Open main menu




Contents

Today's Wikipedian 10 years agoEdit

Awesome
 
Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you, then and now. Toddst1 (talk) 13:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the "now", thank Bibliomaniac for "then", please! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:06, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
and again today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:42, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
and I was just reminded that you gave me my first barnstar, in 2009 ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

May 2019Edit

Regarding your edit and your note re Please see MOS:NOBOLD, the article is now missing information that the bold text had previously identified. The Liturgical calendar should be an exception.ΙΣΧΣΝΙΚΑ-888 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

We don't use bold for emphasis. Take it to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Text formatting Toddst1 (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Noone can destroy the traditional structure of Orhtodox Calendar! BOLD like any other formatting feature must help to structure of information. Your incompetent edits invertedly prevent it! Don't lead the normal rule to absurd! Don't prevent for Orthodox people to get a habitual calendar! Александр Васильев (talk) 19:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I come to destroy church. First I kill moose and squirrel. Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Please don't clown about! Especially because Your fist (now deleted) version of answer was really plain. (I mean: "I have no idea what you're talking about".) If You not understand that, would You like to simply keep Yourself from editing of so specific material like Orthodox Liturgical Calendar? Please let people who knows what they doing to do it! Александр Васильев (talk) 19:01, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

reFillEdit

I noticed that you have added a huge number of references on May 11, thank you! You have done this with the help of reFill and I was wondering whether this is the best way to go about this? Regards, Willbb234 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234: I don't use reFill. Perhaps I should check it out! Toddst1 (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed EditsEdit

Hi, I don't understand why my edits were removed if my information is true (and cited). I'm not writing in a biased manner and I do know more about him than anyone on this website could. Please let me know what the problem is. Cassiejaestew (talk) 02:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Cassiejaestew Toddst1 (talk) 13:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Guidance Barnstar
This is for your help and advises given to me about reviewing pending changes related to days of the year project. Thank you very much for advice. Regards. PATH SLOPU 09:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


HeyEdit

the edits I made to August 10, August 31 and October 29 got reverted, the explanation you gave was too confusing, can you explain why they we're reverted, I'm happy to help Great Mercian (talk) 08:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Great Mercian:The Days of Years (DOTY) pages were becoming a complete mess with incorrect and unverifiable info so all new entries (such as yours) require a direct source.
About a year and a half ago, the DOTY project looked at why and for some reason they had exempted themselves from verifiability. As a result, almost none of the pages had any sources to back things up, based on the naive (and against Wikipedia policy) belief that all entries would be backed by reliable sources in the linked article. It turns out that was not the case and the DOTY pages were filled with incorrect info and even worse, other places started believing the info there and publishing the incorrect info in newspapers, for example on "Today's date in history" type listings.
So the DOTY project took the bold step of requiring that all new entries be backed by direct reliable sources. Several of us have gone through and started cleaning things up. May 11 is an example of where wee want to be. For details see the content guideline, the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide or the edit notice on any DOY page.
We could use your help in:
  1. Preventing new entries that don't include direct sources and when they occur, either supplement them with a reliable source or reverting them.
  2. Helping us clean up articles. The project members have asked all participants to go through their birthday and clean the entries up by adding reliable sources to each entry, or removing entries where reliable sources aren't readily available.
I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

so what this means is that i need to find a source to verify my edits from, do you mean from a site on the internet or a wikipedia article? Great Mercian (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Any WP:RS will do. Another wikipedia article and some web sites would be WP:USERG. Toddst1 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019Edit

When i was editing the List of Hispanic and Latino Americans. it wasn't any different then the other ones i did similar to it. Matt Campbell (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

WP:OSE? WP:BLP applies. Toddst1 (talk) 01:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The list i was editing had to do with a list of people the just one person individually. Matt Campbell (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I mean't to say not just one person individually, my mistake. Matt Campbell (talk) 01:34, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
When it's articles like that you don't have to add references. Matt Campbell (talk) 02:16, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Not true. Show me where you think a policy says that. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Matt Campbell, the rule is at WP:LISTPEOPLE. Please don't make up your own rules for Wikipedia.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2019Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2019).

  Guideline and policy news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous

  • Following a research project on masking IP addresses, the Foundation is starting a new project to improve the privacy of IP editors. The result of this project may significantly change administrative and counter-vandalism workflows. The project is in the very early stages of discussions and there is no concrete plan yet. Admins and the broader community are encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page.
  • The new page reviewer right is bundled with the admin tool set. Many admins regularly help out at Special:NewPagesFeed, but they may not be aware of improvements, changes, and new tools for the Curation system. Stay up to date by subscribing here to the NPP newsletter that appears every two months, and/or putting the reviewers' talk page on your watchlist.

    Since the introduction of temporary user rights, it is becoming more usual to accord the New Page Reviewer right on a probationary period of 3 to 6 months in the first instance. This avoids rights removal for inactivity at a later stage and enables a review of their work before according the right on a permanent basis.


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:24, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Days of the year pagesEdit

You left a note on my talk page about my being unaware of WP:V regarding additions to these pages. If you had checked my edit note, you would have seen that I wasn't adding info to the page but putting info in alpha order. Regards Denisarona (talk) 08:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Denisarona (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Toddst1".