User talk:Toddst1
| 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 |
 | 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. |
Carlington edit
I made two changes to the Carlington page which you reverted. 1) I removed reference inaccurate demographic information from the introduction. In fact the numbers were not even consistent with demographics contained further in the entry. 2) I removed a reference to a dated article refering to the crime rate in Carlington.
Can you explain why you so quickly changed my entry?
Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.11.74 (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Sure: It's not clear how your edits are different from blanking vandalism. If the info there is inaccurate, correct it. If the source is stale, update it. Blanking information, without consensus on the article's talk page is generally not acceptable. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry about that. New to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.11.74 (talk) 15:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- No problem. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Toddst1 (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Victorian Railways wagon pages
Hi Todd,
I'm splitting the box, louvre and iced van pages. The original idea was to merge the three, but the stories are too complex to generate a proper narrative.
Dave
- Dave. That sounds reasonable but it would be a good idea to note that on the article's talk. Feel free to undo my change. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- Epicgenius has changed the page into a disambiguation, without any reference in the talk page. I don't mind leaving it like that, even if it isn't very neat. In any case, I'll be deleting the link from the Victorian Railways template (which I was planning to do on the 8th when the page vanished). Anothersignalman (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Bombe
Citations from later in the article added to lead. Was reversion really necessary when there are such good sources cited in the body? --TedColes (talk) 23:09, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Christianity on Wikipedia
I just realised that you left a comment when you removed my new picture I uploaded.
My reason for replacing the previous picture was because Christianity doesn't support nudity, therefore a nude picture shouldn't represent a Christian topic. I know you're probably not a Christian, so you probably won't understand. If I was a Jew, I wouldn't want a Hitler salute as the topic picture for the Holocaust with a caption saying some derogatory things about Jews. Likewise nudity is not advocated by Christianity, What's wrong with replacing the picture with a generic picture showing the two genders?
God hates fornication, likewise God clearly wouldn't like an "artistic" nude and crude(perverted) picture representing Christianity. No way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesus is King of Kings (talk • contribs) 00:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
- God hates fornication? Move on. Toddst1 (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm pathetic
Because I brought up a POV-pushing vandal who replaced that Amwar al Awlaki was from al Qaeda with him being from the Pentagon. Tátótát (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
70.53.97.28
While I think the temporary block of 70.53.97.28 was appropriate, you may have been a bit harsh with your comments, especially this addition to their block notice. Noncommunicative autistic users, while problematic, are not quite the same as uncontrolled vandals. Trivialist (talk) 12:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- The parent is blaming the edits on their disabled child and saying that their kid can't handle editing on Wikipedia. Ok fine, s/he should keep their kid off Wikipedia then, but if that wasn't WP:BROTHER enough, the parent is saying the kid's reaction is the Wikipedia community's fault. Toddst1 (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)