notified of this change.
  • Following a formal ratification process, the arbitration policy has been amended (diff). Specifically, the two-thirds majority required to remove or suspend an arbitrator now excludes (1) the arbitrator facing suspension or removal, and (2) any inactive arbitrator who does not respond within 30 days to attempts to solicit their feedback on the resolution through all known methods of communication.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DOTY

Hi. I've more or less completed the referencing of January 1 and have started on January 2 in earnest, but it's a huge task. I feel you should at least have a look. Deb (talk) 13:01, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: . Amazing, awesome work by one of the stalwarts of the wiki! Toddst1 (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Toddst1,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of material on DOTY pages

Hi Toddst1. Every other birth/death has no reference. Is this something very new that referencing has to be added? Surely the reference can be found on the page of the person who is linked? Regards Willbb234 (talk) 21:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Just noticed that referencing is on all of the January 1 births and deaths)

@Willbb234: You've undoubtedly read the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide by now. The requirement for direct sources has been in effect since 16 October 2017 after it was more than apparent that those pages were filled with wrong and/or unverifiable information.
There are a number of us who have added thousands of references and removed thousands of incorrect or unverifiable entries since then. Please join our ranks in cleaning up those pages as you are clearly a solid contributor. Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I will add some references. Can these be taken directly from the reference on the subjects wikipedia article? Regards

Hi Toddst1, I just added a reference on January 3 article. Is this alright? Willbb234 (talk) 10:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems like a fairly WP:RS that directly supports the assertion. Thank you! Toddst1 (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Award Barnstar
Thank you for your help and hard work!

DotY pages

Thank you; that makes sense. However, few if any of the surrounding entries have them; it was rather easy to infer from that that no sources were required. Perhaps you should add an edit notice (or, you may already have done so and I missed it. If so, sorry). Daniel Case (talk) 17:56, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. The edit notice should there for all DOTY pages. Change comes slowly. Toddst1 (talk) 19:00, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Second Summer Of Love

Hi - I'm new to Wikipedia and have added a contribution to the article which you have flagged as I haven't added the reference. I'm not sure how to do this - basically the reference is the amendment - it is the book that I have listed. I am not sure how to prove it but it is visible on booksellers like Amazon if that helps.

Could you add the relevant symbol or show me how to.

Much appreciated, Lee . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youth Culture Expert (talk • contribs) 00:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Youth Culture Expert: See WP:CITING SOURCES. Saying you read it in a book is considered WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 23rd - Red Nose Day

Could you please clarify "constructive" vs "non-constructive" additions for holidays and observances? Where would something like "Red Nose Day" go on the "this day in history" pages? Or can things like that only be added after they happen? Or is there another calendar with things like "Red Nose Day," "ALS Awareness Month," etc. are inserted? --virginiatcombs (talk) 18:00, 21 May 2019

@Virginiatcombs: Perhaps you should have read edit notice on that page that you were presented with:
as well as WP:NLIST. Toddst1 (talk) 22:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Todd. I've read the guidelines, but it never hurts to read them again. I'm new to editing, and trying to do a good job. I hate when articles are not sited or contain conflicting information and I appreciate the seasoned Wiki editors keeping an eye on the pages and mentoring the next generation of editors. Is there a special "this day" calendar for events that fall outside the parameters of the main one? --virginiatcombs (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2019

There may be but I'm not aware of it. Toddst1 (talk) 00:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2019).

Administrator changes

removed 28bytes • Ad Orientem • Ansh666 • Beeblebrox • Boing! said Zebedee • BU Rob13 • Dennis Brown • Deor • DoRD • Floquenbeam1 • Flyguy649 • Fram2 • Gadfium • GB fan • Jonathunder • Kusma • Lectonar • Moink • MSGJ • Nick • Od Mishehu • Rama • Spartaz • Syrthiss • TheDJ • WJBscribe
1Floquenbeam's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.
2Fram's access was removed, then restored, then removed again.

Guideline and policy news

  • In a related matter, the account throttle has been restored to six creations per day as the mitigation activity completed.

Technical news

  • The Wikimedia Foundation's Community health initiative plans to design and build a new user reporting system to make it easier for people experiencing harassment and other forms of abuse to provide accurate information to the appropriate channel for action to be taken. Community feedback is invited.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Toddst1,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Robert K S reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: ). Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 07:00, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ENIAC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hey, guess what, I just rolled back again, because it is obvious vandalism by an IP editor, and I'm using rollback for what it's for. And where did you come from, specifically? Are you part of the TPH/AldezD cabal? Robert K S (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to this bad-faith post at User_talk:Robert_K_S#Misusing_Rollback where it started and should have remained. Toddst1 (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This is not a bad-faith post but a good-faith question, which you did not answer. Why are you wikithreatening me? Who is directing your actions? Specifically, what is your relationship to TPH and AldezD? Be honest. Robert K S (talk) 03:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bryan Calvin

Hi Toddst1, just to let you know, the user specified above has been adding multiple entries to DOTY pages, without references. I have already warned them but they have ignored me. Please review and maybe try to talk to them? Also they have been contributing to other pages, adding unsourced information, which may need reviewing. Reagrds, Willbb234 (talk) 11:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Willbb234:. I've issued a final warning after he ignored your warning and added more stuff to September 2. If he continues, please file a report at WP:AIV. Sometimes they won't block folks there for unsourced edits. If you get declined, I recommend bringing it to the attention of deb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Keep up the good work! Toddst1 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'm willing to block for disruptive editing if necessary. Deb (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2019).

Administrator changes

removed Andonic • Consumed Crustacean • Enigmaman • Euryalus • EWS23 • HereToHelp • Nv8200pa • Peripitus • StringTheory11 • Vejvančický

CheckUser changes

removed Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC seeks to clarify whether WP:OUTING should include information on just the English Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project.
  • An RfC on WT:RfA concluded that Requests for adminship and bureaucratship are discussions seeking to build consensus.
  • An RfC proposal to make the templates for discussion (TfD) process more like the requested moves (RM) process, i.e. "as a clearinghouse of template discussions", was closed as successful.

Technical news

  • The CSD feature of Twinkle now allows admins to notify page creators of deletion if the page had not been tagged. The default behavior matches that of tagging notifications, and replaces the ability to open the user talk page upon deletion. You can customize which criteria receive notifications in your Twinkle preferences: look for Notify page creator when deleting under these criteria.
  • Twinkle's d-batch (batch delete) feature now supports deleting subpages (and related redirects and talk pages) of each page. The pages will be listed first but use with caution! The und-batch (batch undelete) option can now also restore talk pages.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BHL info

Hi, I seem to have jumped again without looking. the external links were in the reference, and the BHL source is a basic reference for hagiography research (so very rs). I have done this in the past, with no problem. Can you help me so I don't waste more of your time? I looked over the WP/EL page and can't figure it out. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardson mcphillips: No worries. Yeah, BHL seems like a very solid source. The problem is how you're using them. For example here you kind of just plopped it at the end of the article text. It's kind of lost there and doesn't line up with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. Generally, you would use that as a source in a citation or list it in a Further reading section at the end.
To be honest, if I had a bit more energy last night, I would have (should have) just moved your BHL references myself to a Further reading section. Instead, I took the lazy way and just backed it out.
Keep up the good work! Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DOTY

Hello, I have added multiple references on the January 3 DOTY page. The majority are citing websites and I have noticed that Deb (or other users adding references) have been citing mainly from books. I have read WP:RS, and it appears nothing is wrong with citing the websites, especially as I have checked the websites for WP:V. Is there anything wrong with continuing to mainly cite using websites? Regards Willbb234 (talk) 19:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: Hey Will! I didn't go through all of the changes, but your work looks awesome! Websites in general are ok, but you should probably review WP:RSP to make sure you're using solid sites. Keep up the good work! Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toddst1, can I add myself to WP:DOTY member list? Regards Willbb234 (talk) 20:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234:Of course!! Welcome to the project! Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff_King_(author) Deletion

How can I get access to this page for reference?

You can't. Toddst1 (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith please

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Filet-o-fish king (talk•contribs•tools) 04:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Toddst1,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sew Fast Sew Easy for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sew Fast Sew Easy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Sew Fast Sew Easy (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. (You had been involved in the 1st nomination.) Blue Riband► 14:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Days of the year pages

You left a note on my talk page about my being unaware of WP:V regarding additions to these pages. If you had checked my edit note, you would have seen that I wasn't adding info to the page but putting info in alpha order. Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. Denisarona (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

random stuff

Information icon Hello, I'm Filet-o-fish king. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Filet-o-fish king (talk•contribs•tools) 04:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck are you talking about?? Toddst1 (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism report

Hi, Toddst1. The bot removed my comment on your report quickly, so I'll link you to it: [18]. I guess you didn't notice the particulars of the sig in the section above? I'm not sure it doesn't deserve an indef. "Assume good faith", indeed. Bishonen | talk 04:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you, then and now. Toddst1 (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the "now", thank Bibliomaniac for "then", please! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and again today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and I was just reminded that you gave me my first barnstar, in 2009 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Regarding your edit and your note re Please see MOS:NOBOLD, the article is now missing information that the bold text had previously identified. The Liturgical calendar should be an exception.ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use bold for emphasis. Take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting Toddst1 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Noone can destroy the traditional structure of Orhtodox Calendar! BOLD like any other formatting feature must help to structure of information. Your incompetent edits invertedly prevent it! Don't lead the normal rule to absurd! Don't prevent for Orthodox people to get a habitual calendar! Александр Васильев (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I come to destroy church. First I kill moose and squirrel. Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't clown about! Especially because Your fist (now deleted) version of answer was really plain. (I mean: "I have no idea what you're talking about".) If You not understand that, would You like to simply keep Yourself from editing of so specific material like Orthodox Liturgical Calendar? Please let people who knows what they doing to do it! Александр Васильев (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Edits

Hi, I don't understand why my edits were removed if my information is true (and cited). I'm not writing in a biased manner and I do know more about him than anyone on this website could. Please let me know what the problem is. Cassiejaestew (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on User talk:Cassiejaestew Toddst1 (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

the edits I made to August 10, August 31 and October 29 got reverted, the explanation you gave was too confusing, can you explain why they we're reverted, I'm happy to help Great Mercian (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Great Mercian:The Days of Years (DOTY) pages were becoming a complete mess with incorrect and unverifiable info so all new entries (such as yours) require a direct source.
About a year and a half ago, the DOTY project looked at why and for some reason they had exempted themselves from verifiability. As a result, almost none of the pages had any sources to back things up, based on the naive (and against Wikipedia policy) belief that all entries would be backed by reliable sources in the linked article. It turns out that was not the case and the DOTY pages were filled with incorrect info and even worse, other places started believing the info there and publishing the incorrect info in newspapers, for example on "Today's date in history" type listings.
So the DOTY project took the bold step of requiring that all new entries be backed by direct reliable sources. Several of us have gone through and started cleaning things up. May 11 is an example of where wee want to be. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page.
We could use your help in:
  1. Preventing new entries that don't include direct sources and when they occur, either supplement them with a reliable source or reverting them.
  2. Helping us clean up articles. The project members have asked all participants to go through their birthday and clean the entries up by adding reliable sources to each entry, or removing entries where reliable sources aren't readily available.
I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

so what this means is that i need to find a source to verify my edits from, do you mean from a site on the internet or a wikipedia article? Great Mercian (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any WP:RS will do. Another wikipedia article and some web sites would be WP:USERG. Toddst1 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Mark McCoy

Hello Toddst1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Mark McCoy, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: signed to multiple labels, member of multiple notable bands (which - if true - would satisfy WP:BAND#6). Thank you. SoWhy 07:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice

Here's some advice that could be useful; try to write on people's talk pages in a friendlier way. Your postings on my page obviously show how high and mighty you think you are, and it appears other fellow Wikipedians feel the same way by looking at your history. You can make commentary without the attitude. Have a great day!Scott218 (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

reFill

I noticed that you have added a huge number of references on May 11, thank you! You have done this with the help of reFill and I was wondering whether this is the best way to go about this? Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: I don't use reFill. Perhaps I should check it out! Toddst1 (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

When i was editing the List of Hispanic and Latino Americans. it wasn't any different then the other ones i did similar to it. Matt Campbell (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE? WP:BLP applies. Toddst1 (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The list i was editing had to do with a list of people the just one person individually. Matt Campbell (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I mean't to say not just one person individually, my mistake. Matt Campbell (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When it's articles like that you don't have to add references. Matt Campbell (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not true. Show me where you think a policy says that. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Matt Campbell, the rule is at WP:LISTPEOPLE. Please don't make up your own rules for Wikipedia.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Versions, vernacular, and variations of English

While I respect your message regarding rejected edits of the 'versions' of English used.. and while I am indeed aware of, respect and note the policy that when a subject pertains MOSTLY or EXCLUSIVELY to the UK, that version (and spelling therewith) is utilized; I would note that in the case of, for example, "Dark Fiber(Fibre)" such not only does not pertain exclusively to the UK, but such had its origins in, and the term was coined in the USA. THUS, my suggestion to edit the english spelling version of such.

Otherwise, the policy then would be more truly: unless it is a subject pertaining only to the United States (such as what that would be I do not know), everything should be spelled (spelt?) regardless of whether such item, object, thing originated within the USA; British spelling rules apply. Being that any object, item known, spoken of, and utilized outside of the USA would abrogate the usage of American English spellings. One then would go to wikipedia and see British spellings applied to any and all things, objects and items, exclusively.

that is all. Curious as to the true explanation as I dont have any true skin the game other than trying to be as accurate as possible.

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.220.130 (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ENGVAR. Toddst1 (talk) 04:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

day of the year pages editing

Hi Toddst1

I have been asked to supply sources for alterations or additions to On This Day pages. I added the death of Johnny Kidd, which I sourced from the Wikipedia page for Johnny Kidd - I also checked another source and the date given by Wikipedia matched. Just so it is crystal clear - are you saying we are not to edit using Wikipedia as a source?

Thanks Indianink (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Indianink: Of course. See WP:USERG. Toddst1 (talk) 10:26, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Saboteur (cancelled video game)

Thanks for your note. I’d have taken this to AfD myself but was busy today so thanks for doing that too. Mccapra (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

De nada. :) Toddst1 (talk) 21:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Todd

Why are you from Washington having a gratuitous go at this article?Rodolph (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) (and ANI stalker) Rodolph 3 things
  1. You've really been here long enough to know better than posting something like that. Even if you were accurate (which you are not), and it may technically fall inside the rules - challenging bright-line rules like WP:OUTING is never a good idea.
  2. WHAT article?
  3. Are you sure gratuitous is the word you're looking for? Even if he lived in Washington (which he doesn't), and even if he was editing one of the Washington articles (which I'm not seeing at a quick look), it still wouldn't be a COI without some real imaginative stretching; so what would be unwarranted or uncalled for about it? — Ched (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 US Banknote Contest

US Banknote Contest
November-December 2019

There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons.

In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate.

If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

Accusations about edit summary at Brooke Burke page

Please refer to this edit of mine that clearly shows that I added the reference to the BNP for the source of Burke's birthdate. Please stop accusing me of something that I didn't do. I would appreciate your cooperation. Funandtrvl (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Funandtrvl:Facepalm Facepalm I apparently had both brain damage and an attitude on Friday. Mea culpa. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thank you, much appreciated! Funandtrvl (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to a person's wikipedia page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
moving to Pup's talk page

Dear Toddst1,

I have never attempted to edit a wikipedia page before tonight. I did so because a colleague of mine, Dan Welcher, has been woefully misrepresented in the media of late and now wikipedia is perpetuating the falsehoods. I apologize if I did not follow protocol.

I attempted to remove the line that he has left UT because he. has. not. Please phone the university if you need to confirm this, and do not rely on the press, which has done a terrible job and essentially tried Professor Welcher by newspaper. An investigation is underway of these ridiculous and hysterical accusations, and until that investigation is concluded the facts are that Professor Welcher is still a faculty member of UT. Do not sully the reputation of a man, an artist, and a colleague, until you have facts to offer. He is being smeared by people with ulterior motives. Thank you. Pup68 (talk) 04:27, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply on your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 05:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rockville

Hi. In regard to the motto of Rockville, I'm a little confused by your claim that "Just because it's on a web page doesn't mean it's their motto". It's not just featured on a web page, it's featured on the seal of the city, which you can see in the article (or, if that's not good enough, on the city's own website). Zacwill (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zacwill: So find a source that says that's their motto. Words on a seal are just words on a seal. United States national motto is "In God we trust," but the Great Seal of the United States has other, outdated words. You should know you need a source, anyway. Toddst1 (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By definition it is a motto (see here), but I'm evidently not going to find a source that'll satisfy you. The important thing, I suppose, is that the the completely unsourced (and incredibly lame) motto there previously is now gone. Zacwill (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Zacwill: I can tell that you're an expert on heraldry and have made these changes with the best of intent, however misguided. Governments follow different rules than typical heraldry, as the example I cited above proves beyond any doubt. Anything you publish on Wikipedia should be backed by a WP:RS, and if you can't find one, you shouldn't be adding it, and you should know that as long as you've been editing.
I'm glad you found the error in the previous claim for the motto. Toddst1 (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nader Pop Culture

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This discussion is misplaced. I'm closing and moving to article talk

Where does it say that something has to have had a significant impact on pop culture to be in someone's "In popular culture" section? Thanks. Mbsyl (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbsy: Take a look at MOS:POPCULT Toddst1 (talk) 23:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Toddst1 I don't see how what you deleted was "categorically trivial."
One example of something you deleted: "Californian punk rock band NOFX's 2003 song "Franco Un-American" includes the line "the President's laughing 'cause we voted for Nader", referring to Nader's possible role in inadvertently changing the result of the 2000 U.S. presidential election."
"Media coverage of a topic is generally encyclopedic information, helps establish the topic's notability, and helps readers understand the subject's influence on the public" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections#POPCULT
Your interpretation of this section seems to be incorrect. The reference you deleted does just what the section you referenced calls for In Popular Culture sections to do.
Due to the extreme size of the change and you seeming to not have looked carefully at what you were doing, I am going to revert your change until you can give a persuasive argument for the deletion.Mbsyl (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbsl: We're not talking about establishing the WP:NOTABILITY of the topic. We're talking about impact on pop culture. Look carefully, as you say. If you did, you would have read a bit further and seen "Short cultural references sections should usually be entirely reworked into the main flow of the article. If a separate section for this material is maintained, the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia." which is exactly what this section is and has been festering since it was flagged in 2017. In 2 years, no progress, so this poorly-sourced (actually unsourced) section should be removed.
But obviously, you disagree - So what are you doing to address the problem that you just re-added to the article (as signified by the tag from 2017)?
And by the way, inactivity in a discussion for 2 weeks or more usually means it's "concluded".

I'm closing this discussion here and transcribing it to the article talk page where it belongs. Please reply there.Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. This article is too long, need to omit some unnecessary paragraphs, help summarize this article (and copy edit). Thanks you. Olascf (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct. Toddst1 (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oreilly’s rainforest retreat correction

Hi Todd You asked about the source for the O’reilly’s rainforest retreat info. I know this as I knew the people and the location involved in this and I walked the old trail which is now known to very few. I have asked people locally if anyone can locate a photo as I know I have seen an old photo of the cars and the horses.

This site, gives some of the story about the two day journey by car and horse without the precise detail of the location I gave: https://www.smartstepstoaustralia.com/oreillys-rainforest-retreat-family-accommodation-in-the-gold-coast-hinterland/ O’Reilly’s is set in Lamington National Park – a 22,000 hectare park that is home to a variety of types of rainforest including ancient Gondwana Rainforests. The O’Reilly family moved from Ireland to the Blue Mountains before settling in the McPherson Ranges in Southern Queensland in 1911 to begin dairy farming. They cleared the tracks and farmland painstakingly by hand. When the area was declared national park, this isolated them but in 1915 they began hosting tourists in the O’Reilly’s Guesthouse. It used to take guests two days via car, train and horseback to get to the resort!” Marilyn Leask (talk) 14:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Marilyn Leask: Hi Marilyn, Yeah, that's kind of what it looks like in your edit. You're sharing your personal experience and knowledge. While we want to respect your knowledge, we can't have everyone entering their own experiences and opinions as fact in an encyclopedia. That's called WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH and is not allowed under the founding principle of WP:Verifiability. There's no way to know if what you are entering is correct. That's why we require WP:Reliable Sources to back stuff up. You might want to take a few minutes to review the WP:5 Pillars of Wikipedia. Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Toddst1,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 819 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review

Since you tagged the page both times, you may be interested in the DRV of User:SashiRolls/SWAPP. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Todd

Why are you from Washington having a gratuitous go at this article?Rodolph (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my comment at ANI addresses this. I think we both need to AGF. Toddst1 (talk) 06:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) (and ANI stalker) @Rodolph: 3 things
  1. You've really been here long enough to know better than posting something like that. Even if you were accurate (which you are not), and it may technically fall inside the rules - challenging bright-line rules like WP:OUTING is never a good idea.
  2. WHAT article?
  3. Are you sure gratuitous is the word you're looking for? Even if he lived in Washington (which he doesn't), and even if he was editing one of the Washington articles (which I'm not seeing at a quick look), it still wouldn't be a COI without some real imaginative stretching; so what would be unwarranted or uncalled for about it? — Ched (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
stalking my own talk page:@Ched: Rodolph is referring to the article Charles de Salis. Toddst1 (talk) 06:44, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
there seemed to be a rather over zealous and unwarranted dissing of the subject of the now deleted article. I wasn't sure that perhaps an American would get the nuances of a mid C18th British person? I use my real name but it is rather hard to get a sense of what is going on with all these strange pseudo-nyms people use? Rodolph (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly are you asking? Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Coates article

Dear Toddst1

Re. Nigel Coates article, I have made some small edits which I hope you will not categorise as 'puff'. Most importantly though, the word 'Architect' in the article heading (presumably there for disambiguation) is misleading as Prof. Coates is not actually an architect. (I appreciate this is counter-intuitive as he is responsible for a fair bit of architecture. Zaha Hadid or Thomas Heatherwick are somewhat similar. Research the way RIBA awards qualifications and the ARB registers architects in the UK if you require an explanation.) What change would you advise here? nb I have amended the description of Prof. Coates' occupation to an accurate one. If you change this it will be to the detriment of the article as I do not have the time to keep spinning in circles undoing your edits.

Best regards, Ace Morgan 12:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acemorgan (talk • contribs)

Changes to Philip Ardagh

Hi Todd,

Thanks for your message regarding my edits made to the Philip Ardagh biog.

I hope to add citations to all corrections (except for one) but am learning as I go along. It's the coding/writing that's the challenge, not the authenticity of the content.

From what you say, I can work on the draft in history and then, once the citations have been added, repost it. Thank you.

There is one edit I would ask that you make in the meantime.

Nowhere does Philip Ardagh publish any of his works as 'Philip Ardagh Roxbee Cox' so this is very confusing. I can find only two public references to his full name: in the Oxford Guide To Children's Literature and Who's Who.

I know that he does not publicise his full name and uses 'Philip Ardagh' for all events, public appearances, talks, etc and is even known as 'Philip Ardagh' in all publishing meeting, etc.

If you feel it important that the name Roxbee Cox appear somewhere in the entry, might it not be possible to say later in the text that, according to Who's Who, his full name is Philip Ardagh Roxbee Cox, 'Ardagh' being his mother's maiden name?

I feel this would be much more helpful to all concerned.

Look forward to your response. Thank you. 16th October 2019

Skunfkins Trousers (talk) 14:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Skunfkins Trousers:Good suggestion - thanks and done. BTW, do you have a connection to the author? Toddst1 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Toddst1, Many thanks for such a speedy response. Yup, I'm an intern currently trying to sort out the years of literary festival programme, articles, posters, publicity and other material he's accumulated over the years! Skunfkins Trousers —Preceding undated comment added 14:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Let's move this conversation to your talk page, where I think it would be better. Toddst1 (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aclan Bates article

Hi Todd. This is Bedogan. I am currently trying to clean up and add citations to Aclan Bates' page to make it more credible. I am not being paid to do this.

I actually can't believe the page stayed as it was for years with no citation or corroboration until I tried to add citations! Then it got marked for deletion.

Broken Angel is a legitimate, full-length Hollywood film. It's not a 'stretch' to say that Mr. Bates directed it.

Mr. Bates is active both in the US and Turkey. He has numerous productions to his name in both countries.

Because the US productions are older, I'm having difficulty in finding source material to back them up. His more current activity, as it is taking place at present in Turkey, is documented in Turkish.

Since I am doing this in my spare time, I can't check the page or do research every day. And since the page stayed as it was for so many years, leaving it up until I can document it properly is not going to hurt anybody.Bedogan (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)Bedogan[reply]

@Bedogan: you should take this to the discussion underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aclan Bates. It's out of my hands at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Dear Toddst, you reverted me today. I guess you did not read the remark on the “talk” page of November 6, so i’ll Repeat it here. Please state your answer here or on that talk page please.

reference required in this case?

I corrected the new entry from an anonymous user to "1632 – King of Sweden Gustavus Adolphus dies in the battle of Lützen." But does this new entry also require a source from outside? (otherwise this book "Williamson, David. Debrett's Kings and Queens of Europe. pp. 124, 128, 194, 207. ISBN 0-86350-194-X." could be consulted if someone has access to this) Kind regards Saschaporsche (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Kind regards, Saschaporsche (talk) 14:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Saschaporsche:,
The Days of Years (DOTY) pages were becoming a complete mess with incorrect and unverifiable info so things have changed so that all new entries require a direct source.
The DOTY project had exempted themselves from verifiability. As a result, almost none of the pages had any sources to back things up, based on the naive (and against Wikipedia policy) belief that all entries would be backed by reliable sources in the linked article. It turns out that was not the case and the DOTY pages were filled with incorrect info and even worse, other places started believing the info there and publishing the incorrect info in newspapers, for example on "Today's date in history" type listings.
So about two years ago the DOTY project took the bold step of requiring that all new entries be backed by direct reliable sources. Several of us have gone through and started cleaning things up. May 11 is an example of where we want to be. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page.
We could use your help in:
  1. Preventing new entries that don't include direct sources and when they occur, either supplement them with a reliable source or reverting them.
  2. Helping us clean up articles. The project members have asked all participants to go through their birthday and clean the entries up by adding reliable sources to each entry, or removing entries where reliable sources aren't readily available.
I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gcdonaldson

I've blocked this user for 2 weeks as I see he's had multiple warnings from you and has just ignored them. I'll be happy to give him a much longer block if he doesn't take note. Deb (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

Hi, I noticed your post on User talk:Deb and was concerned because I think I accepted a DOY edit yesterday (the linked article supported DOB, and I didn't realize there needed to be a cite added on the DOY page). I'd like to fix my error, but I can't find the article. Is there a log or query I can run that would show edits that I accepted? Schazjmd (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Schazjmd:, take a look here. You can get there from your user contributions/logs and then select "Review log". Thanks for being proactive! Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so that's the trick! Thanks, Toddst1, I appreciate it. Schazjmd (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Project North Carolina

Hello Fellow North Carolina user,

I have reorganized and updated the content for the Wikipedia:WikiProject North Carolina. I hope it is useful to improving collaboration.

User:G._Moore Talk

Reversion

Hi,

Concerning this reversion, I would like to point out that it wasn't really an addition to a Day of the Year page, but a movement. You can see in my contributions that I first modified the person's entry, adding a reference for the date of birth, then deleted the text from December 12 and inserted it in December 6. So now, an entry has been lost.

Anyway, adding a source is always a good idea, and I have no problem with that. Just one question: the reference should justify the date of birth (like what I did when I edited the person's article) or the person's notability (like the Encyclopedia Britannica entry)?--Joutbis (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just the DOB. Many of the linked articles don’t have anything to support the DOB, so we started requiring the direct cite. Toddst1 (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Guidance Barnstar
This is for your help and advises given to me about reviewing pending changes related to days of the year project. Thank you very much for advice. Regards. PATH SLOPU 09:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boone, NC

Merry Christmas, Toddst1!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 TT me 11:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Howard Knob is officially called just that. I posted a link to the USGS webpage to confirm this and there less accuracy in the article on Boone, NC do to editing to remove my edit. I did leave as part of my edit a mention of the alternative, though unofficial, naming of Howard's Knob.

Even the Wikipedia article on the mountain is titled Howard Knob with a mention to the alternative name with the possessive s. But the official name is Howard Knob.

thank you for the heads up re: December 14th

hey Toddst1 sorry about that, i don't edit too often but thank you for the clarification BurrShotHam711 (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DOTY

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
moving to User talk:Crowsus where this discussion started

Hi, that's all fine and understandable, but I tend to work on the guideline of following what it already there: if everything has a separate citation, I will add it too; if not, I won't. The November 23 page has no separate sources, so frankly I don't see why I should have to when the article being linked to does have the relevant verification within it and literally hundreds of other entries on the same page are seemingly being allowed to remain without evidence, simply because they were added at an earlier point in time to my addition. Crowsus (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas everybody!!!
Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for being so kind to me early on. I'm sure I wouldn't have stuck around if it weren't for you. Cheers, Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Toddst1!

Happy New Year!
Hello Toddst1:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Gcdonaldson

Just blocked this guy for six months - his first action after returning from the previous block was to make another unsourced addition. Deb (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McGruff the Crime Dog is on the job! Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

chencho gyeltshen

in first sentence club must be shortened to "paro" and either no confirmation for 0 (0) stats with tertons so make it empty, otherwise its clear vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.254.196 (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My additions to the Deaths on DOTY December 26

I added Sue Lyon and Jerry Herman from the info on their Wikipedia pages. Is this not reliable enough? Or do I need an outside source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartkau (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartkau: That is exactly what I tried to explain to you here. Using Wikipedia as a source would be WP:USERG and WP:CIRCULAR. Each new entry on the Days of the Year pages requires a direct reliable source to be cited. Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: December 27 DOTY Deaths

Added this and used his Wikipedia article as the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartkau (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand now.Stuartkau (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Stern

even in the version you first saw, the many publications are enough to make A7 inappropriate--and he is almost certainly actually notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

I was reading your user page. I liked the part about the Gazette and you being Wikipedia. Look at this [[19]] Watch the mark 1:14:36 mark about wikipedia. Then look at this [[20]]. I can positively confirm I am not in association with any organized crime figures but it was an eye opener for eure. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hell in a Bucket: Pretty funny. Glad I never pissed off any mobsters on Wikipedia! Toddst1 (talk) 18:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah one other minor point though, I'm not Chris K menitoned in the interview I'm Jake lol Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No good deed goes unpunished

Toodst1, since you were kind enough to thank me for some of my edits to March 12, I am going to take that as license to pester you for advice. As you've probably seen I've been working through that article adding references, and I've come across a case where the DoB is sourced in the article to an offline publication that I don't have a copy of. There's apparently no reliable online source available. Should I assume good faith and copy the reference across without checking it, or delete the entry and add it to a list of sources to check? Realistically the chances of me locating a copy of Rock Sound from the mid-2000s are close to zero, so in this case (and, I suspect, many other cases) the latter option is going to mean removing the article from the list. Thanks, and seasons greetings, if you celebrate at this time of year, Wham2001 (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wham2001: My approach is that when I clean up an article, if I can't verify the info based on what's in the article, I remove it. I'm sure there are folks that would think that is not optimal, but that's the only way I know how to clean up a DOY article.
I'm not sure if you took my thanks as sarcasm, but it was not. It was genuine thanks. We appreciate help in cleaning up those articles. Cheers and happy holidays. Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Re sarcasm, no, I appreciated the thanks and took it as intended. The section title was more to say that if you hadn't thanked me I would probably have pestered somebody else. I don't think my sense of humor translates very well to Wikipedia, sadly. Anyway, thank-you for the reply - your advice makes sense and I will follow it. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
After some work I have got to the end of March 12; it was quite good fun, if a bit monotonous at times. I'd appreciate any feedback you have to offer before I move on to another day. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy BUTLER [SEPTEMBER 14 DOTY]

Hi Todd, thank you for helping me find the way.

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Toddst1,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Help Me

Hi, I met Matthew at a charity event and he was keen to tidy up his page to ensure it's accuracy.

I have a draft article would it be possible to let me know what can and can't be added?

I think even just tidying up and re-wording what is there would look much better.

Andrew Moscardini (talk) 11:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Andrew Moscardini[reply]

(talk page watcher) @Andrew Moscardini: I have tidied up the page and removed the unsourced and promotional content, and content sourced to unreliable sources such as press releases. Unfortunately there is very little left. I suspect that this is because Orr is not notable in the way that Wikipedia denotes notability; that is, not much has been written about him by independent, reliable, secondary sources.
Please read carefully and follow the instructions on managing a conflict of interest that Toddst1 left on your talk page. I think that in the circumstances, once you have done that, you should post any sources that are suitable for supporting content in the encyclopedia to the article talk page for consideration by editors that are independent of the article subject. Please see this guideline to understand which sources are suitable. I have not made a thorough search for sources but if there is not more out there than my brief look turned up then the article should probably be nominated for deletion. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 12:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What did i do wrong.

I edited added the correct birthdate for Richard Portes (december 10, 1941) and you threatened to take away my editing abilities. You claimed it was innacurate and defamatory. What did I do wrong.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:6c1:2960:d0b:9389:3051:aaf4 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLP and more to the point, WP:DOB. Toddst1 (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [21]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lee More

Hi, :Toddst1. I'm deeply concerned with the edits of User:Rockhead126 for this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lee_Moore

  • I noticed a few things:

1) The text is not neutral and might violate according to Neutral point of view (NPOV). This is also based on criminal charges "against nature" back in 1990s when homosexuality was criminalized. For at least the text has to be balanced. 2) Verifiability (V) issues. The text is hard to verify as two links added are impossible to verify as the source requires to pay for reading:

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/197783902/

https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/198650650/


3) The birthday date is unsourced and has WP:BLP/WP:DOB issues

4) The last thing, I saw that another user tagged the article for deletion because of not neutral tone and poor sourcing but Rockhead126 removed the tag and brought two new sources (above) that are not verifiable. He also put new text that made the article even more unbalanced and now it doesn't look neutral at all. I don't think that a Wikipedia article should look like this. Actually, I didn't find any other sources regarding the politician. --2601:1C0:CB01:2660:18AC:BB3E:F427:1844 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, friend. Rockhead here. I'm happy to discuss any problems you might have with the article. Unfortunately for Mr. Moore, most of the widely-distributed news coverage of him during his political career was in relation to the sex scandal that ended it.
If you feel that the article focuses too heavily on the scandal, I'm happy to try and find more sources/would support placement of a {{POV}} tag. I was hoping my new text, providing new details about Moore's career, with additional reliable sourcing for the scandal, would at least provide more information than a single-sentence blurb.
As far as I've been able to see, looking now, it appears that, at least as when the cases were charged, it was a felony in the State of North Carolina for a teacher or any other school personnel to engage in a sex act with student at the same school who is 4 years younger. If you've found any more information on Moore's career, especially if the charges were less severe than reported or based mostly on outdated or discriminatory legislation, then that should definitely be elaborated on.
Lastly, I know clippings are preferred per WP:NEWSPAPERS, and I'm fine with the information being verified. I'm confident, however, Moore meets WP:POLITICIAN and that Toddst will agree it shouldn't be deleted. Rockhead126 (talk) 03:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just looked back at the Salisbury Post article. I forgot it listed the charges; it says Moore was charged with attempted second-degree forcible sex offense, a felony, in addition to the crime against nature charges. Again, I don't think it would be a bad thing if we provide more details in the article anyway. Rockhead126 (talk) 03:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Rockhead126. This is exaclty how I feel - that the article focuses too heavily on scandal and thus might make an impression that it was created for that purpose. You did good job by bringing new sources but the problem with the sources is that they are all about the scandal and this creates "base issues" which means that the sources might be not neutral about the living person if they mostly concentrated on scandal. I do not object notability, my concern remains neutral point of view. I decided to put the {{POV}} tag until this article is improved. I would recommend to add "Education" and "Career" sections for at least. As far as I understand the person had been in public service for years before indictment and, as a lawmaker, voted and did something for his voters. I do not mind if we bring our discussion to the talk of the article not to flood Toddst1|--71.238.35.13 (talk) 06:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links to official game strategy guides

Hi Todd

I assumed that since pages for older video games frequently include external links to where one can still buy the game, it would also be appropriate to include a link to where the official strategy guide for the game could be purchased. As the author, I’ve republished 8 of my old game books using CreateSpace/Kindle Direct (an arm of Amazon.com). As such, rather than being generally available, people who want help with the game can ONLY find these books at Amazon.com worldwide.

Would you prefer that I: * edit the Body text to something like “republished by the author, 2019, Amazon.com”? * do the same but make Amazon.com a link? * something else?

I’m not attempting to spam here, but don’t see that linking to the only vendor from whom the official guide can be purchased is that different from linking to a specific game vendor (Moby Games, for example) from whom the game can be purchased. Neither are arms of the game’s publisher.

Steve GameMaven (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. As the author, WP:COI certainly applies. You probably should not be adding info about your books. Toddst1 (talk) 05:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who’s in a better position to talk about a book than its author? Besides, I’m not commenting on their quality or recommending them. I’m merely noting their existence, which—if one is a gamer—is important info related to the game and certainly as important as various game review articles that are cited.

And my questions above are real. You’re obviously an experienced Wikipedia contributor and I am not, so I’m honestly asking what is and is not appropriate in terms of mentioning the OFFICIAL book for these games. If the mention in the body is okay and a direct external link is not, I’ll stick with the body text and no link. I’m asking you for advice. GameMaven (talk) 06:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to post a clarifying note on your talk page in case others have concerns. Toddst1 (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please check my talk page for two other proposed additions for a couple of games and let me know if they’re okay. This probably wraps them up. Thanks for the clarifications and your help. GameMaven (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Pikiell

Regarding this edit, I am unsure what specifically you want the lead to be. I believe that you want the date he was hired somewhere and according to the cited article, Steve Pikiell was hired on March 16, 2016. The question is how you want that formatted in the lede. Additionally, most of the other current coaches in the Big 10 use somewhat similar formatting, so what specific would need to be fixed for those articles? Any that use the word currently or something else? --Super Goku V (talk) 07:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought my edit summary of "WP:ASOF" might have been enough. Generally the use of the word "currently" is bad practice. The problem is nobody knows when that was written when they read the article. I hope that helps. Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Days of the year query

Hi!

I've finished referencing 9 March and I was just wondering whether I needed to have it checked before moving it into the DOY articles brought up to standard section or not.

Thanks, --Suonii180 (talk) 13:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Suonii180: That is absolutely awesome! Fantastic and I think you should do the honor of moving it. Keep up the awesome work! Toddst1 (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) and thanks also for the Barnstar!

--Suonii180 (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British MPs' dates of birth

Hi, If you're looking for dates of birth (and death, where applicable) of recentish British MPs, this is a good source. --Cavrdg (talk) 21:22, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up icon Toddst1 (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Official Strategy Guides

Hi, Todd

I just saw your comment on my Talk page concerning an edit you made to the “Alone In the Dark 3” article. I’m sorry, but I don’t understand how the mention of an official strategy guide (i.e., by definition, the only sanctioned, authorized, or commissioned book) for a computer or video game isn't relevant or useful information for those seeking information about that game. GameMaven (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GameMaven: Which is exactly why our behavioral guideline, WP:COI exists. Toddst1 (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maltese "Vandalism"?

I received a message that I have added incorrect information on the Maltese(dog) article. I have never edited a wikipedia article (at least I don't think I have) and I'm not even really sure how to do it. Do you happen to know what or when the edit waas made? Very confused.

96.237.148.58 (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leah LaBelle

Hello. I am confused on why Leah LaBelle was removed from the "Death" section of the January 31 article when the LaBelle article has references for the day that she died. Also, none of the people listed in that section have sections on the actual page so your edit summary just left me confused. I do not understand the reason for the removal. Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Days of the Year pages now require direct reliable sources for additions. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page. Almost all new additions without references are now being reverted on-sight. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. I have added LaBelle back to the list with a source. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, (talk page watcher) here. There is a small group of editors who are doing the tedious work of going through every day-of-year article and adding sources to each entry from the main articles. (Take a look at January 1!) I've done a handful myself, and it's not fun or fast. While that clean up is going on, preventing new entries without a source helps to keep the endeavor achievable. Thanks for adding the LaBelle source! As more and more of the entries become sourced, new editors will hopefully see that and imitate it. Schazjmd (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the message, and I appreciate all of the work put into the articles. I apologize for causing any offense, and it is what completely my fault in the first place as I somehow missed the note about this while editing. I hope you both are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My response

Hi Toddst1, I just to say to apologize for everything and your concerns on my edits and probably my worst mistake ever. Apparently, the revision for Wikipedia:Request for page protection was a mistake edit, I accidentally click the "Submit Query" on Twinkle which I'm still not get the gadget work, good thing you reverted my edit; in 2020 in the Philippines, it's not a edit war or blanking, I don't even have any problems with another user but how come its a edit war?, the only reason why I removed some of the sources is because it is not the "major and important" event and I'm from the Philippines that it's basically not part of the article; in disruptive pending changes, it's not a bullying, I'm actually one of the victims of bullying in real life, I saw your message on my talk page but how come its a bullying? no comment on that; and pages for days of the year, basically some IP users have just vandalize such as in April 29 where it added about the 10 year anniversary of PewDiePie's YouTube channel, while the rest no comment on that. Again, I apologize if you feel that I ruined Wikipedia and hopefully it won't happen again. I hope your considered my reasonable message. Movies Time (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MAF

I appreciate the feedback and the earlier thanks, but with regard to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_24&oldid=933100951, I'm unclear how the Associated Press / the Houston Chronicle are considered mirrors or forks? The referenced source was https://www.chron.com/life/article/Birthdays-March-24-12774163.php

Also, it appears you also reverted my minor formatting update https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_24&oldid=933102152

Thanks Slvrstn (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Slvrstn:, Thanks for your good work and for being both receptive to feedback and constructively giving it.
The chron.com reference (and references like that) often pop up on DOTY articles. They may look reliable because they were published by the Associated Press, but you have to look a little deeper. Sometimes journalists will look for a quick "filler" article to just get something out. It could be that they need to publish so many pieces per period of time or other reasons.
But in evaluating sources, you have to ask, "How likely is it that this information is true and where did it come from?" and maybe "How much research went in to this info?" In this case, it is highly likely that the AP journalist just went to the Wikipedia page March 24 and used that as a basis of the article. If we then use the article as a source, it is called Circular reporting or "citogenesis" and is one of the fundamental weaknesses of Wikipedia. We have to be super-vigilant about stuff like that.
Does this make sense? I hope so, but if it doesn't, please take this issue to our Reliable Sources Noticeboard where you can have our peers weigh in on it. I'm pretty sure they'll come up with the same conclusion.
Regarding the minor formatting, my apologies. I've fixed that here, I think.
Toddst1 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

6th fleet

Todd, you stated Wikipedia is not censored, and will not be censored simply due to information being offensive. Therefore please stop changing the information I am adding to the US Sixth Fleet page. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.56.55.185 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bring a reliable source and cite your additions to the article. We're not interested in having your perspective on the newspaper in the article. Wikipedia will not tolerate the encyclopedia being used to further your personal agenda. Toddst1 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is a veteran of the attack not a reliable source, Todd?
And for the Filip Muller page, I quoted directly from a National Death Penalty organization which is very well known. You can't just go about ruffling in a lethal gas victim's hair, or you will be exposed to the lethal gas yourself, this is very well documented.
It sounds to me like you are a bit biased here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.56.55.185 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A guy's observation posted on a club's self-published website is pretty far from anything resembling a WP:RS. It's obvious that you have no idea what that guideline says or why we have it. None of your edits have been backed by anything resembling a WP:RS which is why they're being reverted and will continue to be unless you figure that out.
Regarding Filip Muller, your commentary on issues with the article belongs on the article talk page, not in the article.
It's a shame you're too busy complaining about things instead of learning and applying the basics of how we edit here. Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't a self-published website Todd, and you know that damned well. For Filip Muller, it was a nationwide organization for advancing knowledge of capital punishment. For the Sixth Fleet Page, the site in question is owned and managed by an ASSOCIATION of the VETERANS of the USS Liberty attack; it doesn't get any better than a friggin PRIMARY SOURCE OF THE ATTACK. You are a biased propagandist at best and this whole site is a sham. The very top quotes on your own page being leftist propaganda serves as proof enough to show your bias. Enjoy this echo chamber by yourself, loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.56.55.185 (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that the feedback on the multiple issues that you're creating is confusing you. Let me try to simplify it for you:
On Filip Muller, you put your commentary in the article, saying that the previous statement didn't make sense to you. Then you threw in a reliable source - but not a reliable source for your opinion.
On the 6th fleet, you're:
  1. citing a statement published by a member of a very small club on the club's website
  2. inserting your own opinion of the newspaper in the article
Neither are acceptable. Toddst1 (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Brotherhood of Eternal Love

Hi, you reverted my addition of a wikilink to the movie article, citing WP:IMDBREF but left the IMDb ref in the article. I've removed the IP editor's addition of the IMDb-sourced information, I think that's what you intended. Schazjmd (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
heheh...it's all good, I shouldn't have accepted that pending change. The target article I w'linked matched and the IMDb was just supporting "it exists" but technically I should have pushed back for a better source, so thanks for that! Schazjmd (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 5

The birth list in this article neglects to mention Camaron de la Isla who was born in 1950. I got that information from his page in Wikipedia. Maybe you should have checked before you deleted my edit. I was only trying to help.

DrMusicArt (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DrMusicArt:Dr. Stephen Jablonsky, No, it's not my responsibility to check, as I explained on your talk page. It's your responsibility. Toddst1 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duncan_Lemp_killing

He also "frequented the 4chan and Reddit message boards, sites popular with internet trolls".

While this is a quote its not a Neutral_point_of_view of 4chan and Reddit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakermonitor1932 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm the one who included that quote, and it's definitely neutral. Consider that 4chan includes:
They are often referred to by outsiders as trolls, who regularly act with the intention of "doing it for the lulz", a corruption of "LOL" used to denote amusement at another's expense.
That had two direct citations, but it wouldn't be hard to find dozens more where that came from, as 4chan is well known for trolling. Neutrality doesn't mean lying to make things look nicer. FollowTheSources (talk) 04:17, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say that I appreciate your input on the article and welcome any good-faith effort to improve it. You've tightened up the citations and removed fluff, and you corrected some of my errors. I'm still new at this, so I could always use the help. FollowTheSources (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I've been at this a while. Thanks for the kind words and your efforts on that article. Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Conan

Hello could you please explain to me why the edits on the Conan page were deleted. Thank you Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 06:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjrz nj forecast: Click on the link you added. Toddst1 (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know! How do you think I can make this link readable? I initially tried taking the google.com part out but that didn’t work. I can ask in the tea house too if you’re busy. Thank you! Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 06:37, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjrz nj forecast: Your edits were clearly in good faith, but the url is broken. Here's what you added:
</ref> As of March 30, 2020, the show has been filmed from O’Brien’s house due to the [[COVID-19 pandemic|Covid-19 pandemic]]. <ref name="Vulture">{{cite web|title= How the Late-Night Shows Are Handling Coronavirus Quarantine |date=April 8, 2020|author=Wright, Megh|url=https://www/amp/s/www.vulture.com/amp/2020/04/late-night-shows-nyc-coronavirus.html |accessdate=May 20, 2020}}</ref>
That url is broken. perhaps it should have been
url=https://www.vulture.com/amp/2020/04/late-night-shows-nyc-coronavirus.html
Toddst1 (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I really appreciate your help. Your friend, WJRZ Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 06:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judi Patton and sourcing dates

Hi!

I saw you removed my source on the date of birth of Judi Patton, which I had added after trying to clean up the completely unsourced edits of User:WelshDragon18. I agree that it wasn't a great source, but it was the only one I could find that gave a day of birth, and it referred to the un-archived governors webpage and was also the same as the article originally had said. However, while searching I also found this source for the year and place of birth: Murphree, Daniel S. (9 March 2012). Native America : a state-by-state historical encyclopedia. Greenwood. p. 433. ISBN 978-0313381263. which you can read here: [22]

Now this is an from an encyclopedia about a pretty unrelated topic, but would this be an acceptable source?

I could also use some help if you have the time in going through all of WelshDragon18's edits and reverting any arbitrary date changes. He has done at least dozens, perhaps hundreds of edits going back years arbitrarily changing dates on biographical articles such as this [23] and this [24], often several times to different dates and directly against the existing sources and it is going to take me a while to get through them all. I am currently at 15 April 2020.

Thanks in advance for any help! Knuthove (talk) 16:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That source is good for the year of birth. Good job tracking it down! Yes WD18 seems to be problematic. Thanks for tackling it! Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please leave me alone now. This is starting to amount to bullying. If it does not stop I will take further action. WelshDragon18 (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WelshDragon18: Please take further action! Specifically, stop adding unsourced content and specifically adding/changing dates without WP:RS to back them up. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is absoutely no need for anyone to go through all my edits, it borders on creepy stalker. As I said to the other person I have never deliberately added content that is unsourced. WelshDragon18 (talk) 19:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nope - there is a long-term problem with your unsourced edits and there's a lot of clean-up to be done. The next time you add unsourced dates, I'm going to request that you be blocked. I made that clear on your talk page. If you have a problem with it, WP:ANI is where you should bring it up. Toddst1 (talk) 19:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WelshDragon18, when we are talking about unsourced edits, we are talking about edits like this one: [25]. Here you change the month and year Lynda Byrans was born, and you can see right after the year there is a citation saying that the original date was correct. You also changed the year she married, with no source to back the change. If you are not deliberately adding unsourced content, then why do you make changes like these? This is just one of many examples. Here you change the date of an image [26], where clicking on the image would easily tell you that the original date was correct. Here you first change the date of an image in the same way [27], and then immediately afterwards here [28] you change both the date of the image again, to another wrong date, and also change the date of birth which if you look further down in the article has three citations for the original date. I want to believe that you are not doing this deliberately, but it is hard for me to see another reason. And no matter why, you can not keep doing it. Knuthove (talk) 20:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand but I don't want any of my good work to all be undone, I'm very concerned about that. To be frank, there's nothing that says you have to revert these changes, so why complain when you have obviously chosen to take on this role? I appreciate your comments and will be more careful in future. WelshDragon18 (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Error

Dear Toddst1,

I believe you have made an error in your editing of the page "Shooting of Duncan Lemp". The facts corrected were already cited in the references concerning the announcements from the family.

If I may ask, what is your role within the Wikipedia community?

Best — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markelees (talk • contribs) 21:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, I didn't undo your edit. Second, someone else reverted it for all the right reasons. I see no sourcing for "Duncan was inquisitive and interested in all points of view. He actively explored differeing opinions, with a focus on individual freedom." smacks of activism on your part. The speculation you added about if the cops had behaved differently is your personal analysis and opinion. We have no place for that. On top of that, you've removed WP:RS supporting undisputed facts. Toddst1 (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Paul "Riot" section

I just wanted to touch base with you to let you know why I reverted and expanded your deletion of the riot section on Jake Paul's page. He claimed he was recording it to release a video to show the outrage of police brutality. In my view that makes it vocational. I reverted for that reason and left a section on the Jake Paul talk page explaining so. I also included cites and summary of his position and reasoning for it. I am happy to discuss and engage my reasoning on that talk page. Cheers. P37307 (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@P37307: Thanks. I appreciate the note. I realize my edit was somewhat WP:BOLD. I'm not sure I agree with your position, but I don't feel that strongly. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Toddst1,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yet ... Deb (talk) 13:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb: Tony is spot on. I think there is more going on there. Toddst1 (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Freeman birth addition to 6 July

Hello,

I don't understand why you've reverted this as Alan Freeman, a highly renowned radio presenter, has a Wikipedia article in his name. Martyn Smith (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the note I left on your talk page? Maybe the edit summary?? Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

born July 12, 1967 Giennadij Jerszow Polish and Ukrainian sculptor http://esu.com.ua/search_articles.php?id=20097 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.95.139.252 (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Arthur Perdue for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arthur Perdue is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Perdue until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Figes’s birth date

Fair enough. I got the info from the BMD register on genesreunited but couldn’t figure out how to link to it successfully. Dick Shane (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Calvin

Let's see if a one-year block has any more effect. I'm doubtful - if he didn't learn after a 3-month block, will he ever? - but it would normally take something a bit more serious than adding unreferenced content for me to do an indefinite block. Deb (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Reverted good faith edit"

I wanted to revert a good faith edit on Maine, and then saw you beat me to it with an edit summary I'd like to be able to use. Is this a rollback function where I can include "good faith"? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sluzzelin: It's built-in to WP:TW. TW is highly useful in so many dimensions. Toddst1 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... oh ... that! Thanks, Toddst1, I guess I should dip a toe in those waters at some point. :-) ---Sluzzelin talk 20:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Found the sources

Dear Toddst1,

I have found the sources of births on August 12, September 8, December 10 and December 27 as well as deaths on February 22.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Aravindhan Ravikumar (talk) 15:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD of Jacob R. Day

Hi! I recently created the Jacob R. Day page and I saw you nominated it for deletion. This is all well and good, but your removal of the deletion notice and the comment you left when removing the nomination ("too soon - hadn't seen the history") left me confused - Was the nomination removed because I created the page very recently, or was it removed because the page meets the required notability guidelines for pages? Thanks! AviationFreak💬 01:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationFreak: Thanks for your note. There's a general consensus that sending an article like that to AFD or even CSD within days of its creation is somewhat inappropriate, especially among seasoned editors. The feeling is to give the creator some time to get the article in shape. I withdrew my nomination after I looked at the page history and realized you only created it yesterday.
Having said that, I did some searching and I still don't think he meets the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. Of course any small town government official will have local coverage so most folks discount WP:GNG for local politicians unless the coverage is of wider than local interest.
While Salisbury is notable for many things (notice my activity on Arthur Perdue), I'm not convinced this guy meets the standards for meriting a biography.
Cheers and happy Wednesday! Toddst1 (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1: Thanks for filling me in, and thanks for improving Salisbury's Wikipedia coverage! While I can see your reasoning, I would still like to point out that Day has received "significant press coverage" in most of the sources used by the article (footnote 8 of WP:POLITICIAN defines "significant press coverage" quite well). If you do end up nominating the article at AFD (you are the more experienced editor and I would wholeheartedly respect this decision), I will be happy to present my case there. Thanks again for all of your work on Delmarva! AviationFreak💬 03:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:21, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Paul Shearer

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Paul Shearer. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LIVE PD Roll Call

That discussion at [29] is still going, thought you might want to weigh in again. Andrew Englehart (talk) 18:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Fonteno DOB

Hello Todd I am a friend of Shawn Fonteno and updated the info after noticing it was not on his page. I do not do much editing on Wikipedia and only did so to add correct information. Sorry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shawn_Fonteno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.27.251.49 (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not good. WP:V applies. Toddst1 (talk) 19:23, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheila E revert Comment

Hi - I'd actually argue that CABI is a tertiary source, not primary...and even if one insisted on its status as primary, there's perfectly reasonable grounds in this case to use the source. Nevertheless, have added two different sources which confirm the birth date and age. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2020).

Administrator changes

added Ajpolino • LuK3
readded Jackmcbarn
removed Ad Orientem • Harej • Lid • Lomn • Mentoz86 • Oliver Pereira • XJaM
renamed There'sNoTime → TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh! Ouch!

[30] EEng 02:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. Toddst1 (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for revert on "Summertime" song page

Hi! You reverted my edit, which had added:

"On 20 July 1987, Paul McCartney recorded a cover, included on the 1991 worldwide release of his album Снова в СССР."

to the "Summertime" song page. Thanks for noting "good faith", but your edit description gives no clue as to why you thought the reversion necessary. I'm still mystified, as the cover is by a notable artist and of good musical value, so I thought the addition was notable enough for inclusion. yoyo (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my edit summary. WP:SONGCOVER is self-explanatory. Toddst1 (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Andrwsc • Anetode • GoldenRing • JzG • LinguistAtLarge • Nehrams2020

Interface administrator changes

added Izno

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why did you remove Sue Draheim from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_11#Deaths

your note said "no source" --- however, none of the entries in that article have "sources". It is assumed (correctly) that the sources are contained in the article indicated (Sue Draheim). Assuming that you have misunderstood the parameters involved in the article, I will return the listing for the April 11, 2013 for her death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhooha (talk • contribs) 17:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)--Akhooha (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DOYCITE Toddst1 (talk) 20:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winge

I dont see why you get to delete valid information that is on every single other celebrity's page? personal life is part of all wikipedia pages and its not disclosing any private or controversial information. its a fact and i dont see why it shouldnt be there. its not gossip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.149.190.94 (talk) 23:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing

Hey- why did you say that my edit on Rocky Mount, North Carolina was disruptive? Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't be bothered to read what is on your own talk page before reverting it, take a hike. Toddst1 (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toddst1, you should, for the hell of it, look at their most recent contributions--hauling Diannaa off to Dispute Resolution over a copyright matter, filing a formal complaint with a university library, filling up an entire talk page to get a map in an article... If you want to take this to ANI at some point, plz let me know. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Yeah, I started to write something up but I've got a big work deadline this week. There's clearly a problem there. He seems to delight in being a time-sucker. For example, the above nonsense - my comment was self-explanatory but instead of reading it, he reverted it and winged about not understanding it. I'm wondering if this is more an ARB issue than ANI. WP:ANIISLOUSY often times for stuff like this, but I believe the editor is a strong net-negative force at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Link In Heading

Hello, Toddst1, I've removed that link from Trumpism because of how unorganized and unstructured the heading paragraph looked with it interrupting the content of the page. I'd wager that the link was meant to be a reference, but clearly the original poster failed at doing so due to the link not being encapsulated in a reference superscript if this was the case. Why should we expect casual readers of Wikipedia to take an article seriously when the content isn't organized? May you explain to me why that link is perplexingly placed in the middle of a sentence in the heading? W.C Cross (talk) 07:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@W.C Cross: {{sfn}} is an entirely valid form of reference, although not as widely used as "being encapsulated in a reference superscript" using <ref> ... </ref>. Toddst1 (talk) 07:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1:Update: I believe I have found where the confusion has developed from. After again perusing the edit history of the page, I have found that Luoman666 made an erroneous edit in where one of the references was turned into a hyperlink that became visible on the heading. It must've been that I made an edit to Luoman666's work, but published it after Autumn Windfalls had realized and fixed the error. It seems that Autumn Windfalls realized it was a reference that was originally on the article, whereas I believed the link to have been newly added by Luoman666's edit. My apologies for questioning you on the matter without further diagnosing the issue properly before tackling it. W.C Cross (talk) 07:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. It looks like @Autumn Windfalls: did a fine job of cleaning up after Luoman666. Kudos to AW! Toddst1 (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing the page about my brand

Hi, Im keen to discuss what ways I can update the Wikipedia page about my brand, Mixmag, within your guidelines, using citations where required. Some images, facts and info on the page are out of date. I am the MD of Mixmag and am keen for people looking up my brand on Wikipedia to get up-to-date information. The page was targeted this year by the owner of a smaller media brand looking to hurt our business; he has since agreed he will stop editing our page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harryisourking (talk • contribs) 12:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read the suggestions I left at User_talk:Harryisourking#Ownership of a page. Toddst1 (talk) 18:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Nominating Sword of the Spirit for Deletion

Hello @Toddst1:, I think you nominated the page Sword of the Spirit for deletion in 2008. The result was 'Move to User Sandbox' It doesn't currently seem to be in a Sandbox, though. I would like to propose that the article be re-nominated for deletion because there are not enough sources to present the article neutrally. There is not even any WP:RS that describe the organization, except in passing. A few reliable sources mention scandals in the organization but do not say much about the organization itself. So I think there are not enough sources to present the article neutrally. What do you think? Franciskouj (talk) 11:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Franciskouj: A quick look at the article leads me to believe it was created by obvious WP:SPA/ WP:COI types with maybe a WP:COATRACK or two. It's certainly a problematic article. A quick search with my first cup of coffee didn't turn up any WP:RS but because the name of the org is used in the bible and discussed at length, there is a ton of noise. You don't need my permission to nominate it but I'd support it. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Franciskouj: It became obvious that you had a connection to the subject of the article. After a look at your talk page, I see you declared your connection. Thank you for that. However in that context, you should refrain from editing the article directly and limit your activity to the article talk page. I have struck my comment above about supporting a deletion nomination by you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COI

Hello @Toddst1: So I have received a Conflict of Interest notification from you.

I can assure you that I have no affiliation whatsoever with any of the organisation pages I contribute to. There may be some confusion, it is in fact Franciskouj who is employed by the Sword of the Spirit, and states so on their user talk page...there have also been some section blanking issues with ip only users etc...

This article was in fact started by another wiki user who makes contributions to topics relevant to the charismatic renewal.

I contribute specifically to covenant community organisation pages as I have access to a fair number of sources on these communities, and have noticed that much of the material on existing wiki pages for these organisations suffer from sparse documentation, corporate vanity and poor sourcing.

I have taken a bit of time to try and conform to wiki standards, and hope that the presentation of my content is appropriately accurate to the source and neutral.

I have begun with reputable news sources (NYT, Washington Post, Penguin) and some academic publishing. Some of the content included here was sourced and suggested for inclusion by Franciskouj as you will be able to see on the talk page.

I can fully understand that at first glance there appears to be a negative bias. It is unfortunate that this organisation has seen little discussion in reliable sources other than to discussion or academic study of the more unsavoury aspects of the organisation.

Franciskouj has suggested some recent contributions, and I have suggested myself expansion on the topics of community structure and ritual practice (I am drafting a section on ritual practice which relies primarily on journal publishing and books by professors who have studied this organisation). I am also aware of at least one current academic who studies these organisations, so I believe there will be more authors for future contributions and further material which may be used for sourcing.

Perhaps this will help flesh out the article somewhat and allow a little more neutral reading.

Linn C Doyle (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)Linn C Doyle[reply]

@Linn C Doyle: it's clear to me that both you and @Franciskouj: have connections to Sword of the Spirit. May I suggest you both find something else to edit? Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I really wish people would check their swords at the door in religious discussions. It's led to problems in the past. EEng 22:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng: /O <rimshot> Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1: I am well familiar with literature pertaining to the Charismatic movement, the Sword of the Spirit, the Word of God (community), the People of Praise, leadership in the charismatic renewal, the Quiverfull movement, the Shepherding Movement, the Mother of God Community. I am, however, absolutely and completely not affiliated with any of these organisations.
I would dispute characterisation as a WP:SPA as I though I have so far contributed to only 4 pages in the pages I have new content for I do intend to contribute much more. Though I would agree my first wiki edits are a statement of anger of the issues that have been whitewashed from the history I believe you will find that subsequent edits have accurately and without bias reflected proportionally the body of work in reliable sources on this topic. I can assure you that this content is not cherry-picked but does in fact account for all mention I have found of the Sword of the Spirit and co. in mainstream news. There is indeed some academic study of these groups, Dr Thomas J Csordas, a respected anthropology professor who studies these groups, provides some publishing in reputable academic journals, and you will find that this information will conform to the article content.
There is of course room for dryer aspects of Sword of the Spirit and other charismatic groups which should be included, however this relies on books and academic journals rather than news sources, and I have received no response from other editors in the talk page regarding inclusion. Linn C Doyle (talk) 23:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation problem

Hi Toddst1,

Thanks again for this message! Reviewing WP:DOY is at least a quarter of the WP:RPC process, and had you not informed me I would have continued to think a wikilink was sufficient for a citation. I was reading your userpage, and noticed something very interesting. I love the very first quote you have - but I have an issue with your citation. The citation says it was retrieved on 1 August 2016, but the article was published on 31 August 2016.

Is this a minor detail? Yes.
Am I still bringing it to your attention? Yes.

HouseBlaster (talk) 02:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: Hmm. Interesting. It looks like I first added that material here on August 1. It appears I typed the wrong month for the article date making it a future article. It should have been July 30. Facepalm Facepalm Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020: edits to July 14

Hi, I'm sorry I made a bad edit to the article, and thanks for repairing it. I was mass-reverting the work of a new editor who, 95% of the time, finds rather outlandish "sources", which they don't check, and which don't support the article text. I knew there would be a few mistakes, but I needed to act fast before good edits piled on top of the bad ones. It's more effort to manually revert than it took to make the bad edits!--Quisqualis (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cinc Sentits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Transposing to Talk:Cinc_Sentits#Websites for broader visibility, relevancy, etc.

I am sorry to notice that "ViaMichelin Barcelona Restaurants: online restaurant guide" and "MICHELIN GUIDE ESPAÑA" do not exist on the internet. Maybe on paper. Could you please correct that? The Banner talk 13:36, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Banner: Hmm.
  • Regarding ViaMichelin Barcelona Restaurants: online restaurant guide, the web page pointed to by the URL had that information on 14 September 2017 which is why we include accessdate=14 September 2017 in the citation. That link now has different content. We should try to find a replacement.
  • Regarding MICHELIN GUIDE ESPAÑA I think that's a matter of interpretation. The web page clearly states "2 Michelin stars MICHELIN GUIDE ESPAÑA." One could argue that the website is "Michelin Guide," "MICHELIN GUIDE ESPAÑA" or even "Guía MICHELIN España." I'm not sure it makes much of a difference because the URL is unambiguous. The template documentation says that parameter should contain Name of the work containing the source; may be wikilinked if relevant. Since the Wikipedia article that would cover that website on the English Wiki would be Michelin Guide, I'll change it to website=[[Michelin Guide]]
If you don't mind, I'm going to close this discussion here and transpose it to the article talk page where I think it really belongs.
Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"MICHELIN GUIDE ESPAÑA" is clearly a referral to the paper version of the guide. The Banner talk 16:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sorry to see that you are not an admin

Toddst1, I do not follow the drama-boards, so I did not notice that you were no longer an admin. It is a pity.-- Toddy1 (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It's for the best. The community has a different idea of how much BS is acceptable from problematic editors than I do - and that's about it. My efforts are better applied in different areas. Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Toddst1,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Quick note

Hi I was about to delete a few words including a hanging reference to complete your Revision as of 05:51, 6 September 2020 by Toddst1 on Robin Collins but I see that AnomieBOT "rescued" the reference:

06:04, 6 September 2020‎ AnomieBOT talk contribs‎ 3,139 bytes +160‎ Rescuing orphaned refs ("atone" from rev 976977031)

I'll delete it — this is just in case you left it there because you thought it needed special treatment.

Thanks for so much work! BAPhilp (talk) 05:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Etioile green.jpeg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Etioile green.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Founding Father Roger Sherman

Todd,

I'm looking to collaborate with someone of the extensive work I've done on American founding father Roger Sherman and his descendants. I'm wondering if this might interest to you?

This work is part of greater effort in following the evolution of a American founding family.

Aaron (03:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC))

@AaronB0413: I'll be glad to take a look. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


I have all the supporting documentation, and want to make sure that all the proper citations are included and page formations, etc.

AaronB0413 {ATrain (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

Roll back of date entry

Hi Toddst1

Just a quick question. I noticed you rolled back my date-entry at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2 (adding musician Anna David to the 'Births' list). I'm curious to know why? :)

Cheers and have a lovely weekend

Kmilling (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary?[31] Toddst1 (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 10

You reverted my edit on November 10 but I think you meant to get the one before - could you take another look?— Rod talk 21:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodw: You are correct. Mea culpa. Facepalm Facepalm Toddst1 (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Disruptive Editing?"

Look Toddst1, You need to stop it. Why do you keep delting my contribution. It's not disruptive to add Juice WRLD, to the list of December 2 Births, he was a rapper before he died. There is an article about, he wasn't on the list, so I add him and then you delete him, and I don't like it. It's not a disruption top add a single correction or reply, so just stop messing up everything. I'm not doing anything wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfhxzf (talk • contribs) 03:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced or weakly sourced personal info in articles will be reverted on-site per WP:BLP and WP:DOB. Days of year articles are subject to the WP:DOYCITE requirements as well. Seriously, stop adding unreferenced WP:BLP info now. Toddst1 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for making the Green Star section. They debuted it in Japan recently as well. (Hello23223 (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Hello23223:You're very welcome. I'm glad it was appreciated. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Give In

Hello Toddst1

OK, I give in to all the reverts you've made. I've made some mistakes on my edits. And I'm Sorry. You've won the battle, but you haven't won the war. Click [[32]], and see the contributions I've made. Please click the preview button, some of them say accepted. I'm promise you, you won't regret it Xfhxzf ([[33]]) , 3:09 PM, MST. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfhxzf (talk • contribs) 22:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Your WP:BATTLEGROUND is clear. Toddst1 (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean. Xfhxzf (talk) 3:28 PM, January 19, 2021 (MST)
Wikipedia is not about winning. Toddst1 (talk) 22:44, 19 January 2021 (UTC)'[reply]
I honestly do understand that. Xfhxzf (talk) 4:54 PM, January 19, 2021 (MST)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2021).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for your edits on Wedbush Securities! You did some great cleanup work there. It seemed like the article had some serious problems, but I wasn't really sure how to handle them. Thanks for taking care of them. palindrome§ǝɯoɹpuᴉןɐd 22:54, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Palindromesemordnilap: You're welcome. That article was a mess and in need of a WP:BOLD cleanup after all the WP:COI BS and advertising loaded in there. Toddst1 (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wedbush Edit

Hi Todd, you substantially reduced in the scope the academic value of the Wedbush page. Wikipedia now has more characters on the Legal Cases as it does on the History section. This hardly seems appropriate for one of the largest investment banks in the United States managing over $2.5 billion, the firm has been around since 1955. The true extent of history as written is now practically non-existent as is the prior corporate structure. The edits I did were based on the pages of other banks too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.229.142.133 (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please declare your affiliation with Wedbush on your user talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@138.229.142.133: Whether or not you have a WP:COI, I believe you have a point. See Talk:Wedbush_Securities#Concerns_about_legal_cases. Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 27th revert

Hi there. Just wondering what criteria is needed to add a DOY to a page. This edit was reverted. I'm fine with that, but wondering for instance how that link is any different to [International Polar Bear Day], which is just a random pick from the existing list. -- drrngrvy tlk @ 10:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drrngrvy: See WP:DOTY.
The standards have been raised over time and it doesn't look like February 27 has been cleaned up yet. Take a look at the pages that have been cleaned up. Toddst1 (talk) 14:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2021).

Administrator changes

added TJMSmith
removed Boing! said Zebedee • Hiberniantears • Lear's Fool • Only • WGFinley

Interface administrator changes

added AmandaNP

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
  • When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
  • There have been a number of reported issues with Pending Changes. Most problems setting protection appear to have been resolved (phab:T273317) but other issues with autoaccepting edits persist (phab:T275322).

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:15, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

kitten for the review

Bluefiredragon09 (talk) 19:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian McFarlane

You removed most of the last ¶ at Ian McFarlane, with the edit summary: way, way off topic

I dispute this characterisation and find this to be disruptive editing. I reverted the edit, with my summary: Returned recently deleted material: it was referenced, relevant and updated his career to 2010s;

I ask you to discuss your preferred version at Talk:Ian McFarlane#March 2021 revert so that we can reach a consensus.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)00:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to this bullshit accusation of WP:DE on Talk:Ian McFarlane, Toddst1 (talk) 23:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
  • Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news

  • When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
  • Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trout

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Willbb234Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 22:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding...

...this,[34] his grave marker says 1916. To say 1916/1917 is unsourced. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I've seen you on some newer PCRs talk page, offering advice (especially with the date thing; it's not mentioned anywhere.) I (and probably other new PCRs) appreciate this a lot! It's helped better my judgement on some unclear cases. So thanks for taking the time to look at PCR accepts for things we could improve on. :) Sennecaster (What now?) 03:01, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sennecaster: No worries. Glad you find it helpful. Some folks have reacted rather negatively to my request. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

removed Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

removed Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on DOB

Thanks for the correction. For the part Andie is 35 for instance, there's evidence on that based on articles which I will insert. As for DOBs, not sure where that person got it from in a really long ago edit. True to say DOBs are a serious matter, so how do we go from there? Thanks. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I previously removed it. From WP:DOB, Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public. and Consensus has indicated that the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified. There you have it. Toddst1 (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much. I have since inserted a source. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 02:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGreatSG'rean: Come on, WP:IMDBREF? Really? Note the part about widely published by reliable sources. Toddst1 (talk) 02:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me take that down. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheGreatSG'rean: It may seem like I'm being a complete jerk here (which may be accurate) but I appreciate your constructive engagement on the subject. Thanks for working towards WP:V and being receptive to the feedback, no matter how brusquely I've delivered it. You're obviously here for all the right reasons. Toddst1 (talk) 02:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1: I understand, its just part of the job. I have no bad impressions, not to worry. TheGreatSG'rean (talk) 03:24, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My reversed edit in September 25

Ah,I saw the date in Prithvi Narayan Shah and kingdom of nepal page.And I also didn't saw any reliable sources for other article written in the page. So pls explain me I. Dept. Thank you, PN27 PN27 (talk) 10:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PN27: The WP:BURDEN to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution, and then there's WP:DOYCITE. Toddst1 (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted correction of Birthday

Hi Toddst1 - On 12 May 2021 I discovered that musician Marshal Royal was listed under 'Births' on the page 'On this day'. He was born on 5 December 1912 - not 12 May. In the entry about Royal there's a verified reference, confirming his date of birth, so with that in mind I took the liberty and moved Royal to 'On this day' 5 December 1912. That has now been reverted, and I have a hard time understanding why. Please advise :) -- Kmilling - 16:49, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kmilling: Thanks for your note. While it's great you corrected an error on the May 12 page, you must have missed the edit notice you were presented with when editing December 5 and didn't follow the link I provided as a comment when I undid your addition.
The Days of Years (DOTY) pages were becoming a complete mess with incorrect and unverifiable info so things have changed so that all new entries require a direct source.
The DOTY project had exempted themselves from verifiability. As a result, almost none of the pages had any sources to back things up, based on the naive (and against Wikipedia policy) belief that all entries would be backed by reliable sources in the linked article. It turns out that was not the case and the DOTY pages were filled with incorrect info and even worse, other places started believing the info there and publishing the incorrect info in newspapers, for example on "Today's date in history" type listings.
So about two years ago the DOTY project took the bold step of requiring that all new entries be backed by direct reliable sources. Several of us have gone through and started cleaning things up. May 11 is an example of where we want to be. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page.
We could use your help in:
  1. Preventing new entries that don't include direct sources and when they occur, either supplement them with a reliable source or reverting them.
  2. Helping us clean up articles. The project members have asked all participants to go through their birthday and clean the entries up by adding reliable sources to each entry, or removing entries where reliable sources aren't readily available.
I hope this helps. Please keep up your otherwise great work! Toddst1 (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Days of the Year topic

Hello! I have one question regarding to the Days of the Year. For the edit to stay, it needs to have some soft or reference or some kind of clarification for proof that the event has occurred. Is that right?

Best regards, -Me21877

Template:Nadir of American race relations

Todd, help me out here. I saw what you did, but I also wrote up a half dozen of those, and we just can't keep adding them infinitely. Of course there's also Template:Lynching in the United States, which has many more names, and as a footer that's much more handy than a long list in a sidebar. And ideally they'd both "pull" from the same well, so you don't have to update either one--or worse, both. Any ideas? Oh, and there's List of lynching victims in the United States, which is probably the most visible, the most edited and watched, and the easiest to maintain... Drmies (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: You raise a good point. I was thinking similarly but hadn't thought it all the way through. I figured after the list got more populous it would be obvious to others, but you're quicker than I expected (as ususal). We should come up with an alternative to including them individually in the template, no? Toddst1 (talk) 15:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but I don't know how to do that. I tell you what, though, this is the kind of thing that Wikidata would be good for--you could have some kind of function that includes everyone marked as "lynching victim" and combine it with the requirement "must have article on en-wiki". But I will never learn how to do something like that. BTW that list article is not at all easy to maintain, since it has tables with too many cells (you can see some of my usual complaining on the talk page). And because of its awkward layout it is just very hard to tell how complete it is. With the template, I can make a quick guesstimate of how many names are on it; with that list that's impossible. So now I'm even more doubtful about where to turn here and what to do. Drmies (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have an idea but I'm going to be a bit busy at least the first half of this week. If you don't hear from me by next Tuesday or see an attempt from me to solve this, help this old man remember this task please. Toddst1 (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit. Thanks you. Vnosm (talk) 05:29, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Damiano David

The person really was born on 8 January 1999. It can be confirmed at his band's official website ([35]) and La Repubblica article published on the same date of his birth. Anyway, will replace the previous reference with the one from La Repubblica.--ParoleSonore (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. As you alluded to on talk: Damiano David ‎, BLP issues, especially stuff like WP:DOB and innuendo about sexual orientation require substantial sources. Toddst1 (talk) 22:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me because went to check and found ([36]) the original reference about his sexual orientation. The previous reference didn't seem to be very reliable and did not have complete replies by band members. It lacked context. Can you give a look at Talk:Måneskin#Section style, personal life and LGBT discussion? An editor is pushing information about Damiano's and other band members' sexual orientation although the inclusion of such information is not part of common practice for music groups, it is not supported by guidelines, there is a lack of substantial sources to give weight as well as notability. --ParoleSonore (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, can you make a comment at Talk:Damiano David because of new editors' edits that ignore talk page discussions? Is there a way to protect the article from this kind of edits? Update: Ok, found something about protection, maybe it will be enough. --ParoleSonore (talk) 17:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback of the addition of Vladimir Tkachenko on the 20th September births page

Hey Toodst1,

I see that you've reverted my edit that added Vladimir Tkachenko to the list of people born on the 20th of September. I understand that references/citations are needed for such additions, but the wiki page for the athlete itself points to his FIBA (the International Basketball Federation) page that lists his DOB as the 20th of September. If that is not a good enough citation, I would sincerely like an explanation on what is.

Best, SamTelson Samtelson (talk) 04:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The second ref in the linked article would have been a good ref to use. Toddst1 (talk) 13:57, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template

A template is a device that serves as a model for others to copy. It does not prescribe that examples of text used within itself shall apply across the board, only that they represent the formats in which actual detail shall be presented in the live version of the article. Hence, while the template gives Pre-1600, 1601–1900 and 1901– as examples of recommended sub-heading format, a given article might use Pre-1801, assuming a substantial number of instances before the 19th century; 1801–1850 and 1851–1900, if there is a long list of 19th century items; and then 1901–1910, 1911–1920, etc. if there is a huge list of 20th century items.

The whole point of the exercise is to improve readability for our readers, not to make matters worse by splitting a list of 100 births into three sub-sections containing 3, 17 and 80 items respectively. A template is there for illustration only. The whole point of a template is to provide a format that is used as a basis for the actual detail. You do NOT apply template examples literally. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The WP:DOY has established Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year/Template to standardize the format of the project's articles. The project has established Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#Resources and conventions that are to be followed. You don't get to make up your own conventions that contravenes the project consensus, even if you disagree. And for your own sake, stop edit warring on project pages! Toddst1 (talk) 18:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not edit warred as I pointed out at my own page. Instead, YOU are in breach of WP:BRD because you should have opened a discussion, inviting me to join it, after I reverted the other editor. You clearly do not understand what a template is or the difference between format and detail. You need to take the matter back to the DOY project and ensure that you fully understand what you are dealing with instead of indulging in WP:IDHT as well as ignoring BRD. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, [37] followed by [38] is indeed an edit war. You might try reading that. And your edits aren't exempt from the project standards just because you feel like it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read WP:BRD and that you also find out what a template is and what purpose it serves. You do not apply the content of templates literally. Where is the common sense in converting a list of 100 items into three sub-lists of 3, 17 and 80 items respectively as happens when you insist upon literally applying the values of a template's format examples? The point of a template format which uses, say, "1601–1900" as an example is that this is the format to be applied, not the value. Hence, "1801–1850" complies with the format standard but "1801 to 1850" does not; neither does "1801-1850" (hyphen). A project standard involving a template is about formatting, not about setting prescribed values. If you can't understand that, then I don't know how to explain it to you. You could try reading what I have written. Stop trying to twist things by playing the old WP:IDHT game. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's get this straight. You made a Bold departure from the standard, it was reverted and if I don't agree with you in this discussion, it's IDHT instead of just a disagreement. Go away now. Enough. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021).

Administrator changes

added Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
removed Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sunnyvale, California

Hi Todd, and thank for the feedback on the Sunnyvale, California page. I'm afraid I'm looking for clarification on what what you claim I'm leaving unsourced. One of my edits includes adding a "citation needed" tag to the claim that Lockheed moved its headquarters to Sunnyvale, which I can't find substantiated anywhere (and believe to be untrue). Much of the edit is re-ordering content that is already in the article, in part to consolidated the three references to being in Silicon Valley into just one. I added a section on the 1988 ESL Shooting, which is notable and well sourced. I also highlighted Sunnyvale's significance to video games, as the former home of Atari. Would you please advise, and perhaps pepper what you see as problem areas with "citation needed" and/or other tags, rather than reverting the whole edit? Thank you Johnlogic (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

comment by (talk page watcher): Lockheed established its missile headquarters in Sunnyvale in 1956.[39] By 1994, it was headquarters for Missiles & Space Co.[40] (Clipped the newspaper articles) Hope that helps. Schazjmd (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
  • An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news

  • IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost interview for Days of the Year

Hi Toddst1, hope that you're well. I was wondering if there's any way to convince you to participate in the interview at WP DOTY? (interview here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/WikiProject days of the year interview draft - even a few questions would be most appreciated). It would be great to have a few more voices in the interview and I am enthusiastic about trying to have these interviews because it helps show editors how diverse in interests our movement is, reminds editors how we are all human and here in good faith, and continues to develop a sense of community :). Tom (LT) (talk) 08:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tom (LT): Sure. I'll have a look. It looks like Willbb has been your only taker so far. Toddst1 (talk) 15:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Toddst1 (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Much appreciated Tom (LT) (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tom (LT): Where will this be published? Toddst1 (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the signpost, soon I hope! It was too late to get in this edition low due to the time to roster up some additional participants :P. Tom (LT) (talk) 10:07, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news

  • Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import. (T287380)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ricard White (actor)

Hi I’m Dragongirl95, I saw your reply to my request to edit Richard White (actor) and it said it needs citations from a reliable source? How is IMDb not a reliable source? How do I prove his birthday is August 4,1953? I’m one of Richards biggest fan so I highly doubt I would give inappropriate information about his birthday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragongirl95 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dragongirl95: I don't think you understand what it means for a source to be reliable. IMDB is so unreliable we have WP:IMDBREF. Perhaps a few minutes reviewing WP:RS would be in order. Toddst1 (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanātana Dharma

It seems someone has been involved in edit war with you. I have reverted it. Please block that user aswell protect the page from disruptive edits. Already that page has lots of edit wars recently.

157.49.142.26 (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2021).

Administrator changes

readded Jake Wartenberg
removed Emperor • Viridian Bovary
renamed Ashleyyoursmile → Viridian Bovary

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Score extension has been re-enabled on public wikis. It has been updated, but has been placed in safe mode to address unresolved security issues. Further information on the security issues can be found on the mediawiki page.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Toddst1,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Ricard White (actor)

Hi Dragongirl95 here, 

I read ur newest reply and I didn’t realize that you don’t count IMDb for sources. However does this count as a reliable source? https://famousbirthdays.io/richard-white-voiceactor/. I kinda wish that I had done the galaxycon live session with Richard so that I could’ve asked him in virtual person but I was too late and when you google his birthday in the sear it says his birthday is August 4,1953 so I don’t know how much proof you need for Richards birthday date.

Thanks for your time

Multiple repeat offender

Remember this guy? I've just blocked him permanently. Deb (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Deb:. Toddst1 (talk) 20:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANEW

What on earth?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23:, I have no idea what that was supposed to be. Thanks for finding it and fixing it. Toddst1 (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2021).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • A motion has standardised the 500/30 (extended confirmed) restrictions placed by the Arbitration Committee. The standardised restriction is now listed in the Arbitration Committee's procedures.
  • Following the closure of the Iranian politics case, standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.
  • The Arbitration Committee encourages uninvolved administrators to use the discretionary sanctions procedure in topic areas where it is authorised to facilitate consensus in RfCs. This includes, but is not limited to, enforcing sectioned comments, word/diff limits and moratoriums on a particular topic from being brought in an RfC for up to a year.

Miscellaneous

  • Editors have approved expanding the trial of Growth Features from 2% of new accounts to 25%, and the share of newcomers getting mentorship from 2% to 5%. Experienced editors are invited to add themselves to the mentor list.
  • The community consultation phase of the 2021 CheckUser and Oversight appointments process is open for editors to provide comments and ask questions to candidates.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Testu-Brissy - October 15 1798

Pierre Testu-Brissy. Your edit comment said ... this ascent not even mentioned in the linked person's biography. It is cited in the Wiki page, but where can I find his biography? It's not obvious in my Google searching. I am excited (a bit) about reading it and enhancing the Wiki article. Many thanks. Chienlit (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. It is mentioned in his biography.
However, that event seems quite trivial. If you think it should be included on the WP:DOY page, open a discussion on the talk page and see what others think. If I'm reading @Deb:'s comment above correctly, she seems to imply that the first horse ride in a balloon wasn't that significant either. Usually events listed have articles about them, like Storming of the Bastille or Apollo 11 but not Henry Kisssinger got sick on a diplomatic mission in Paris. Toddst1 (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your edits and effort. etc. I'll retry DoY when I'm actually sure what his name was (there are several alternatives online), and have a handle on his personal biography. I'll keep searching. Chienlit (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. In the early days we didn't know what to do with computers, a predicted market of circa 6 in the UK.

Balloon ascent on horseback

I managed to find a few references for this on Google Books if you're interested, but none of them really explain why. A friend of mine is a bit of an expert on the history of ballooning and has written a book about it (which doesn't mention this incident), but one thing I learned from him is that the earliest experiments with hot air balloons had little in the way of objective and they had no idea how they were going to use them in the long term. Apparently one theory was that horses would run faster if they had a balloon attached to them! Deb (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
  • On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 01:59, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2021).

Administrator changes

removed A Train • Berean Hunter • Epbr123 • GermanJoe • Sanchom • Mysid

Technical news

  • Unregistered editors using the mobile website are now able to receive notices to indicate they have talk page messages. The notice looks similar to what is already present on desktop, and will be displayed on when viewing any page except mainspace and when editing any page. (T284642)
  • The limit on the number of emails a user can send per day has been made global instead of per-wiki to help prevent abuse. (T293866)

Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2021

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Phase 2 of the 2021 RfA review has commenced which will discuss potential solutions to address the 8 issues found in Phase 1. Proposed solutions that achieve consensus will be implemented and you may propose solutions till 07 November 2021.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

Hello again, Toddst1! On the page December 14, I reverted this edit because the latter person does not have a page on Wikipedia, let alone a citation to a reliable source as required per WP:DOYCITE. I could be wrong (as I have been many, many times before), but isn't that the proper protocol under DOYCITE? I believe what happened is you thought I had added the person to the article without a citation, but I in fact removed it, and then you reverted it. Sorry for the lack of clarity, I was unsure how to eloquently state this! HouseBlastertalk 18:15, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Brain fart on my part. Sorry! You're 100% right. This is the edit I meant to revert because Leroy is never defined. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is all good! Thank you so much for keeping track of all of the day-of-the-year articles, it is nice to know that a friendly user dedicates significant time to ensuring these are maintained! HouseBlastertalk 21:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to making wikipedia articles.

I appreciate you reviewing my article over Salvatore Briguglio, so adding inline citations is just adding the source next to the text where it came from? I also want to add an image on the article, https://themobmuseum.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/briguglio-GI-515113372_crop.jpg but I'm not sure how to avoid copyright, any help would be appreciated, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodapoppers (talk • contribs) 01:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sodapoppers: Thanks for asking. It looks like that site is copywritten so you can't use their photo. Check out Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Toddst1 (talk) 02:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, if you don't mind checking the article to see if I'm doing inline citations correctly, I just want to be sure of it.--Sodapoppers (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting close. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Inline_citations. You'll want to use the templates listed in this section. Toddst1 (talk) 02:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you, I believe I'm fully done with the ref list, but am I doing it correctly? I apologize as I'm new to creating articles and some of this stuff confuses me, haha! --Sodapoppers (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an image to the article, and I believe it is good to go, but can you check to make sure? Thanks. Sodapoppers (talk) 16:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sodapoppers:I took a look. First, I deleted the obvious copyright violation of the image. You can't steal copywritten material from websites and use it on Wikipedia. Second, I fixed up the Oxygen reference using a more conventional way of citing sources as an example for you and removed the link from the WP:EL section. You can see the full documentation for the template I used here: {{cite web}}. You should use the {{cite news}} for the New York Times piece. I hope this is useful. Toddst1 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sodapoppers: Please take a look at what I did here and here. Toddst1 (talk) 02:34, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sodapoppers:, I think you're getting the hang of it! Nice work. Question: I'm thinking that you meant to say references #3 & 4 are the same and #6 & 7 are the same. Is that correct? If so, I can show you a better and easy way of using the same reference more than once, but I want to be sure before I make the change. Toddst1 (talk) 03:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1: Thank you, I appreciate that, and yes, the references are the same. --Sodapoppers (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sodapoppers: Take a look at what I did here. BTW, you don't need to use {{yo}} to alert me to changes on my talk page. Everyone gets notice of new edits on their talk. Toddst1 (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add an image to the article but can't find any public domain images of Salvatore Briguglio, and he's dead so I can't take a picture of him, and if I can use an image, how can I make it fair use? --Sodapoppers (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sodapoppers: Acquire (purchase) the rights to the photo from the copyright holder and then assign those rights to Wikipedia. Anything less will be a copyright violation. Toddst1 (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2nd

I approved a pending change by user:Superior-wisconsin and cleaned it up a little. You reverted my cleanup but not the original change. Is that what you meant to do? (To be clear: I have no problem with you reverting both edits.) Cheers, Nick Levine (talk) 23:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually while I’m here I’ll revert the other one anyway. Sorry for the noise. Nick Levine (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - that's what I meant to do. Thanks Nick. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And...

Have you noticed the spate of new users adding poorly-sourced content about Finland to day and year articles? Deb (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. That signpost article cuts both ways. We got a couple of solid contributors (one joined the project) but plenty of bozos. Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb:, [41]. Toddst1 (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Deb:, Still at it [42]. Toddst1 (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Rice

I've done nothing of the sort. What "poorly referenced biographical content" are you referring to? If you are going to accuse me of something it would help if you specify the details of you are talking about. Two Bananas (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Two Bananas, when you edited Anne Rice to remove the unsourced date of death, you also restored the unsourced date of birth which Toddst1 had just removed in the edit before yours. I'm pretty sure that's what Toddst1's message on your talk page refers to. Schazjmd (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Two Bananas: Yes. This edit added not one, but two unsourced dates of birth. Looking at my edit summary, it's hard to imagine how you didn't understand that. Perhaps you should read your talk page. It was spelled out there too. Toddst1 (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a simple mistake made when undoing obvious vadalism on the article. It was certainly nothing that deserved the hostile message I received on my talk page that threatened to block me from Wikipedia. Please, I ask that, in the future, you keep in mind the Wikimedia code of conduct. We are all volunteers here as I'm sure you know. My edit history clearly shows my good will towards this site to remove vandalism and make small fixes for the better. A gentle message to say, "you undid an important edit, please be more mindful in the future" would have been a better way to bring my mistake to my attention. You get more flies with honey than vinegar, as the saying goes. Two Bananas (talk) 21:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno. Any editor that's above reading their own talk page as you proudly proclaim, and can't read an edit summary but comes charging in demanding I specify the details of what I already explained on their talk page, gets very little respect. Please be more careful and perhaps detune the bad attitude (and projection). Toddst1 (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2021).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following consensus at the 2021 RfA review, the autopatrolled user right has been removed from the administrators user group; admins can grant themselves the autopatrolled permission if they wish to remain autopatrolled.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The functionaries email list (functionaries-en@lists.wikimedia.org) will no longer accept incoming emails apart from those sent by list members and WMF staff. Private concerns, apart from those requiring oversight, should be directly sent to the Arbitration Committee.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re your comments on my page Dec 17

hello, on Dec 17 you wrote that I was engaged in an edit war on the Dec 18 page. On the Dec 18 page I removed an entry that was clearly duplicate, as per the talk page, where the possibility of removing it was raised, and no one said otherwise. That was the only thing I did on the Dec 18 page. Could you please clarify for me? Thanks. --142.163.194.149 (talk) 01:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=December_18&diff=next&oldid=1060802951&diffmode=source That entry] had been added and removed several times. It appears that you have been using multiple IP addresses to edit war removing that entry. Toddst1 (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:14, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The user group oversight will be renamed suppress in around 3 weeks. This will not affect the name shown to users and is simply a change in the technical name of the user group. The change is being made for technical reasons. You can comment in Phabricator if you have objections.
  • The Reply Tool feature, which is a part of Discussion Tools, will be opt-out for everyone logged in or logged out starting 7 February 2022. Editors wishing to comment on this can do so in the relevant Village Pump discussion.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why you removing my stuff

Hey, I don't know how this function works. But I posted something in pop culture and I'm not sure why it was removed since it's a thing in popular culture. Darthplaydoh (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. WP:TRIVIA applies. Your addition did not improve the encyclopedic nature article at all. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. New to this. Darthplaydoh (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Darthplaydoh: No worries. It takes a while to figure all this out. It seems your heart is in the right place. Let me know if you have questions or need help. Toddst1 (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Editing?

You wrote: "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Cynthia McQuillin, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)"

Can you please be more descriptive? What did I say that disruptive in a Talk forum? I like Cynthia McQuillin's work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.22.229 (talk) 18:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really? See WP:NOTABILITY. Toddst1 (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 29

Hi Toddst1, happy new year. Would you mind having a look at the history of this page, plus the comment "Laws affecting 29_February: bold, revert,DISCUSS" on the talk page? I've directed both users to the DOY template. Do you want to add any comments? Cheers, Kiwipete (talk) 02:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a recent message on my talk page

Hey @Toddst1,
Thank You for informing me about my mistake and I appreciate that but I would be really glad if you could just elaborate a little more and specify the wrong edit so that I keep this in mind and avoid repeating the same mistake. Plus, would really appreciate if you can just clear to me what's Awesome Wikipedian? Regards Natureisablessing (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Natureisablessing: Thanks for your note. See my comments on your talk page about the edit.
As far as Awesome Wikipedian, I'm not sure I fully understand the history, but User:Bibliomaniac15/Today probably has the most informative stuff. I have no idea why I was recognized - it was 11 years ago. Toddst1 (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1: Just saw it.
Oh okay, it recognizes on its own. Natureisablessing (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections: Would like to add the death of American actor Robert Conrad

First, thank you for guiding me through this process of adding content to en.wikipedia. Originally, I was attempting to add to the February 8 deaths column "2020 Robert Conrad, American actor". My source was the "New York Times Arts column February 8, 2020. I guess I must have placed the information in the "article" section which was not my original intent. I have no idea what you are talking about in my submitting an article. --THOMAS (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Thomasterryjr.[reply]

Apologies for reverting your edit on Edna Krabappel

My apologies, I attempted to revert some disruptive editing to the article, and accidentally reverted one edit instead of two. I corrected this, but I didn't realise that you had made an edit in the meantime, so I've deleted the sentence you deleted as per WP:NOR. Thank you for your many contributions, and sorry for the bother,

DirkJandeGeer (щи) 23:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Response to edits to days of the year articles.

V.C. Bird IS the subject of an article, and should be included in the June 28th and December 9th articles. V.C. Bird is also relevant and notable enough to be included in these articles. I see no reason to why my edits were reverted. 123waawaaaa (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on your revert on Natasha Bassett

My logic for adding this information to the Natasha Bassett page is as follows: She is a public figure, in the performing arts and this particular information will be significant in her career. Note that I'm not adding information about her directly, but took care to add information about a report about her, that is significant ito her career. Would appreciate it if you can restore my addition to this page. Thank you

Pierre Hugot (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Reyna I. Aburto. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ––FormalDude talk 05:45, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cristian Vogel

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cristian Vogel which rules out csd and bold redirects. The article is very poor but he is notable, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to the discussion about Florida Legislation on the April 20th Talk Page.

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Talk:April 20#Senate Bill 4C (SB 4C) being passed.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DOB on the main page?

I'm not aware that we have policy not to have dates of birth on the main page. Secretlondon (talk) 10:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Secretlondon: Dates of births for living people are fine as long as they're supported by a reliable source. See WP:DOB. Toddst1 (talk) 17:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Toddst1

To my clear recollection, I remember you as an outstanding administrator, worthy of emulation and a benefactor to all that you served. I am curious, and begging your pardon; ask: would you be willing to serve as an administrator again? I ask with the utmost respect and apologize if my asking is out of line. Wishing you all the best.--John Cline (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@John Cline:Hi John, Thanks for your kind words. I think my brand of admin thinking is decidedly out of vogue. The frustration over what I would call the politics and nonsense around being an admin is summed up in WP:NOTNAS - an essay which has ruffled more than a few feathers. I feel it's probably gotten worse since I stepped down. A shame, really. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 22:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John Cline: How about you? You've been around plenty long and know the wheat from the chaff. Toddst1 (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Toddst1, your message is extremely kind and its sentiments, well received. Notwithstanding the essay which you linked above (a new and enjoyable read) I am convinced that adminship is a role which I am not well suited for. I am less convinced that your brand of adminstration is so "decidedly out of vogue" that Wikipedia is better without your wielding a mop, but I respect your decision that it is so. And I remain in your debt for all you have done, especially the uplifting words which you've so graciously offered above. May the best be at your fore.--John Cline (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reverting my edits because you don't like them.

For the record, I'm not the only one who posted DOBs and I did not have any ill intent. There are dozens of articles on Guantanamo detainees that have DOBs on them posted by other editors. Are you going to revert them all? Anyway, I'll leave David Hicks' page alone since his article is clearly on your watchlist. --IPCA87 (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@IPCA87: If you continue adding unreferenced dates of birth to articles, they will be reverted, by me or others and you will be blocked from editing. End of story. Toddst1 (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're a jerk. End of story. --IPCA87 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Toddst1,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 819 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 860 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Confusion

Why were you reverting the addition of Andrew Scheer's date of birth? That's about as standard a feature of an article on a human being as I can imagine. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced WP:DOB. Was it not clear from my edit summary? [43]Toddst1 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The answer, then, is a "cite needed" tag; and in fact, the user provided sources without any trouble. No big deal, though. (I really think we get silly sometimes about WP:DOB; but that's not on you, Todd.) --Orange Mike | Talk 19:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Orangemike: No, we don't leave stuff like that with a {{cn}}. We err on the side of caution because the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than general facts. Unsourced DOB or other personal info is removed on-sight. Toddst1 (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I would see your point of view; but this is a major political figure, the Canadian equivalent of a Nancy Pelosi or a Mitch McConnell, so it seemed blatantly obvious that this information is casually available. Again: no big deal, no hard feelings. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war on May 23

Hi Todd, could I ask you to help resolve the apparent edit war between myself and User:Spicyapplesauce on the May 23 article. Spicyapplesauce had previously asked on the talk page (Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2022) to change the order of Bonnie and Clyde, with User:RudolfRed replying "Not done: that part of the list is alphabetical". Since then Spicyapplesauce have themselves edited the page, which I have reverted twice now. After my last revert, I backed up RudolfRed's reply, asking Spicyapplesauce to desist from making this change. They have now made the same edit for the third time. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 02:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwipete: I'm happy to help out. FWIW, when you see someone repeating an inappropriate edit, you really should leave an appropriately leveled editor warning or an explanatory note on their talk page, depending on the context. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, and thanks for the tip. Kiwipete (talk) 08:10, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About WP:BLP and WP:DOB you wrote on my talk page

Ok so I don't know if you saw my reply to your message on my talk page and might aswell paste it here. I was expecting for some feed back. Anyways I see what you're refering because of your recent edits remove some details of the Kansas State Reps. They aren't unsourced as you claim in WP:RS. It's located here from the Kansas State Legislature Library. It doesn't violate WP:BLP or WP:DOB since they make it public. The only thing I didn't do that I probably should had is to tag it with a reference, since some articles already put it in another sentence. Dillon251992 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

replying on User talk:Dillon251992. Toddst1 (talk) 23:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Withdraw of my RMs

I was clearly misunderstanding the basics of WikiProject Days of the year and the manual of style of dates, so Thanks for withdrawing my moves, because I didn't know how to withdraw it. Sorry for the late reply and Thanks! Jishiboka1 (talk) 05:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Glad it was well received. Toddst1 (talk) 06:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Member states of NATO

Hi, Todd. If the warning about Active Arbitration Remedies is still needed on this page, could the line "Editors may not make any modifications to the official name of this country" be changed to clarify that "this country" refers to North Macedonia? As it stands, the warning is ominous yet baffling. (I had to dig to figure out the warning's context and what country was meant, and I'm not 100% sure I understand the issue.) CAVincent (talk) 06:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CAVincent: I don't know much about WP:AE but WP:ARBMAC articles have been and always will be a cesspool in my opinion. See WP:NOTNAS-ETHNIC Toddst1 (talk) 06:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mass proposed deletion of The Wire character articles

Hi, you objected to my mass proposed deletion of a bunch of articles on The Wire minor characters. I have now opened a thread to discuss these: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fictional characters#Redirecting articles on [mostly] minor The Wire characters]]. I hope you can weigh in there if you are able. Long story short, I am saying there that I think most of the in-universe content of all these articles (which we agree are currently crappy articles—the question is whether the topics of them are potentially article-worthy) needs to go, but I think it's worth seeking input about whether that should be done by wholesale blanking and redirecting these articles, or by keeping them but deleting most of their content and turning them into stubs with a bunch of cleanup tags on the top. (I was originally going to do this at AfD, which is also what you suggested, but later on I decided not to, 1 because I can't do it anyway without registering an account, and 2 because the last time this was tried at AfD everyone just said it's more appropriate for a talk page than AfD anyway.) 61.18.156.43 (talk) 03:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they're crappy articles. Toddst1 (talk) 14:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Toddst1,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000[a] at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.[b]

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 14317 articles, as of 14:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Notes
  1. ^ not including another ~6,000 redirects
  2. ^ The number of weekly reviews reported in the NPP feed includes redirects, which are not included in the backlog we primarily track.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages. (T307341)
  • The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nick rambling

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
He's been disrupting for months though. I tried to give detail on the NickRewind page but CreecregofLife keeps reverting the page instead of helping expand it. The section before was too short and I tried to add more info, like how the SNICK block was aired on the block. Jackthewriterguy12 (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was no requirement for that section to have that content you added. It was poorly written and unsourced original research CreecregofLife (talk) 21:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was not original. There was some info already in the article, so I'm summarizing it. Jackthewriterguy12 (talk) 21:24, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop re-adding it. Running to random users to tell on users who oppose you in order to steamroll over them is not right CreecregofLife (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CreecregofLife has reverted a section from NickRewind without giving a reason, and he reverted it again. I tried to make the programming section a little bit more detailed but CreecregofLife is reverting it all. Could you please do something about him?

Jackthewriterguy12 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? CreecregofLife (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Martinet

What sources would you say would constitute as “Reliable”? For his DOB? Because trust me, I’ve been trying to search. I’ve seen stuff like tweets, personal info pages created for him, birthday messages on media etc but yet those somehow don’t count. So what would exactly count? WikiFlame50 (talk) 06:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just provided 2 sources for his birthday. One with a full biography of martinet and an article that states he is 66 years old. No news sites have talked about his birthday from what I’ve been trying to search. They are actually reliable. They do say a lot. And for one thing, I’m not trying to be a burden. I edit soap pages mostly so I didn’t understand your terms whatsoever. But being honest here, don’t you think you could have been a bit lighter with me? I didn’t know and you went a bit full on with me with those messages. If you revert my reliable sources once again, Just tell me what sources I’m supposed to look for. WikiFlame50 (talk) 07:06, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again I apologise, I’m not a bad user and I never try to break the rules. I just find it extremely annoying that his DOB always gets reverted when pretty much everyone says it’s September 17th 1955 and wish him HB on September 17th. It just makes no sense.WikiFlame50 (talk) 07:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiFlame50: Thanks for your acknowledgement. I don't like to be a dick here but it looks like you've had a bit of a history not understanding what is a reliable source and what is not. Numerous folks have left you messages about it but you're still not getting it. I'm glad I finally got your attention on this issue - by me being something of a dick about it.
Look, if you're going to have any level of success here, you really need to understand this page: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Seriously. Read it. Especially the part about Questionable and self-published sources. If you still have questions, come back and let's talk about it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve just spotted something. On Charlie Day’s page, his DOB is sourced with sites named TV Insider and Rotten Tomato, Are those sites reliable, just to ask? WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be better to ask instead of me getting fucked over. WikiFlame50 (talk) 20:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Air Fresheners

The group was originally based in Olympia in the 1990s, but at this point has members living in Portland, Olympia, and Seattle. They perform in all three cities (though during the COVID pandemic they've performed almost entirely in Portland, with a truncated version of the group, basically the Portland portion of the band plus sometimes one or two from out of town). If you have a better way to word that than what I've said, please feel free. Maybe just "Pacific Northwest-based"? I'm not really concerned, as long as it stays basically accurate.

If you are responding to me here, please ping, because I'm not maintaining a watchlist on en-wiki these days. - Jmabel | Talk 15:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Im currently trying to make amends and make things right. I’m sorry for all the damage I caused. I accept full responsibility of my actions, all you did was tell me what I did wrong. You didn’t deserve any blatant treatment from me, I was acting like a moron and it’s not who I am. I’ve learned my lesson, I will always make sure my sources are reliable 100%. WikiFlame50 (talk) 18:43, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiFlame50: I wish you the best. You don't need to be self-effacing like this, but like Oz said, you really need to be open to learning from others. If you get a warning you don't understand, politely ask the person who issued it to help you understand or where to find out more.
Also, I strongly recommend you stop deleting stuff from your talk page and instead start archiving it. Deleting it looks like you're trying to hide stuff. Unless it's patent vandalism or a real personal attack, you far better off archiving it or even leaving the less pleasant stuff there. That's my $0.02 worth. Now you owe me $0.02. :) Toddst1 (talk) 01:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No article about the event

Thank you, I didn't understand the requirements.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it would be notable enough to write an article about it though. It's not like the event was the first time 4 baseball players played together or other cruft that editors sometimes try to shove into these articles. Toddst1 (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Redgate

I am trying to update information about ME on wiki and you reject it as un sourced and 'crap". Where M I going wormg here? best, Roger Redgate 31.50.124.56 (talk) 16:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI applies. Find something else to edit or suggest edits on the article talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Cohn

I'm confused by your update on my page re: unsourced edits. As you can see from the edit log, all I did was fix some grammatical issues. Not sure why I became the target of your ire. Herodotus419 (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Herodotus419: Your pants are on fire. That's not a grammatical issue. Not sure about any ire, but I am sure of the WP:DOB issue. Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I made two edits. Her birthday has been confirmed by numerous reputable sources (IMDB, Google, etc), as is the Wikipedia requirement. Linda Cohn also regularly thanks people for wishing her a happy birthday on her Twitter page, including this tweet from 11/9/2009 where she mentions "taking the big day off" (her 50th birthday).
If you want to withhold the info from Wikipedia readers, that's certainly your prerogative -- but don't do it in the name of accuracy.
https://twitter.com/lindacohn/status/5579695286 Herodotus419 (talk) 05:26, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Herodotus419: You have no idea what you're talking about. "Reputable" sources like WP:IMDBREF? GMAB. Toddst1 (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well Wikipedia routinely links biographies to IMDB, so I think the platform disagrees with you.
Can you point me to what @Toddst1 thinks is a reputable source? I've looked at the pages of three other ESPN anchors, and none of them have sources listed for the birth/death dates. It seems to me like you should take all of these down too...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Scott
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Buck
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Shulman Herodotus419 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Herodotus419: WP:RS is <- that way. WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:CITINGGREATERPROBLEMS are fools' arguments. You really should read the policies behind them, especially WP:RS. Doing so may keep you from being blocked or at least help you look less foolish.
I've cleaned up those articles to address the problems you identified. As I've stated before to you, WP:DOB is one of the more serious WP:BLP issues. Toddst1 (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mar 4 and Nov 21

I added Zach Hadel to the Mar 4 birth section ans Chris O'Niell to the Nov 21 birth section, both of those dates are listed on their actual wikipedia pages so it isnt me pulling it out of my ass, and i even made an effort to source it regardless, yet you delete both additions I made, which would be fine, but you didnt fix it. Had you taken down mine and put it back up how you deem "correctly" I wouldnt be upset, but you took it down just because. Please give me a reason as to why immediately when you get the chance. LusAir (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LusAir: What does it say in the big blue box when you edit the page? Maybe you should read it. Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Technical news

  • user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HDlegacy

Hi, Thank you for checking this article. The content I added came from the following references. Please let me know what I can do to make it acceptable. Thanks for your help!

https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/crossing-disciplines-and-the-lifespan https://www.human.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/HD/HD%20Main/HD%20Strategic%20Plan%202.0-final.pdf HDlegacy (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HDlegacy: Let's start with you declaring your connection to the organization and reviewing the guidelines for connected editors. Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This department no longer exists. I'm a former member in it. Just to document the history. There is no benefit to gain. Thanks for your help.
Here is an additional link about the ranking: https://u.osu.edu/adventuresinhdfs/the-hdfs-report-claire-kamp-dushs-ranking-of-hdfs-programs-in-north-america/ HDlegacy (talk) 16:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@HDlegacy: Thank you for declaring your WP:COI. I recommend you follow those guidelines and not edit that page directly. Toddst1 (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your suggestion. Because this department no longer exists, there is no current affiliation with it and no conflict of interest. I will revise my additions to make them more "descriptive" (with references) than "evaluative". Please let me know what you think. Thanks again for your help. HDlegacy (talk) 20:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
HDlegacy, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Oregon School of Journalism and Communication (2nd nomination). As I said there, it is relatively rare for a department to have notability per our standards, and I don't see which secondary sources in the Cornell add to notability. Drmies (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your great advice. I agree that words related to notability (e.g., top-rank, excellence) will not be used in the entries. HDlegacy (talk) 13:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

readded Valereee
removed Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

  • An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
  • An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

  • The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
  • Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
  • Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
  • Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Toddst1,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
Reminders
  • Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
  • If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
  • To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Year pages

Look out for an IP-hopper who is adding unreferenced entries for earthquakes all ovr the place. Deb (talk) 08:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NPP message

Hi Toddst1,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Shearonink

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Briahna Joy Gray § Recent edits & reversions - *not* about DOB.... Shearonink (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Guideline and policy news

  • A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
  • An RfC is open to gain consensus on whether Fox News is reliable for science and politics.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
  • The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

  • The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
  • Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi your edit on Sali Berisha page has been reverted 2 times so far and your edit-warning well... it was ignored. Side-note: Is that you dog in the pic? He won the elections, right? :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by S.G ReDark (talk • contribs) 00:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@S.G ReDark: WTF? I made one edit, restoring well cited material. Perhaps you need to take another look there. Please sign your talk page comments. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No you got it wrong I didn't remove anything I tried to restore that content same as you, basically after you restored that material the user removed it again and I restored it like you did (2 times). Take a look what I mean, I just informed you what that user did, also in another page one of the content you restored is mine. Yeah I forgot to sign my name, sorry about that. S.G ReDark (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry. That should go to WP:ANI as it's edit warring on an WP:ARBMAC page - after an ARBMAC warning was posted. Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff Richard: removal of birth data

Hi, I noticed that you removed Cliff Richard's date of birth on 9 September 2022 and quoted the WP:DOB rule which is predicated on the subject requesting the information not be published. I can't find any record of that ever occurring. Can you supply a source for making this type of edit? Cliff Richard's birth information is widely known and he is not borderline notable. Unless you're Cliff Richard himself or one of his employees, then your edit seems to be a misunderstanding of the guidelines and should be reverted. Kind regards, TedRoach (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TedRoach: Sorry - you seem to misunderstand WP:BLP and WP:DOB. If the DOB is widely known, then add it back with a WP:RS supporting it as a WP:CITE. If not, please do not add the info back.
General WP:BLP always applies to articles about living people and the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified. Toddst1 (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up after those sloppy edits and found a seemingly reliable source and added it to the article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Cliff Richard there are many reliable sources for his birth information and instead of deleting the information as you did it would have been helpful to just add a reference. It seems to me you are making a rod for your own back by conducting edits in this manner which can lead to edit wars (I had a look at your contributions and there have been a few of those). If you are going to delete information then I would suggest that you provide more details in your edit notes instead of quoting a rule that doesn't support your edit, i.e. the WP:DOB rule which wasn't relevant in the case of Cliff Richard. Anyway, I see you have added a verifiable source to Cliff Richard's birth details which is appreciated. Thank you. Just for the record, I did not revert your edit and I reached out to you via your talk page to understand your reasoning. TedRoach (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GMAFB. Not my WP: BURDEN. Toddst1 (talk) 03:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems I owe you an apology as several users in the Tea House Forum have supported your edits. I even learnt what GMAFB means! TedRoach (talk) 08:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Even when I RTFM, I sometimes misunderstand things too. Toddst1 (talk) 22:59, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sali Berisha/editnotice

Did you really mean to create that in mainspace? Onel5969 TT me 11:19, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Facepalm Uh, no. I'll fix that shortly. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Toddst1 (talk) 16:21, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It's been quite a while since I've created an editnotice. Toddst1 (talk) 22:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles.
  • Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

What exactly would you consider a 'reliable source' for the data that I'm still living in Yorktown? I mean, I could update my home page (which is on a computer at MIT, so the general public doesn't have access to it; i.e. some random person can't pretend to be me there), but I'm not sure you would consider that reliable.

Also, you removed the information that I help maintain the online catalogue raisonné for Yoshitoshi. That can be verified to a certain degree by looking at resources linked to from the bio page here, e.g. the actual Web-site. But again, that might not meet your elevated standard for 'reliable'.

While I understand and agree with the general goal of verifiability of material on Wikipedia, I think things have gone too far when details like that I'm still living in Yorktown, and maintain the Yoshitoshi site, are removed because they are not adequately sourced - at least to the elevated level that you are enforcing. I have zero interest in jumping through hoops to find sources that meet your standards (although I could, if I cared; e.g. there is a published book that refers to me as the maintainer of the Yoshitoshi site).

I didn't create that bio page, or add much material to it; most was done by others. I used to occasionally drop by, both i) to update it to be current (e.g. when I retired) and ii) to ensure that it was accurate. However, I can guarantee you that after this unpleasant interaction, I will never even look at it again. Ironically, over time, this will inevitably make the page less accurate, but I guess this will not bother you, because it will still better meet your individual perception that it is more reliably sourced - errors and all. Noel (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – October 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Articles for creation helper script now automatically recognises administrator accounts which means your name does not need to be listed at WP:AFCP to help out. If you wish to help out at AFC, enable AFCH by navigating to Preferences → Gadgets and checking the "Yet Another AfC Helper Script" box.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great Meteor Storm

I don't know why You removed the entry. I added a reference from a government source. How is that not a reliable source? also, it would be nice if significant changes in policy are added to the affected pages. Kdammers (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers: See edit summary. Sorry about that. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 5th

I don't really understand the distinction between an article about the single 'Love Me Do' which mentions the release date and an article about the event. Anyhow, the event is notable enough to be included - if you can find a WP:RS maybe you could add it yourself. Regards Scrabble1968 (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, If you're looking for an article that highlights the stature of the event, maybe this one is WP:RS? https://www.thisdayinmusic.com/liner-notes/love-me-do/
Scrabble1968 (talk) 23:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Scrabble1968: The event has to be notable enough to have a wikipedia article about it to be added to the WP:DOY pages. Toddst1 (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Toddst1,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

  • There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
  • Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
  • Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
  • This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Help me from a IP user constantly vandalizing articles

Hi @Toddst1 I hope you are doing well. This IP user @47.29.101.82 is vandalizing articles with ambiguous edit summary for no reason. Kindly go through his back log and please take necessary actions. Your diligent help will be much appreciated. Thank you.
Khorang 22:35, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't think this edit was especially helpful. Could be causing trouble deliberately, but maybe WP:AGF - the editor has only made a few edits. A friendly note to leave more meaningful edit summaries would be good.
The other edits don't seem particularly troublesome. The editor is right, the Youtube links appear to be copyright violations and they did the right thing.
You appear to be editing under the account @Sheep8144402: yet signing your posts as if you are user @Khorang:. What's up with that? Toddst1 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1 I don't understand now where from this @Sheep8144402 comes in the story? And I also don't know what makes you say that I edit under the account @Sheep8144402. I have only one account from which I am signing my post.
Khorang 16:25, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Khorang:Apologies to all. I misread the sequence of three editors editing this section - very sorry. I'm down with covid and was clearly not thinking straight. Back to Saturday football for me. Toddst1 (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honest opinion, please

What's your honest opinion on this? No one seems interested. Deb (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb: I just found this on my user page and moved it here. I've commented on the RFC. Toddst1 (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of works by Andrez Bergen for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of works by Andrez Bergen is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works by Andrez Bergen until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Mooonswimmer 01:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

––FormalDude (talk) 06:04, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I had no idea! Toddst1 (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to use {{Ds/aware}}. It's more likely to prevent these types of notices than unfettered sarcasm is. ––FormalDude (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having a clue is even more effective. Toddst1 (talk) 06:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notable recordings deleted

Hello. I noticed that on the page " Dúlamán", the "notable recordings" section was deleted. I think that a "notable recordings" section is necessary. These sections have been present in many pages about certain folk songs so I don't see the need to remove it JayBirdtyper (talk) 21:55, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBirdtyper: are you saying that WP:SONGCOVER does not apply? Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You probably know more about that than I considered you've been participating in WP longer than I have. I should have asked you why you removed it instead. That said, from what I could gather from what you sent me, it says that covers that gain attention by themselves, could receive a mention. There are at least three melodies to dúlamán with the most influential being the tune used by Clannad. Altan and anúna which used different tunes, are pretty instrumental in the Irish music scene. I still trust your judgement more than mine JayBirdtyper (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's the reason for undoing changes in "Summertime (George Gershwin song)" article?

Hi, Toddst1!

I found your update in the "Summertime" article related to "Ukrainian Yiddish lullaby": [44]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Summertime_(George_Gershwin_song)&diff=1082038288&oldid=1082037950

Why did you remove this information?

I want to help fix russian article about "Summertime". There is the same portion of text about "Ukraine roots" was being injected, removed and injected again. It seems to be a fake. Usikpavel (talk) 13:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you read my edit summary, I'm surprised by your question. My edit summary captured it but here's the policy behind it WP:CRYSTAL #3. Wikipedia is not a place for speculation. Toddst1 (talk) 02:47, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I'm not experienced in Wiki editing (and reading article's editing history properly) and I don't know Wiki poicies. I thought your comment about speculation was something like common discussion, and you have some special argument, but I've not found it. That's why I questioned you. I don't know history of this song enough to figure out what is truth and what is speculation, I can only rely on Wiki in this question :) Usikpavel (talk) 11:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – November 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question about how events qualify for May 6 DoY list: is person involved (Ida Hunt Udall) having a page sufficient?

First, thanks for the maintenance you put into the May 6 page that keeps it at such a good level of quality.

I have just one question about your recent reversion of the edit I made to the events list. You mentioned in your edit summary that the event itself needs to have a Wikipedia page to qualify for the Day of the Year list. However, I thought that rule was for holidays, and that other events qualify if they're an important part of associated pages? To use examples from the May 6 page, there's no Wikipedia page for Crazy Horse's surrender in Nebraska or for Babe Ruth's first major league home run, but there are biographical pages for Crazy Horse and Babe Ruth in which those events are recounted. Would Ida Hunt Udall beginning her later-to-become-historic diary qualify because she herself has a biographical page in which beginning her diary is treated? P-Makoto (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@P-Makoto: Yeah, the DOY pages got populated with a bunch of WP:NN events and unsourced (often incorrect) dates of birth early in the project. The project had literally exempted themselves from WP:V, if you can believe it. DOY project members have a lot of work to clean them up but we're being vigilant with new entries these days. We'd appreciate your help if you're inclined. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Days of the year. Toddst1 (talk) 18:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – December 2022

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2022).

CheckUser changes

removed TheresNoTime

Oversight changes

removed TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • A new preference named "Enable limited width mode" has been added to the Vector 2022 skin. The preference is also shown as a toggle on every page if your monitor is 1600 pixels or wider. When disabled it removes the whitespace added by Vector 2022 on the left and right of the page content. Disabling this preference has the same effect as enabling the wide-vector-2022 gadget. (T319449)

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Steve Boone for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Steve Boone is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Boone until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

As requested. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 12:40, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Year articles

I think you might find this discussion of interest, particularly this. I've already given my view. Deb (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Jam Agarao

Hi Toddst1 (talk · contribs) I hope you are doing well now, I just want to tell you that Jam Agarao herself told to me/us that his birthdate is December 6, 1988 so if possible don't please delete what I put on her page. — Einahr (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Einahr: I think that's lovely but it's considered original research and has no place on Wikipedia. Please stop editing until you understand how and why to cite your sources. It's really important. Toddst1 (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It Was A Good Day in GTA

Hey Todd can I ask that if you heard the song It Was A Good Day in GTA SA then why did you remove my input on the song's article Kabelo Lesooana (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IHEARDIT was my edit summary. Do you think reading it would be a good idea? Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No,thanks Kabelo Lesooana (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Bye. Toddst1 (talk) 19:14, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait,then why did you say "Honest!!" Kabelo Lesooana (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023

Hello Toddst1,

New Page Review queue December 2022
Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders
  • Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
  • There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
  • Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
  • If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
  • To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Birthdate sources

I am curious about your removal of the birthdate on an article I am working on. Out of pure curiosity, what is the typical standard for a source when it comes to the birthdate of a subject? If it’s not self-verified on a database but that database requires all non-self-verified birthdates to be proven by birth documentation.. is that not acceptable?

Genuine question. I’m still fairly new to editing. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 00:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Toddst1 4theloveofallthings (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@4theloveofallthings: I think WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY should your questions. Toddst1 (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Toddst1 Much appreciated! 4theloveofallthings (talk) 22:19, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This was wildly informative, and I completely understand your edit now. Thank you. That really helped. 4theloveofallthings (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All good. You asking for clarification is exemplary and much appreciated. Let me know if I can help in other situations. I've been around longer than most of the cobwebs. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please re-instate the list of covers on the Hills of Connemara page

I edited this page to add a recording by a well known irish singer and radio presenter. You responded by completely removing the list of covers of this song, citing lack of compliance with WP:COVERSONG. Most of the covers listed here are by notable artists and they do not break any of the rules as far as I can see. Please re-instate the list of covers. 217.183.11.26 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read WP:COVERSONG, you would know Only cover versions/renditions important enough to have gained attention in their own right should be added to song articles.. Toddst1 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
but what qualifications do you have to judge which of these renditions/recordings were "important" or not? if there is no record of them on here how is anyone to even do further research? it would be better imo to annotate them in some way so readers/moderators know they need to be checked/verified. 217.183.11.26 (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:COVERSONG and based on your comment, it appears you don't understand WP:NOR either. Toddst1 (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revision 1131173420 of article April 8

Hi, you recently reverted the above edit because there is no article on it. However, there is quite an extensive article on the subject and it is linked in the edit: War in Donbas (2014–2022)#April_2014:_conflict_begins. Is this insufficient to accept edit 1131173420? --22:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC) 89.206.112.11 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is an article on the war. There is no article on the event in the war that occurred on April 8. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#article_about_event. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions this specific event by stating: "In response to the widening unrest, the acting Ukrainian President, Oleksandr Turchynov, vowed to launch an "Anti-Terrorist Operation" (ATO) against separatist movements in Donetsk Oblast.[96] The Minister of Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, said on 9 April that the unrest in Donetsk Oblast would be resolved within 48 hours, either through negotiations or the use of force. President Oleksandr Turchynov signed a decree to retake the Donetsk RSA building, and place it "under state protection",[97][98] and offered amnesty to the demonstrators if they laid down their arms.[99]". The conditions of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Days_of_the_year#article_about_event are met. --89.206.112.11 (talk) 23:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I understand. No article specifically about the event. WP:EVENTDOY Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:EVENTDOY this event does not need its separate article, because it's neither a holiday nor a observance. WP:DAYS clearly states, that a link to any article where the event is mentioned is sufficient for inclusion. No article exclusively about the event is required. --89.206.112.11 (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Toddst1!

Happy New Year!

Toddst1,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:53, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – January 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2022).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting for the Sound Logo has closed and the winner is expected to be announced February to April 2023.
  • Tech tip: You can view information about IP addresses in a centralised location using bullseye which won the Newcomer award in the recent Coolest Tool Awards.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Katherine Agapay

Hello Toddst1. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Katherine Agapay, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not a recently created redirect - consider WP:RfD. Thank you. Salvio 15:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. There now. Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 09:19, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About civility and an alleged personal attack

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! I do not appreciate your behavior on my talk page. –DMartin 07:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to appreciate it. I'm not here to make you feel good, yet I was indeed civil.
Your behavior on Mary Reed House was and is ridiculous. It looks like something else is going on here, especially with your interest in Omaha. Take this back to your talk page where it belongs. Toddst1 (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did in your edit summary on Guy C. Barton House. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. –DMartin 08:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Piffle! Toddst1 (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funny to see this exchange. I was just feeling somewhat attacked by Toddst1 at my Talk page, coincidentally related to a related AFD, and I took the trouble to give a somewhat serious reply. When I shoulda just shrugged a "Piffle!" --Doncram (talk,contribs) 04:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that would have been better. Toddst1 (talk) 16:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

request

Hi, I saw and responded to your further comments at my Talk page. But I find this interaction to be creating negativity and not useful to me, and life is short, and I request that you do not post again at my Talk page. (With exception that if you want to take one last shot at me, because I did reply to you there, I won't mind, and then I would be inclined not to respond besides, say, pointing out this request.) Sincerely, --Doncram (talk,contribs) 01:10, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I thought you were much better than this and could handle reasonable criticism. Apparently I was wrong and you aren't up to such discourse. I won't be bothering you. Toddst1 (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

  • The Vector 2022 skin has become the default for desktop users of the English Wikipedia.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • Voting in the 2023 Steward elections will begin on 05 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC) and end on 26 February 2023, 21:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
  • Voting in the 2023 Community Wishlist Survey will begin on 10 February 2023 and end on 24 February 2023. You can submit, discuss and revise proposals until 6 February 2023.
  • Tech tip: Syntax highlighting is available in both the 2011 and 2017 Wikitext editors. It can help make editing paragraphs with many references or complicated templates easier.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hi! Sir why you always deleting(againt's) to me? — Einahr (talk) 03:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Einahr: Pretty much the same reason you've been blocked from editing twice in the past 6 weeks: You routinely add unsourced or poorly sourced info to biographies of living people. You do not appear to understand what a reliable source is or why we demand them for such articles. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't relate to WikiNerd881

Hey, I just want you to clarify that I'm not related to WikiNerd881, It's just a coincidence that we almost had as same name. He joined wikipedia in February and I contributed here in June 2022. Anyway, just because I edited/created his talk page means I owned that account?

My only sockpuppet is Noobsusguy33 which was created in July. I just don't get that you accused me of being related to WikiNerd881? This is unprofessional, I just edited his userpage and eventually became a sockpuppet? I joined wikipedia as Noobguy33. It became WikiCentral24 I believe August of 2022 but I don't relate to WikiNerd881. Noobguy33 used to be my usernames until I requested to change it into "WikiCentral24". I just don't know what are you saying to me.

He has more experience than mine, he contributed more than mine, and he joined wikipedia 4 months before I joined and started my first edit. I just don't get this so much. TheWikiCentral24 (talk) 12:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WikiCentral24: Can you explain why you created their user page and did so in the first person? Toddst1 (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My grammar is actually bad. I forgot about "his" tho and I also don't know if WikiNerd is a boy or a girl. And also, I delted the "controversial" edit of mine. TheWikiCentral24 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiCentral24: You avoided the question: Why did you create that user page? Toddst1 (talk) 14:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't know why. I got interested because of the userpage being blank. WikiCentral24 (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cody Ko

Do you have any tips to make it sound less promotional? — VORTEX3427 (Talk!) 02:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article needs major surgery. There's a lot of fancruft in there. Toddst1 (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem with me?

You have started arbitray disputes with me now on Chemy Soibelman, the draft of Chrissy Chlapecka, and are now tagging articles from years ago that I openly disclose on my user page were paid contributions. None of these subjects are famous or have anything in common and aren't even all BLPs, so I can only conclude that you are intentionally stalking my profile and contributions looking for things to tag or dispute. I have no idea what your issue with me is, but this is bordering on harassment and needs to stop now. I would greatly prefer not to take this to ArbCom. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@To the boy whose problematic edits are not invisible: The issue is you're repeatedly ignoring WP:BLP and adding your own WP:OR to articles you edit. Then you get indignant and claim you should be able to ignore all rules because in your mind, your conclusions about these people make sense and you have no WP:BURDEN to supply reliable sources for your edits.
There's a big difference between WP:HOUNDing someone and following an easily observable pattern of problematic editing from an editor and addressing the problems they've left. Most of the WP:BLP articles you list on your user page as created by you had unsourced WP:DOBs. I'm working my way through the list to remove them. You've left quite a mess and violated quite a large number of people's privacy.
As far as adding the connected user tag to articles for which you were paid to edit, you might want to read the disclosure policy and how to do it, specifically The conflict of interest guideline further very strongly advises editors to both place the {{connected contributor (paid)}} template at the top of the talk page accompanying any paid contributions (and to fill in the parameters). Maybe you don't think this applies to you either. Well, I've done it for you. Another burden that you're shirking.
I would happily discuss all of this on WP:ANI or WP:ARBCOM!
Toddst1 (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only seeing this now because I forgot to put on notifications, but I do want to settle this as peacefully as possible:
First off, we both could stand to assume good faith and practice civility more often. You seem to think this is all intentional malicious behavior on my part, but the truth is most of this is editing choices from years ago, when a) I didn't know sourcing DOBs was a privacy issue and no one came after me about it and b) I didn't know how to disclose paid contributions and no one came after me about it. (I've since done that btw, if you want to check those articles.) I'm not so arrogant as to be against being corrected on policy I wasn't aware of, but when my notifications and watchlist were suddenly swamped with articles I've barely touched in years all getting the same edit from the same user, where the only commonality is them being articles I worked on, and it now happens anytime I so much as touch a BLP article....yes, that did come off as WP:HOUNDing, and yes it did make me extra defensive and prickly in our interactions, and if I'm being honest it's made me dread editing Wikipedia anymore because someone scrutinizing your every move is actually kinda stressful to deal with
I'm more than happy to have respectful disagreements about edits, or receive good faith critique, or be corrected. Though you may believe otherwise, I do not believe my editing is above reproach and I have no problem taking ownership when I fuck up. I fully admit my edits have not always been and will not always be perfect. If this had started with a Citation needed maintenance tag and/or a respectful talk page message letting me know this was an issue and why (which would've given me the opportunity to fix the problem without so much mess), I might've still been a little defensive but I wouldn't have assumed bad faith off the bat. I value Wikipedia and I'm sure you do too, but if you're going to a) stalk every edit I make and b) assume every mistake I make or decision you disagree with is some intentional arrogant ploy to violate people's privacy and destroy the integrity of Wikipedia, it's not going to help either of us be more effective editors. I'm happy to give you more benefit of the doubt going forward, but you need to give me some as well. I don't have the energy to fight anymore. Invisiboy42293 (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding title correction

Hi, hope you are doing well. I noticed that you recently changed the title of the article to "2023 Thathri land subsistence." I believe that the more appropriate word for this topic would be "subsidence" instead of "subsistence."

"Subsidence" refers to the sinking or settling of the ground surface, whereas "subsistence" refers to the minimum resources necessary for survival. While "subsistence" is a related concept, it is not the primary focus of the article and may lead to confusion for readers.

I would suggest making the change back to "2023 Thathri land subsidence" to provide a clearer and more accurate representation of the topic. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns about this suggestion.

Thank you again for your efforts to improve Wikipedia.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 08:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Go ahead and change it. Either is better than "disaster" which is more appropriate for things like Bhopal disaster. Toddst1 (talk) 08:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Thanks for other improvements in the article.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (✍️) 08:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

appealing the rejection of Kevin B. Lee entry draft

Hi Todd, thanks for going over this entry. I saw there were issues with a lack of reliable sources in previous drafts (which have been rightly rejected) and have tried to correct that. I'm appealing the rejection here, I hope that's alright. I wasn't sure otherwise where/how it should be appealed. Kevin B. Lee to my mind without a doubt a notable filmmaker and critic whose work merits having an entry (I say this as a long-time Wiki user and occasional contributor and as a film curator/writer) so I think it's worth going through the work of ensuring that's reflected through the sources. I added numerous articles about his work from independent leading media outlets (LAtimes, Nytimes, Chicago Tribune, Yale News), as well as numerous peer-reviewed academic journals. I also rephrased some of the writing, which read in earlier drafts too much like a resume. Thanks again for taking the time to consider this new draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boaz.levin (talk • contribs) 10:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Steve Dent

Hello Toddst1. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Steve Dent, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The filmography section suggests credibility. I would recommend other deletion methods. Thank you. BangJan1999 00:54, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Having had many jobs doesn't seem to indicate importance to me. AFD is underway. Toddst1 (talk) 02:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – March 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – April 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2023).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine Clark page

Her birth date is listed on Maureen McTeer's page. Perhaps you want to get rid of it there too. Freefry (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Pages Patrol newsletter June 2023

Hello Toddst1,

New Page Review queue April to June 2023

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

Linda Cohn

I merely fixed multiple CS1 errors. Your edit restored most of them (url value, I.e. Twitter username and line feed error messages); see ref 1 after your reversion. Eagleash (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagleash: Thanks for pointing that out. I think I fixed it. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it all seems in order! As someone who (tries) to fix ref errors content issues tend to get overlooked; and I would want more money and company dental to do all that as well! Cheers. Eagleash (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol – May 2023 Backlog Drive

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive.
  • Article patrolling is not part of the drive.
  • Sign up here!
  • There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – May 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • A request for comment about removing administrative privileges in specified situations is open for feedback.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Removing sources

Hi, before outright deleting a reference like here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve-O&diff=prev&oldid=1159847000 , please check if the archive link is still accessible, like in this case --FMSky (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FMSky: How do I find the archive link? Toddst1 (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the link was already included in the reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steve-O&oldid=1159471978#cite_note-4 --FMSky (talk) 12:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: Right. I'm surprised that I didn't see that. You are correct.
So how do I find an archive link for an arbitrary dead link? See [51]. I'm trying to take your suggestion. Toddst1 (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i use this site: https://archive.org/ you have to paste the original URL and most of the time theres an archived version available there. that version can than be added to the reference --FMSky (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Schottky diode removal

Hi,

Unsure that removing the entire section here makes sense. Evidently Schottky lent his name to the device, so it makes sense to tie the two together in the article body, whereas now he's only linked from the lead and the infobox. Any particular reason for removing the whole bit? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in my edit summary: The statement was clearly confusing to whomever tagged it as well as being unsourced. I don't see any reason to keep it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:20, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. This was an example of the kind of tag that took longer to write than to fix. I suppose I'll get round to this myself eventually, in the absence of anyone else doing anything to help. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Kilna MacKenzie

I decided to start this article as the subject is a distinguished Scottish songwriter responsible for several Hollywood film themes. My intention is to add more detail to it and there is much to be had from acceptable sources. Others may wish to contribute too. You have placed a redirect on it however which means readers cannot access the actual detail of the article. May I respectfully ask you to explain why this is so that I can continue to contribute useful information to the Wiki? Leitrim Lad (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Leitrim Lad: As the article was written, the person did not qualify for an article per WP:BLP1E, which is what I said in my edit summary. If you think you can demonstrate the person will pass WP:BIO, then I suggest you do that at Draft:Joseph Kilna MacKenzie as part of the WP:AFC process. I've moved the former article there and restored your edits. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I consider that fair. Leitrim Lad (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Leitrim Lad: You're welcome. Let me know if you want me to take another look after you beef it up. Toddst1 (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will. Thank you. Leitrim Lad (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Taino (rapper)

Hello Todd, I just wanted to follow up with you regarding the edits made to the Taino (rapper) Wikipedia page. I have gone ahead and made the necessary changes to address the issues you raised, including removing any unencyclopedic content and cleaning up external links. Additionally, I have added back the Legal section with shortened, neutral context and proper citations, as I believe it provides valuable information backed up by historical newspaper citations and links to potential relevant topics.

If you have any further feedback or suggestions, please don't hesitate to reach out. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Best regards Cperez21 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree that his biography should contain who owns the copyrights to his songs. Toddst1 (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response. I understand your point of view regarding the inclusion of copyright ownership in Taino's biography. However, I respectfully disagree. The amount of legal cases surrounding the copyright ownership of Taino's song "Yo Soy Boricua, Pa' Que Tú Lo Sepas" have received significant media attention and are a notable aspect of his career. The registration was mentioned in an article from Primera Hora in 2018 so it can be sited if that would improve it. This would ensure the Legal section provides valuable context for readers who may be interested in understanding the real history of the song and his ownership also the legal challenges faced by Taino and the importance of copyright ownership in the music industry.
The citation is here https://www.primerahora.com/entretenimiento/farandula/notas/demandan-a-la-burbu/
"Taíno escribió, compuso, produjo y grabó la canción Yo soy boricua, pa’ que tú lo sepas y la registró en julio del 1996, según lee la demanda. Mantiene demandas similares contra el Banco Popular, Cocal Cola y T-Mobile."
"Taíno wrote, composed, produced, and recorded the song Yo soy boricua, pa' que tú lo sepas and registered it in July 1996, as stated in the lawsuit. He has similar lawsuits against Banco Popular, Coca-Cola, and T-Mobile."
The copyright citation would be related to that statement by Primeahora There are other ones but this is one of them. Cperez21 (talk) 23:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Aaron Liu

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Talk:Chicago CRED.
Message added 11:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aaron Liu (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Ayres

Hi. Just so as you know, there is a short discussion a little further up AssociateAffiliate's talk page as a response to your original PROD. I suspect that might be why they appeared a little "snarky" at the AfD. It's worth noting that redirecting to a suitable list is just about the standard approach for this sort of article (and has a long running consensus from AfDs going back years) and that both of us would have supported that bold move. If you want to run any other similar articles past me please do so, it's usually pretty straightforward to decide whether there's a case for redirecting straight away of whether an article needs to go to AfD. Or you can make the decision yourself - if someone thinks it's in error they'll revert it and, presumably, expand on why. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – June 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, editors indefinitely site-banned by community consensus will now have all rights, including sysop, removed.
  • As a part of the Wikimedia Foundation's IP Masking project, a new policy has been created that governs the access to temporary account IP addresses. An associated FAQ has been created and individual communities can increase the requirements to view temporary account IP addresses.

Technical news

  • Bot operators and tool maintainers should schedule time in the coming months to test and update their tools for the effects of IP masking. IP masking will not be deployed to any content wiki until at least October 2023 and is unlikely to be deployed to the English Wikipedia until some time in 2024.

Arbitration

  • The arbitration case World War II and the history of Jews in Poland has been closed. The topic area of Polish history during World War II (1933-1945) and the history of Jews in Poland is subject to a "reliable source consensus-required" contentious topic restriction.

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

David Sherborne

Dear Todd I see that there was once a page for the prominent UK lawyer David Sherborne. He is frequently in the news and currently representing Prince Harry in a very newsworthy court case. He has previously represented many major celebrities including Johnny Depp and Princess Diana. He was also representing celebrities claiming that they had suffered media intrusion at the Leveson Inquiry. Given the level of public interest in him eg prominent newspapers sucha s the New York Times profiling him ...eg:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/06/world/europe/prince-harry-lawyer-david-sherborne.html

https://www.tatler.com/article/who-is-david-sherborne

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prince-harry-lawyer-david-sherborne-b2352262.html

https://inews.co.uk/news/david-sherborne-who-prince-harry-lawyer-princess-diana-coleen-rooney-2392924

Perhaps there a case for reinstating the David Sherborne web page? Best wishes Booklung Booklung (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Booklung:. I'm no longer an administrator, so I can't restore the page. In fact, I can't see the deleted text to see if the article is about the same David Sherborne. I recommend you try creating an article about this barrister through WP:AFC. I'm thinking he's probably sufficiently notable to pass either WP:GNG or WP:BIO at this point. Good luck! Toddst1 (talk) 22:40, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for Nauta pic

Hello, sorry about the Nauta picture and thanks for nominating the picture for deletion on Commons. I was mistaken as to its copyright status, I erroneously believed it to be created by the United States Government.


Apologies.

Bremps... 00:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maggie Haberman

I wasn't aware that Maggie Haberman had complained to us about her DOB being displayed. I'll have to remember that. Where is the source for that complaint? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No complaint necessary. WP:BLP is what it is. Toddst1 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, our de facto practice has always been to include DOB, unless, per BLP, there is a complaint. Do you seriously intend to remove all birthdays from all BLP articles? Do you have some consensus somewhere to justify such a practice? Please point me to it. I'm open to learning of any new practice here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what your defacto anything is. You can read WP:DOB as well as anyone else. No solid source, no DOB. Simple as that - and one of the most important parts of WP:BLP.
And yes, if someone complains about their DOB being published here, a DOB in an article can be reduced to a year. Toddst1 (talk) 05:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course, nothing at all, no content at all, without RS. So we don't have a RS for her DOB? That's not a BLP problem. It's a sourcing problem. Not good. I was under the impression you were creating a new interpretation of BLP. Sorry about that. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found two RS. See the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Todd Bowie

Hello Toddst1. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Todd Bowie, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 21:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BangJan1999: How bureaucratic of you. I can't imagine what you saw. Here we go: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Todd Bowie. Toddst1 (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Doug Corella

Hello Toddst1. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Doug Corella, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 21:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Verve Pipe. Toddst1 (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion involving you

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is AssociateAffiliate's sig. Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adult use

Hello, Toddst1,

I saw you tagged this page for speedy deletion but there was no notification on the talk page of the redirect creator. I see that you use Twinkle, which is great, so please check your Twinkle Preferences to make sure that "Notify page creator" box is checked off and that the box for every criteria of CSD are checked off as well. After you change your settings, Twinkle should post these notices on your behalf. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol needs your help!

New pages awaiting review as of June 30th, 2023.

Hello Toddst1,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – July 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2023).

Administrator changes

added Novem Linguae
removed

Bureaucrat changes

removed MBisanz

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

  • Two arbitration cases are currently open. Proposed decisions are expected 5 July 2023 for the Scottywong case and 9 July 2023 for the AlisonW case.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Threat

Do you have an explanation for this threat that you made to an IP editor? I don't mean whether it's true or not (I don't care), but why would you think that this is an appropriate message to send another person? – bradv 23:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was no threat. Toddst1 (talk) 00:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we know who you are and who your parents are is clearly a threat. But to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean to intimidate this IP in a threatening way by telling them you know who they are and where they live, what exactly did you mean by it? – bradv 00:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"There was no threat." Gee, I guess it was just being collegial and welcoming... Shearonink (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  GeneralNotability (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would expect an editor of your standing to know better than to say things like "we know who you are and who your parents are". You say it wasn't a threat, I say that it sure looks like intimidation. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralNotability: I was willing to give Toddst1 the benefit of the doubt, hoping for a satisfactory explanation, but the more I think about this I'm convinced a block is necessary. Someone who doesn't understand the problem with a message like this is a danger to the project. Is a two-week block long enough for them to course-correct? I'd hate to find out it's not. – bradv 02:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded - that absolutely was a threat. Words of the form "we know who you are and who your family are" are almost a textbook veiled threat, particularly given that you also linked the IP to a (reasonably) specific location. Sure this information may be publicly available, but the combination of the two things make it entirely unacceptable. If I'd seen it first I'd have given significant thought to an indef pending a very good explanation for what on earth they were thinking. firefly ( t · c ) 12:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I posted yesterday at the blocking admin's talk page about this edit summary and I still think this today - This was a threat/intimidation coupled with outing or appearing to out someone. Added to the implied tone is that another editor, an editor of longstanding contributions, someone with gravitas & experience, said in WIKIPEDIA's voice "We". WE. Stating that you and me and every one around Wikipedia..."We" all somehow know who this anon is. Personally I find this edit summary to be one of the most stunning things I have ever read on these pages. I have seen threats stated against Wikipedia but this is the first time I have seen a threat stated in Wikipedia's voice against an editor.
Oh, and in case no one else has thought of this - especially if the recipient is a minor? (and even if they are not) couldn't the edit summary in question open up Wikipedia to possible legal ramifications? I wonder what Legal would think of it... Shearonink (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Toddst1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block was clearly punative (WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE). While my edit summary was dickish, there's no indication it would be repeated (it won't) or required a 2-week block to prevent further disruption (WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE).

Decline reason:

The block is consistent with Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Consequences of personal attacks and does not appear to fall under WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE because there is current conduct issue of concern. Your only response above was that "there was no threat" so when you say there's no indication it would be repeated I have to retort that it would be more accurate to say that there's no indication that it wouldn't be repeated, given that your only comment on the matter was the opinion that it wasn't even a threat. That type of edit summary is inappropriate to an extreme degree, and while I can't speak for other admins I think there needs to be a demonstrated understanding that this was an issue and that it will not reoccur before an unblock can be made. Aoidh (talk) 13:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Toddst1 (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: what part of "it won't" wasn't clear?. Toddst1 (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That you don't see it as a threat and saw the block as punitive makes it unclear. it won't is a vague aside that doesn't address the issue. What is "it"? A dickish comment? The block wasn't for being dickish. - Aoidh (talk) 13:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oversight note I've redacted the post related to this discussion - leaving that on the page it was on may casue undue disruption. I'm not redacting the discussion on this page. — xaosflux Talk 14:33, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux, I think this block may need to go to WP:AN for review. Do you have any objection to quoting the redacted edit summary in that context? – bradv 14:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bradv no that is OK, the redaction on this is specific to the content and the summary being on that specific page; please avoid unnecessarily wikilinking to that IP (adding to the whatlinkshere relationsship) when discussing this. I understand this is unusual, if another oversighter needs more in depth analysis please email me. — xaosflux Talk 15:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This was discussed among some OS on IRC last night and the consensus was to not OS. This should probably go to the listserv for further discussion @Xaosflux. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Barkeep49 thank you for the note, I'll reply on os-list. — xaosflux Talk 15:08, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the diff has been changed from OS'ed to revision deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't have been OS-ed in the first place imho. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On the one hand Shouldn't have been OS-ed in the first place imho is obviously true; that's why it's no longer OS'ed. More deeply though, the oversight ethos is one of "tool of first resort" because the harm of leaving something out there that gets permanently removed is more than the harm of temporarily removing it and then restoring it. While I disagree with the particular use of OS here, Xaos clearly acted in good faith, brought it up for review among other OS when he learned it was considered controversial, and agreed that it should be changed to RD after hearing feedback from a variety of colleagues. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yeah, ofcourse, my point wasn't to imply that it was Xaos' fault that he OSed it, just my opinion on the content itself. --qedk (t 愛 c) 16:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also this is not the first time this user has made threats to IP editors: [52] [53] [54]. Tagging IP's as "a specifically identifiable customer" has always rubbed me the wrong way. Sro23 (talk) 10:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Steve Bentley/" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Steve Bentley/ to the article Steve Bentley has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 9 § Redirects ending with extraneous slashes until a consensus is reached. Dsuke1998AEOS (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Michelin green star

Template:Michelin green star has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

Administrator changes

added Firefangledfeathers
removed

Interface administrator changes

added Novem Linguae

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
  • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

Technical news

Arbitration

  • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

Miscellaneous

  • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New page patrol October 2023 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
  • On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Toddst1,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddst1/Archive_1&oldid=1205144187"