User talk:Toby Douglass

Welcome!

Hello, Toby Douglass, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Alai 16:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

afd Ringmail

AfD nomination of Ringmail

Ringmail, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Ringmail satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ringmail and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Ringmail during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

Dear Toby Douglass, please don't turn the russian-ukrainian gas dispute article into a pro-Ukrainian propaganda, according to the bbc the stated owned Naftgaz has admitted that they took gas with was intended for abroard, I think you can't say that the BBC would lie about this. I don't want thise article to become a anti-Ukrainain piece, but not a pro-Ukrainian either.

Sexual attraction

Whoops I thought you were the vandal. Sorry I didn't look back far enough. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Hi Toby Douglass. I wanted to post a message to remind you of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Some of your additions to Lord of War and series of tubes qualified as original research, and unfortunately had to be removed. Thanks for your contributions, and remember to keep this policy in mind. Thanks! · j e r s y k o talk · 15:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AVL tree

Hopefully this doesn't cause any offense, but I had to revert your changes on AVL tree. I gave my reasoning on the talk page. I understand why you said what you said, but you're mistakes are common misconceptions. I realize that the article needs some work, and I'm grateful for your enthusiasm, but I don't think that the changes made were the correct ones. I think some careful writing, along the same lines as the stuff you wrote, could do the article some good. Please continue to contribute to the article. McKay 14:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry about that. I must have missed your edits to that page. Reading through it now (or later today). McKay 15:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Alexander Litvinenko

I responded to your comments on the page's talk page. See Talk:Alexander_Litvinenko#Liberal_Russia. Nishkid 64 22:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falklands

can you provide references for your entry on the falklanda war article for:

"It should be noted, however, that there was a perfectly good practical and safety reason to enforce driving on the right; as the local commander said: "what do you want, our 18 year old conscripts trying to drive their big lorries on the left, or you with your little vehicles trying to drive on the right?""

all the best and happy hogmanay

84.70.159.152 06:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:82.148.97.69

I think it's unusual for an ISP to only use one IP address for all of its customers, but I don't understand why it is unethical. Could you explain more about why it is unethical for an ISP to share one IP address for all of its customers. How does this practice intervene in the customers' lives? It seems like this setup would protect the individual users' identities. This is similar to anonymity provided by AOL's dynamic IP address assignments to its customers. With both of these companies setups, an IP address can't be pinned to a single user. Jecowa 13:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rings of Jupiter vandalism

Aliasd - the Rings of Jupiter page was vandalised. I reverted. The vandal was User:Nicolaswar. You have a "final warning" comment on his talk page. I don't know the procedure to ban people, so I was hoping you could sort this out.

Toby Douglass 11:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, this user will be blocked shortly. Aliasd 11:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heather Duby

Toby, As a lifelong fan of Heather Duby's music, I attempted to provide as much information as I know on her career as an artist. It's informational, which by default, is also encyclopedic. Please do not revise the page anymore as your revisions take drastic episodes in the artist's life away from the full story. Thank you.

This might help you

I've noticed that you blanked you're userpage, and didn't create it. If you wish it deleted, place the tag{{Template:Db-author}} on the page. Yamakiri on Firefox 22:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Watson's views on IQ

I moved your reference and some comments to this page: Race_and_intelligence#Theories_on_the_intelligence_of_Ashkenazi_Jews

I don't know what User:Diego was on about when he claimed your edit was Original Research [1]. It was simply a case of good research in the wrong place.

Ewen 08:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Price

When you've got a decent amount of text, and a reason (see WP:N) that he's famous, you can re-create the article. In the meantime though, notability hasn't been asserted - he just seems to be an artist. There's no mention of him being in the press etc - which is really what we need. Sorry! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Trevor Price

A tag has been placed on Trevor Price requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, 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. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A^RendedWinter 18:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Little context in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Price

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Price, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Price is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Price, 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) 13:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Price

Hello. I see and understand your situation with the article Trevor Price, however our policies and guidelines are the norm of Wikipedia. These are open to interpretation for each individual article, which requires discussion among users. I offer no opinion on the situation, but may provide some sensible advice. I have deleted the talk page of the article for housekeeping reasons, and posting your comments here below so you can use them for arguing your case. There is an existing process to appeal deletion of articles, where your arguments will be heard and a final decision made on whether to keep as deleted or allow recreation. It is at Wikipedia:Deletion review. Hope it helps. Please do not continue your attempts to recreate the article until a final decision is reached. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the page originally. Two minutes later, a speedy delete occurred. I had no chance to dispute this, and the page was deleted. I re-created the page so that I could take part in the discussion. I have explained this clearly and explicitly. You write in response; "Please do not continue your attempts to recreate the article until a final decision is reached". What made you think I was trying to force the page to exist? Toby Douglass 18:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at Talk:Trevor Price

I originally created this article on the 17th November. Within two minutes a speedy-delete tag was added; the next day the article was gone. There was no opportunity for me to argue the case for creation the article, which seems to me extremely poor practise. Over-zealous deletion, to the point that the case for keeping the page simply was not given an airing. Accordingly, I have recreated the article so that this discussion can occur.
This page was deleted on the grounds of lack of assertion of notability.
The artist in question is has exhibited worldwide, has been comissioned by P&Q ferries (where three of his works are present on one of their ferries) and a number of his works are held by notable institutions (such as the Bank of England).
A Google search for "Trevor Price" brings up a number of different galleries where his work has been exhibited.
I may misunderstand the Wiki concept of notability, but it seems to me this is sufficient success within his field to justify a page.
Toby Douglass (talk) 18:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

On another note, why has the page itself been protected from creation?
This seems to be an inappropriate response to the situation. It certainly isn't necessary, for I have not re-created the page in an effort to over-ride or ignore an earlier decision; I've re-created it so I can actually participate in the discussion regarding the existance of the page. Furthermore, adding that protection wiped out what I had typed in that page, which was the reason for re-creation, which I have had to re-type here. I'm somewhat annoyed.
Toby Douglass (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

G'day

Apologies for abusing your talk page :) I noticed your name on another article. You didn't by any chance use to live in Hampshire (UK) about a dozen years or so ago? I used to know a Toby Douglass who did so was just curious... Anyway, cheers! sjwk (talk) 21:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well.. what a small world! I did indeed know you from Alton College - days of Amigas, and lunchtimes playing BattleTech at your house.. At least until I toddled off to Uni in '91. Steve Kersley's the name - you may remember me.. or you may not. I'm Oxford-based nowadays. Good to bump into you again! sjwk (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Price

I notice you created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevor Price over an article which was deleted. I'm afraid this isn't the right procedure; the way to challenge a speedy deletion is set out at deletion review. If you want I can set up the procedure there for you based on the case you make. Sam Blacketer 18:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing - if you would like to work on the article on Trevor Price to show how he is notable, then I can undelete it to your userspace. Sam Blacketer 18:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the article to User:Toby Douglass/Trevor Price. Other users can edit it there but it is not normally acceptable to do so; please feel free to edit the page so that the notability is established. Meanwhile, would you like me to set up the deletion review? Sam Blacketer 18:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Searching For Moths III.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Searching For Moths III.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy editing

You might try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RSN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

Also user Biophys is an expert on Russian matters. --Molobo (talk) 09:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Falcon 1 Flight 4

As seen in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#How to use article talk pages, "Keep on topic: Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal."

Here, I read that "Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal," and adding"Fantastic!! wooohoooooo!" doesn't exactly strike me as relevant. However, because you believe it to be so, I'll let it stay. Happy editing, and I hope you understand where I'm coming from, Spencer^T♦^C 18:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Talk Page

I simply remove offensive comments from my talk page, please don't do that again. I don't have to inform you if I revert your content, the edit you did had numerous problems as spelled out in the article talk page. I note that another editor looking at them immediately reached the same conclusion and reverted. Justin talk 17:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed personal opinion

Hello. I have removed your "thoughts" as per WP:NOTFORUM policy. --GP Pande 13:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:GhostNet

I'm trying to remove some of the forum chat and would appreciate it if you could help me by not responding to the fringe theorists. That article is bound to attract all kinds of people. Thanks. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 22:15, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'm not referring to all of your talk page edits, just some of them. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

cough Just a reminder. Cheers. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 09:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Hi, you seem to be having some trouble with talk pages and may find WP:TALK useful. In short, talk pages are for discussing improvements to the related article and not for general discussion about the subject. You have had this mentioned to you a number of times and have posted a number of irrelevant posts on various talk pages, doing so simply adds unnecessary clutter to the pages and can disrupt editors that are using them for the purpose for which they are provided. Please refrain from posting such comments in the future. Thanks, raseaC^{talk to me} 20:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Attack warning

Wikipedia has a policy forbidding editors using it to write hate speech against other users' religions. This is a warning. Next time the incident will be reported as such. Your bigotry has no place on wikipedia. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 11:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked up what this was for. There's an article, Grounation Day. Someone in the talk page asked what Grounation means. I wrote in the talk page, "Reading the article, it means insane people on drugs believe anything." Toby Douglass (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Toby Douglass might have made a mistake in his tone, but the article itself seems to make something of the same comment:

"having heard that the man whom they considered to be God was coming to visit them. They waited at the airport playing drums and smoking large quantities of marijuana."

I've also tagged that article for being more like a story than an encyclopedia. A phrase I removed seemed to be a flat-out factual contrivance. 76.102.1.193 (talk) 20:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]