User talk:Toddst1

edit count | edit summary usage

Re: Colission

Hey, accidents happen. No harm, and all's ended well!

SBS

Removal of unref'ed text is not vandalism. And dont remove tags!!!!! (Archangel1 (talk) 11:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)).

No, you are wrong. I am bored with discussing this issue. I put down my points and have to recite them over and over again and I am saying the same things. The actions carried out are within Wikipedia guidelines. You cannot block my for abiding by them. Fair enough, the blanking of text may be excessive but it prompts people into action. If you guys want to do your own thing, crack on but that why people think Wikipedia is a joke, hence the reason why ref's are so important. The idea is to bring together source knowledge into one pot. But you got to account for where you info comes from before it goes into the mix. (Archangel1 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)).

Question

Given that you have worked on the article, do you think that these additional changes [1] and discussion [2] are alright? --Firefly322 (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the quotes are a bit excessive, but that's about it. Templatizing the refs isn't bad. You might consider using these but it's not mandatory. Toddst1 (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be clear if I want to spend the time doing the CITET templates, then certain editors ought to assume good faith that I am doing it to improve the encyclopedia. Since I am not an inclusionist, and think articles like this are a waste of space, but I can't spend time fighting the inclusionists, I am going to spend the time making the article at least readable! IMHO, et al. Now off to see what the latest edit to Sarah Palin's article is about. I'm sure I'll be amused. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In response

Thank you so much for alerting me about the page tagging. May I ask what it should have been tagged as so I know for future reference? It seems to have been deleted per G1: Nonsense. Also, thank you so much for blocking that froggy guy. I appreciate it greatly. Have a nice day. SwirlBoy39 16:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

If you understand the foreign language, you can tag it with the appropriate tag if warranted. In this case {{db-bio}} seems to have been appropriate. If you don't understand the language, {{Notenglish}} is preferred. It may seem petty, but we have to be careful about these things. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's fine. Thank you. I have leared so much since I started here. Thanks! SwirlBoy39 16:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: G. K. Butterfield

Just a reminder to be careful of WP:3RR there. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I'm very careful about 3RR. Ward3001 (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

reply

So basically, Dseer said what you wanted to say about Bharatveer, even when he was as large or perhaps even larger of an ideologue than Bharatveer (like Otolemur, Googlean, Tinu, in whose world "Hindu" = POV, much as in BV's and Jobxavier's world "Christian" = POV, and in our world POV=POV). All I am calling you out on is the fact that you used the testimony of an ideologue to back up your assertions, when you could certainly do a better job promoting your arguments through your own interpretation of his edits. Dseer's testimony is suspect at best, and self-damaging at worst. By striking my statement, I am denying arbcom the context of Dseer's statement. So in short, I will look at the statement, and see for myself what I can change to make sure your mistake does not go unseen, but at the same time, ensuring I am not attacking you.Pectore^talk 01:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Here you go.Pectore^talk 01:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think I was being attacked. Rather it seemed you read more into my statement than I meant - read: misunderstanding. I have no idea if he or she is a model editor or a complete wack job. I thought that what that person wrote expressed what I observed. Thanks for making the change. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 01:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

just a gentle reminder that you have not replied to any of my queries related to Binayak Sen page. User:Pectore, I see that you are making comments (in many places) trying "hard" to brand me as a "Hindu POV pusher"( just like a few other editors). Please note that though i may have "personal opinions" on certain topics, I have always edited trying to keep within WP guidelines. Your opinion that I view "christian" as POV is without any actual basis.-Bharatveer (talk) 08:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

A sock

You may remember Mizbiplob. He has yet another sock Enigma ^message 06:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)