| Revision as of 00:14, 2 September 2011 editToddst1 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors137,759 edits →re:St. Patrick High School (Chicago): a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. ?← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:35, 2 September 2011 edit undoLonelyBeacon (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers20,034 edits →re:St. Patrick High School (Chicago): As I am seeing it, if this is advertising, then WP:REFSPAM supports deletionNext edit → | ||
| Line 62: | Line 62: | ||
| I have to disagree with your call of non-vandalism. This alum is being added with no referencing, and it seems to me on those grounds alone, I can challenge the addition of unsourced material per ]. Beyond that, this editor keeps including a link to a business that not only doesn't name the alum, but certainly doesn't indicate that he attended the school ... this reeks of ]. I understand the need to avoid edit warring, but it can't be that difficult to remove something that so blatantly doesn't belong. ] (]) 22:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC) | I have to disagree with your call of non-vandalism. This alum is being added with no referencing, and it seems to me on those grounds alone, I can challenge the addition of unsourced material per ]. Beyond that, this editor keeps including a link to a business that not only doesn't name the alum, but certainly doesn't indicate that he attended the school ... this reeks of ]. I understand the need to avoid edit warring, but it can't be that difficult to remove something that so blatantly doesn't belong. ] (]) 22:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :I don't buy that that editor is making ] Advertising, sure. Self-promotion, sure. Not ]. ] <small>(])</small> 00:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC) | :I don't buy that that editor is making ] Advertising, sure. Self-promotion, sure. Not ]. ] <small>(])</small> 00:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::Not ]? I'm not trying to be intentionally argumentative here. The editor has all but admitted that this person is of local scope only, and I just have a feeling that this is an attempt to circumvent ], ] by constantly including a person who almost certainly cannot be referenced reliably, and includes a business link that does nothing to support inclusion. ] (]) 00:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:35, 2 September 2011
If leaving a message about an article, please include the title enclosed in brackets as it will facilitate navigation.
| This is Toddst1's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
Kapil Sibal
Toddst1, would you please make it semi-protected for a period until 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement ceases. Because of this ongoing social movement in India and the role of subject in it, people are making highly defamatory comments, and unfortunately, I don't think it would stop for a while. — Bill william compton 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Done. They didn't waste any time after the last semi expired yesterday. Toddst1 (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
- Many thanks! — Bill william compton 16:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
"Sesame street in Britain"
I wish to bring to your attention that have jumped the gun about deleting this page in question: "Sesame street in Britain" Reason being it content WHICH I DID STATE IN THE COMMENT SECTION: still needed abit of work and some rewriting to make it up to standards. The page is not a duplication of sesame street page but is a page about the troubled history of the series in the UK. There is hardly any or no proper details about this on the main page in question. Im still working on the page which has now be revised again sine this deletion. I still working on the "OFF web" page which will provide high level of information.
- It sounds like it should be a section in Sesame Street. Toddst1 (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Alas it would at this moment of time take up a good amount of sesame street page, and I have no even got half way thought put the page together yet, but if you wish for me to clog up that page then so be it, but I get the feeling someone else will complain and say it should have its own page just like all the other SS in world.
Ok I shall place the information already created to that page, I still need another day to get the rest finished, I suggest you take a look a the addition information I placed to see whether new page should be created.
- Hi, I'm the main editor of the co-productions article mentioned above. Crazyseiko is correct; I do have issues with his addition about Sesame Street in Britain. Many of those issues are editorial in nature, and I intend to discuss them on the article's talk page. I'd like to address one of those issues and to continue the discussion here. Crazyseiko is also correct in that his additions "clog up" the article. I see no problem with the content going into a new article; many of the co-productions mentioned in the article do have their own article; i.e., Vila Sésamo, Plaza Sésamo, and Sesamstrasse. Christine (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 08:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
- Another reply there. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Nomination of Deryl Dedmon for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deryl Dedmon is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Deryl Dedmon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..
Nomination of Murder of James Craig Anderson for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of James Craig Anderson is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Murder of James Craig Anderson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..
From Herbolzheim
OK Toddst1, thanks for the advice. I have in fact no edit war with Alex - it's some other guy who is refusing to enter into discussion. I'll make sure that I don't change the page unless I can engage with him. I'd dearly like to do so. I'm still quite new to this. Herbolzheim (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Re:Edit war
Fine, I won't revert his edits. However, you should look at the reasoning. His edit simply adds "(Defense of the Ancients 2)" after the main title, despite the fact that I have shown him references later in the article in which the game's directors says specifically that it is not called that and as such, it is not an acronym, so much as a thing. I am convinced that this is a user using proxy servers, considering that it is an identical edit. DarthBotto talk•cont 20:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 18:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Cerejota (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
re:St. Patrick High School (Chicago)
Heya Todds!
I have to disagree with your call of non-vandalism. This alum is being added with no referencing, and it seems to me on those grounds alone, I can challenge the addition of unsourced material per WP:BLP. Beyond that, this editor keeps including a link to a business that not only doesn't name the alum, but certainly doesn't indicate that he attended the school ... this reeks of WP:ADVERTISING. I understand the need to avoid edit warring, but it can't be that difficult to remove something that so blatantly doesn't belong. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I don't buy that that editor is making a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages. Advertising, sure. Self-promotion, sure. Not WP:VAND. Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
- Not WP:REFSPAM? I'm not trying to be intentionally argumentative here. The editor has all but admitted that this person is of local scope only, and I just have a feeling that this is an attempt to circumvent WP:V, WP:N by constantly including a person who almost certainly cannot be referenced reliably, and includes a business link that does nothing to support inclusion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)