User talk:Toddst1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marilyn Leask (talk | contribs) at 14:33, 4 October 2019 (→‎Oreilly’s rainforest retreat correction: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.




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]


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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]