User talk:Toounstable

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Encino
"(cur) (last) 22:58, 19 April 2008 Toounstable (Talk | contribs | block) (7,702 bytes) (Birmingham HS is in the County of LA, not the city of LA) (undo)"

You are not correct in that Encino is indeed within the city of LA. The LA city limits extend to West Hills. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User page and Malibu
Please create user:Toounstable with something. Users with red-linked pages are viewed with almost as much suspicion as anons. Looking at Malibu Rehab Model I almost took you for one of Reagan0005's sock puppets.

And talking of Malibu Rehab Model, if you don't take it to AfD, I will. Anyone who can create a link to TheRapistFinder.com and make the name visible must have a distorted sense of reality! &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * RHaworth: Thank you for the suggestion to create a user page. I have begun one and will expand (suggestions as what to include are welcome).  I'm still rather unsophisticated with how to do things on WP and have never taken an article to AfD but agree that the blatantly promotional Malibu Rehab Model article should go there.  I'll see if I can figure it out, but feel free to take it there yourself.  Unfortunately, I suspect that the many apparent and possibly new sock puppets of Regan0005 may weigh in on the discussion to keep it.  I see that you have already started making notice of them - something else I didn't previously know how to do, but had noticed and commented on here. Thanks again! Toounstable (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Haight Ashbury Free Clinics
I know you mean well, but except for your addition of a category (which I restored) I reverted your edits to Haight Ashbury Free Clinics. For some resason, you reversed the reference process, moving it from the notes to external links and adding a citation tag. I understand that you are new to Wikipedia, but this is generally not how things are done. The opposite, moving external links to inline references, is preferred. The expansion tag is unneeded as the article is already tagged as a stub. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Gelatin dessert
Just wanted to explain why I removed your edit to Gelatin dessert regarding "gelatin shots," the info in the cited article didn't quite match what you wrote. I don't have time to rewrite it at the moment, so I just removed it. I hope you don't mind fixing it. At any rate, I think what you are trying to get at is that the California legislature believes that prepackaged "jello-shots" are particularly attractive to underage drinkers. But that's not quite the same as being an "alcopop"-- in fact the draft bill referenced has separate descriptions for "alcopops" and "new alcohol products with potential appeal to young people." Here's the bill text: It is an interesting issue, you should take a look at the original 1862 recipe for "jelly punch," the writer explains that ladies are often tempted to partake more of it than might be prudent if they want to continue dancing that evening. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of List of America's 100 greatest golf courses
A tag has been placed on List of America's 100 greatest golf courses requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 132 21:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete contested per WP:Lists. See the talk page for my responses. Toounstable (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Dank55 is an administrator. He didn't decide to redirect it based on nothing. He looked at the article, the talk page, and decided to redirect it. That is two people now who have redirected the article; what is the basis of your insistence on keeping it as an article instead of a redirect? How does it pass WP:N and how does it not violate WP:IINFO? You have yet to answer these questions after being asked several times. Please answer them to maybe clear up some confusion. Thank you. --132 04:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, the admin who removed the CSD did not use WP:LIST as a reason for keeping. --132 04:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. I wouldn't normally give someone who's been around for more than a few months this warning, but you're ignoring everything on the talk page, refusing to discuss why the article passes basic policies (WP:N) and why it doesn't violate others WP:IINFO), and reverting any edit not in your favor. Please discuss, not own. 132 04:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This is starting to seem like a contest, which is not my intent. I was merely trying to build an article that would contribute to WP.  I spent time building the article instead of arguing about it.  Perhaps my attempt to use the "under construction" tag was not the way it is conventionally done, but I am a relative WP novice. I am not adverse to editing by others and would welcome such contributory editing to improve the article. It seems you have passed judgment and are unwilling to give me the time to do so.  Not knowning what to do next, I will seek assistance from Admins as to how to proceed. I remain baffled as to your hurry to delete or redirect the simple list article. Toounstable (talk) 04:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see the talk page. It is not a contest. I've been around a while and have sort of settled into New Page Patrol. I mark articles I feel shouldn't be included and don't mark ones I think should be included. There's really nothing personal about this particular article. I just have it on my watchlist, have some free time, and am able to respond. For future reference, it's really not a good idea to use the "under construction" tag on any article that isn't already established. It puts users in a bind when it comes to deletion and tends to cause disruption.


 * I have not passed judgment on you. I am frustrated that you haven't addressed my concerns in the slightest, but I certainly have not passed judgment. I understand you feel like it should be included, but I don't see why it should. As the author, it's your job to show why it should. I have actually not wanted to delete the article. Had you not made assumptions, you would see that. I, in fact, not only suggested, but instated a redirect. That means, not only do I think the article shouldn't be deleted, but that I think it's got some merit. From there, if you think it should be an article instead of a redirect, you should work on it in a sandbox and then upload it when you are content with it, but not before that point. By reverting my edit before considering my points, you reinstated the CSD, not me.


 * I've also been seeking admin assistance. I would have gone to Dank myself if you hadn't already. Instead I went with the user who removed the CSD. I don't know if you're watching the page, but there has also been a third user (Wronkiew) who has agreed with the redirect. I know you don't like the redirect, but, honestly, I think it would be the best option at this time. --132 05:11, 9 April 2009 (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) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)