User talk:TOO

Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

Manual of Style Policies and guidelines


 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.


 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 18:52, 13 Jan 2004 (UTC)

TOO, some excellent editing in the song lists. However, the reason why I avoided adding links to specific music years ie. (1983) is because it is considered a "bad format" to use piped links, in the Wikipedia style guide. See Manual of Style (dates and numbers). I will go over the song lists and remove the piped links. Iam 00:19, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

Joe Start
great work on Joe Start! I hope you write some more articles on forgotten baseball players. Sincerely, Kingturtle 20:22, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Categories
Is it really bad to have redundancy in the category system? By that logic, all Olympic athletes must appear in Category:Olympic athletes and not in Category:Athletes. I am not sure if there is policy on this point. The problems of a tree data structure for categories would be ameliorated if there was a option for recursive listing... Dan Gardner 13:36, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem is, where do we stop? All of the athletes are people, too so should we list each of them under Category:People? Of course not. However, there's less redundency out there than you think. The Olympians should probably be listed under Olympic athletes, but also under their home country and possibly under their event, and so on. In any case, I only really get a bee in my bonnet about these things when the category something's been put in is hopelessly general (Category:People), or when something shows up in 2 categorys that directly link to each other (like the athlete categories), since that seems silly to me. Of course, I'm not sure either what the official policy is, if it exists at all. I'm just doing what makes sense to me. Are there strong reasons to keep things in both Category:Athletes and Category:American track and field athletes? --TOO 07:01, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Is there a strong reason to have people in both? Not really, but it does seem a bit US centric to have US athletes and then all others (some people will probably want Category:American track and field athletes moved to Category:U.S. track and field athletes as well). Will we have Category:British track and field athletes and Category:Kenyan track and field athletes and Category:Soviet track and field athletes? And incidentally, do you know if it is possible to do a recursive listing of the articles in a category - that is, a listing of all the articles in the category and the articles in its subcategories, subsubcategories, and so on? Dan Gardner 12:52, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I understand what you mean about US-centricity, but that's just a matter of making more categories. I'll spend some time making a few more athlete categories for other nations. That was really a matter of trying to break up the 100+ members of Category:Athletes. Also, until some sort of general policy has been worked out regarding American vs. US, I'm not going to worry about what people will decide. It's simple enough to move stuff around between 2 categories, if time-consuming. As for recursive listing, I don't think that's a feature now, but I can see its utility and you should see if you can get that added to the software. I don't think there's any reason it couldn't be done. --TOO 03:50, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

category American Athletes
The only reason I had put them that they around was because the americans call their athletes Category:American track and field athletes it leaves them nowhere to put their marathon runners. So if marathon runners have to go under Category:American athletes then that has to go under Category:Athletes otherwise their marathon runners will not be visible to anyone looking under Category:Athletes, the place you would expect to find them. Eventually I suppose that they will all get renamed under their individual discipline, but because they were so many under different categories yesterday I moved then all under Category:name of country|name of athlete. does that make sense??? It doesn't really matter to me as I would most likely search under the athletes name, but somebody who may not know a lot about athletics may want to try and find marathon runners under the Category:Athletes heading. I shall leave it up to your discretion as we're only on about americans anyway.Scraggy4 05:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I hadn't thought about marathon runners. It would probably be best to give them their own category and put that under Category:Athletes. I'm pretty wary about people putting Category:American athletes in with the other athlete categories, because of the different uses of that, but clearly that's not the case here. I do like what you've done with recategorizing all of those athletes. There are too many categories with so many entries that they're nearly useless. And I know that making a whole bunch of categories can be pretty tedious work, so I do appreciate your efforts. --TOO 06:06, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Hockey project
Considering your apparently interest in ice hockey, I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject Ice Hockey. The only thing done so far is the player pages format. Kevin Rector 16:23, Aug 27, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

lots of edits, not an admin
Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. I see you haven't made any changes in a few weeks, but if you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:29, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Give 'Em Enough Rope.jpeg
 Thanks for uploading File:Give 'Em Enough Rope.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

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) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Category:Macedonia has been nominated for discussion
Category:Macedonia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)