User talk:Toddst1

This is Toddst1's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

6th fleet

Todd, you stated Wikipedia is not censored, and will not be censored simply due to information being offensive. Therefore please stop changing the information I am adding to the US Sixth Fleet page. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.56.55.185 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bring a reliable source and cite your additions to the article. We're not interested in having your perspective on the newspaper in the article. Wikipedia will not tolerate the encyclopedia being used to further your personal agenda. Toddst1 (talk) 21:40, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How is a veteran of the attack not a reliable source, Todd?

And for the Filip Muller page, I quoted directly from a National Death Penalty organization which is very well known. You can't just go about ruffling in a lethal gas victim's hair, or you will be exposed to the lethal gas yourself, this is very well documented.

It sounds to me like you are a bit biased here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.56.55.185 (talk • contribs) 06:55, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A guy's observation posted on a club's self-published website is pretty far from anything resembling a WP:RS. It's obvious that you have no idea what that guideline says or why we have it. None of your edits have been backed by anything resembling a WP:RS which is why they're being reverted and will continue to be unless you figure that out.

Regarding Filip Muller, your commentary on issues with the article belongs on the article talk page, not in the article.

It's a shame you're too busy complaining about things instead of learning and applying the basics of how we edit here. Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't a self-published website Todd, and you know that damned well. For Filip Muller, it was a nationwide organization for advancing knowledge of capital punishment. For the Sixth Fleet Page, the site in question is owned and managed by an ASSOCIATION of the VETERANS of the USS Liberty attack; it doesn't get any better than a friggin PRIMARY SOURCE OF THE ATTACK. You are a biased propagandist at best and this whole site is a sham. The very top quotes on your own page being leftist propaganda serves as proof enough to show your bias. Enjoy this echo chamber by yourself, loser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.56.55.185 (talk) 23:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that the feedback on the multiple issues that you're creating is confusing you. Let me try to simplify it for you:

On Filip Muller, you put your commentary in the article, saying that the previous statement didn't make sense to you. Then you threw in a reliable source - but not a reliable source for your opinion.

On the 6th fleet, you're:

citing a statement published by a member of a very small club on the club's website
inserting your own opinion of the newspaper in the article

Neither are acceptable. Toddst1 (talk) 02:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DOTY

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

moving to User talk:Crowsus where this discussion started

Hi, that's all fine and understandable, but I tend to work on the guideline of following what it already there: if everything has a separate citation, I will add it too; if not, I won't. The November 23 page has no separate sources, so frankly I don't see why I should have to when the article being linked to does have the relevant verification within it and literally hundreds of other entries on the same page are seemingly being allowed to remain without evidence, simply because they were added at an earlier point in time to my addition. Crowsus (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merry Christmas!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for being so kind to me early on. I'm sure I wouldn't have stuck around if it weren't for you. Cheers, Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 17:50, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No good deed goes unpunished

Toodst1, since you were kind enough to thank me for some of my edits to March 12, I am going to take that as license to pester you for advice. As you've probably seen I've been working through that article adding references, and I've come across a case where the DoB is sourced in the article to an offline publication that I don't have a copy of. There's apparently no reliable online source available. Should I assume good faith and copy the reference across without checking it, or delete the entry and add it to a list of sources to check? Realistically the chances of me locating a copy of Rock Sound from the mid-2000s are close to zero, so in this case (and, I suspect, many other cases) the latter option is going to mean removing the article from the list. Thanks, and seasons greetings, if you celebrate at this time of year, Wham2001 (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wham2001: My approach is that when I clean up an article, if I can't verify the info based on what's in the article, I remove it. I'm sure there are folks that would think that is not optimal, but that's the only way I know how to clean up a DOY article.

I'm not sure if you took my thanks as sarcasm, but it was not. It was genuine thanks. We appreciate help in cleaning up those articles. Cheers and happy holidays. Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re sarcasm, no, I appreciated the thanks and took it as intended. The section title was more to say that if you hadn't thanked me I would probably have pestered somebody else. I don't think my sense of humor translates very well to Wikipedia, sadly. Anyway, thank-you for the reply - your advice makes sense and I will follow it. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Toddst1!

Happy New Year!

Hello Toddst1:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 04:09, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

My additions to the Deaths on DOTY December 26

I added Sue Lyon and Jerry Herman from the info on their Wikipedia pages. Is this not reliable enough? Or do I need an outside source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartkau (talk • contribs) 20:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartkau: That is exactly what I tried to explain to you here. Using Wikipedia as a source would be WP:USERG and WP:CIRCULAR. Each new entry on the Days of the Year pages requires a direct reliable source to be cited. Toddst1 (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re: December 27 DOTY Deaths

Added this and used his Wikipedia article as the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartkau (talk • contribs) 20:39, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I understand now.Stuartkau (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MAF

I appreciate the feedback and the earlier thanks, but with regard to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_24&oldid=933100951, I'm unclear how the Associated Press / the Houston Chronicle are considered mirrors or forks? The referenced source was https://www.chron.com/life/article/Birthdays-March-24-12774163.php

Also, it appears you also reverted my minor formatting update https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=March_24&oldid=933102152

Thanks Slvrstn (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Slvrstn:, Thanks for your good work and for being both receptive to feedback and constructively giving it.

The chron.com reference (and references like that) often pop up on DOTY articles. They may look reliable because they were published by the Associated Press, but you have to look a little deeper. Sometimes journalists will look for a quick "filler" article to just get something out. It could be that they need to publish so many pieces per period of time or other reasons.

But in evaluating sources, you have to ask, "How likely is it that this information is true and where did it come from?" and maybe "How much research went in to this info?" In this case, it is highly likely that the AP journalist just went to the Wikipedia page March 24 and used that as a basis of the article. If we then use the article as a source, it is called Circular reporting or "citogenesis" and is one of the fundamental weaknesses of Wikipedia. We have to be super-vigilant about stuff like that.

Does this make sense? I hope so, but if it doesn't, please take this issue to our Reliable Sources Noticeboard where you can have our peers weigh in on it. I'm pretty sure they'll come up with the same conclusion.

Regarding the minor formatting, my apologies. I've fixed that here, I think.

Toddst1 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

chencho gyeltshen

in first sentence club must be shortened to "paro" and either no confirmation for 0 (0) stats with tertons so make it empty, otherwise its clear vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.133.254.196 (talk) 10:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gcdonaldson

Just blocked this guy for six months - his first action after returning from the previous block was to make another unsourced addition. Deb (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McGruff the Crime Dog is on the job! Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links to official game strategy guides

Hi Todd

I assumed that since pages for older video games frequently include external links to where one can still buy the game, it would also be appropriate to include a link to where the official strategy guide for the game could be purchased. As the author, I’ve republished 8 of my old game books using CreateSpace/Kindle Direct (an arm of Amazon.com). As such, rather than being generally available, people who want help with the game can ONLY find these books at Amazon.com worldwide.

Would you prefer that I:

  * edit the Body text to something like “republished by the author, 2019, Amazon.com”?
  * do the same but make Amazon.com a link?
  * something else?

I’m not attempting to spam here, but don’t see that linking to the only vendor from whom the official guide can be purchased is that different from linking to a specific game vendor (Moby Games, for example) from whom the game can be purchased. Neither are arms of the game’s publisher.

Steve GameMaven (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]