User talk:Toddst1/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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 Button sig.png 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)

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)

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 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}} 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)

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)

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)

Oden Bowie

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

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

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)


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)

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)


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)

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:
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)
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)

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)

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


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

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

George Lehmann

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

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)

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)
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)


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)

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)
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)

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)

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)

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)
I'm confused. I see two paragraphs that are verbatim. Are we looking at the same page? Toddst1 17:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
I think we're on the same page now (pun intended). Thanks. Toddst1 17:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
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)

Todd McEwen

Why deleted?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mousehead (talkcontribs) 22:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)


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

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)

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)

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)

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?


Margamanterola 16:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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)

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

The Talented Tenth, Inc.

I am the administrator for I am trying to add the page to wikipedia but am running into errors. what do i do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datboyjeff (talkcontribs) 00:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

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)


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 (talkcontribs) 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)

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 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)

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)
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)
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)
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)

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?

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)

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)

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)

Mickey Mouse

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

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

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)

See Talk:Sensory Sweep Studios. I've changed the {{db-corp}}/{{hangon}} to {{Notability}}{{singlesource}}{{primarysources}}. Toddst1 19:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Better?Umzingeli 20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)


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)

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

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 talks about the process not the company.

````Sunil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunil Bechar (talkcontribs) 18:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 02:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 03:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 21:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

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)
I disagree, Sometimes we need to be tolerant that not everyone is as correct as yourself. Somnabot 23:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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 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)

Ok, thanks. That makes sense. Cheers. Toddst1 18:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)
<< 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)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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)


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 (talkcontribs) 17:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 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)


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)

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

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)

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

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

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


"Baleet" was a legitimate page, not vandalism, and should be reinstated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhazared (talkcontribs) 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)
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)

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 (talkcontribs) 16:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)
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)
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)

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)

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: Good luck and happy editing. Toddst1 21:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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

Re: Megadim (journal)

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

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

Hi Todd,

Having blocked my initial article on, I'm confused why the index for 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 (talkcontribs) 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mark, I didn't actually block - 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 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 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)

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)



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 (talkcontribs) 17:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Exactly. And you're welcome.--Fuhghettaboutit 02:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

Did you read the dates? It looked legit until I read them. Toddst1 02:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
Sorry. I'm not an admin. - Rjd0060 04:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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.


Andrew Henderson

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

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


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)

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)

Eric Delony

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

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)

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)

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)
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)
There was nothing "gym" related in the article. The article was technology related.---- Imagemonth (talk) 18:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Jack Clemmons

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

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

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)

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)
<-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)

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

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

Speedy deletion of Shitty bands

Hi how r u you deleted my article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notkool35 (talkcontribs) 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.

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 22:19, 18 November 2007

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

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.


Bipin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bipin dr2002 (talkcontribs) 13:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks - I'll keep an eye on it! Toddst1 (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It was the link 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)

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

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)

Speedy deletion warnning


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.


Arnnei — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arnneisp1 (talkcontribs) 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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 05:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Dmitry Sitkovetsky

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

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)
Just a note of thanks.--Atavi 20:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

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!!!!

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)

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)

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)
Hi, how do we remove the in-text citations tag? I do have citations added now...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peggy Brennan (talkcontribs) 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)

ProCurve Training


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)

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:

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)

You're a true Defender of the Wiki

WikiDefender Barnstar.png 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)

Rolf Solli

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

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


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)

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)

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)

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)


Hello, I am new to creating articles in wikipedia, and you nominated my first article on 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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 (talkcontribs) 03:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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)


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)

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)
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)

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

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)


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)

Redirect of Unio College, Tellippalai, Sri Lanka

Information icon.svg

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 03:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Tagging Midnight Snack Break at the Poodle Factory

Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know 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? Face-wink.svg 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. Face-smile.svg Regards SoWhy 06:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

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. "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)

  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)

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:
  2. Daniel Ridgway Knight:
  3. Emile Munier:
  5. Antoine Blanchard:

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)
Toddst1 List ≠ discussion. Tapered (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
What's to discuss? Neither of those criteria apply to the deleted renditions. Disagree? WP:PROVEIT Toddst1 (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)
WP:N is not a straw man. It is a guideline. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

@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)
Thanks man :-) —usernamekiran(talk) 22:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

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)

Thanks @Alison:. It did seem a bit out of character.  :) Toddst1 (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
(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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 00:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

  • 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)