User talk:Toadspike

Science and technology in Switzerland article

@Toadspike, wow, thanks for the super quick and thoughtful reply on the project page. I'll keep working on expanding the AI section for now and revisit a split later if it grows enough. HerBauhaus (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@HerBauhaus Sorry that I didn't reply earlier – I was away from Wikipedia for a few days. Thank you for your kind words. If you have any similar questions or need access to Swiss sources (like paywalled news articles), let me know and I will try to help. Toadspike [Talk] 15:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Help talk:IPA/Standard German on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:30, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Senemtk (18:01, 5 April 2025)

Hi, I am writing a page that has not been accepted yet, but my mistake was mentioning that I have a conflict of interest, which I do not. Could you please guide me on how to correct that claim? Thanks! --Senemtk (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

@Senemtk I don't see where you said that you have a conflict of interest (COI). Regardless, the standards for articles to be accepted are the same for editors with and without a COI, so it shouldn't really matter. Toadspike [Talk] 13:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from Destiny495 (23:54, 6 April 2025)

How do I create an article --Destiny495 (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

@Destiny495 WP:Your first article has some advice for you. If you have any questions about specific steps in the process, please feel free to come back here and ask me. Toadspike [Talk] 07:57, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

NPOL interpretations

Hi! I noticed a message you left at @SportingFlyer's talk page (courtesy ping as they may wish to contribute) - there's definitely a range of opinions regarding the applicability of NPOL's presumed notability to political appointees serving in non-parliamentary executive roles. However, I'd say there's a rough community consensus that in democratic presidential systems appointees to cabinets are generally considered to have NPOL's presumed notability ... but there's roles that sit outside that which would still be accorded presumed notability; eg US state attorneys general do not sit in a US governor's cabinet and governors at state/province level in Commonwealth countries with federal systems (who act as representatives of the head of state). I mentioned this at my RfA, but I think this (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Schimmer) is a useful AfD discussion around the application of a presumed notability threshold for a political appointee. Judicial roles are somewhat clearer and match with courts that have a national or state level jurisdiction. I'm only aware of one cabinet-level appointee at national level not accorded presumed notability in an AfD discussion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qadhi Saeed Almurooshid), and given the nature of that country and the fact that the role is effectively advisory rather than actually exercising power, it's an exception that I would say proves the rule. Goldsztajn (talk) 02:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Goldsztajn, I've appreciated your work at AfD lately. This, for instance, was a very good close, as it requires some knowledge and more courage to not relist.

Back to the topic, I'll admit that when I wrote that message I was a bit emotional and it came out as a POINTy rant. I appreciated SportingFlyer's polite response, especially I am arguing against that certain political appointees to non-legislative roles, especially at non-federal levels, will not necessarily meet GNG, and therefore should not be a part of NPOL. (I think the word "against" is meant to be removed.) This is a reasonable perspective, and it's the kind of debate that we'll naturally always have around our GNG-overriding SNGs, like NATH and NMUSIC.

The first AfD you linked is indeed illustrative of the challenge of determining where we draw the line and what positions we consider automatically notable. A dogmatic interpretation of "statewide office" makes every civil servant notable, while a dogmatic exclusion of appointed positions makes the various posts and people I listed on SportingFlyer's talk page not notable; neither extreme is desirable. Toadspike [Talk] 09:13, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Question from LEDDallas (17:44, 7 April 2025)

Hi, I'm having trouble figuring out how to change the logo on a Template: infobox university. The logo is already on Commons but whenever I try to insert the new one it comes out huge. --LEDDallas (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@LEDDallas Looking at your contributions, it looks like you've figured it out. Feel free to come back if you have other questions. Toadspike [Talk] 13:29, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Ask related to Brandhärd

Hi, you said you found sources on Swissbox regarding Brandhärd. I don't seem to have access to the platform, if it's not difficult can you drop a couple of them, plus my charts link, in the external links. It would settle the question of notability (marked since 2011!). Good day! LastJabberwocky (talk) 09:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@LastJabberwocky It seems I haven't responded to this yet, my apologies. I've gone back to find some sources with sigcov: [1][2][3][4] I hope this is enough to convince you that they meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 10:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

European Film Actor School

I linked the German version via an expand tag. Please add the sources to the article. We can clean up later. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I only saw this after I was nearly done with my talk page message. I will do my best to expand it with the sources I've got. Toadspike [Talk] 16:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Featured List Candidate

Hey there! I saw your recent feedback on one of the FL candidates and I'm glad to see I wasn't the only one who had difficulty with the formatting of the table. Anyway, I currently have this article up for FL nomination – Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/World Figure Skating Championships/archive1 – that has not received much feedback. If you have some time and would be willing to offer any feedback, it would be appreciated. Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 21:56, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

German-to-English Translation Request For Silvio Gesell Article

Hello Toadspike. I saw you listed here and I was wondering if you'd be willing to help translate the German Wikipedia article on Silvio Gesell or de:Freiwirtschaft into English? In my opinion, Gesell has fascinating and groundbreaking ideas on economics, and I wish that he was more well known in the Anglosphere. Thanks in advance. Zero Contradictions (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

@Zero Contradictions Those look like really hefty articles...thanks for asking, but I think I don't have the capacity for this right now. I might come back to it in future, but no guarantees. Toadspike [Talk] 11:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Geographic names

Toadspike(like the handle): I am a native of Hayward, Freeborn County, Minnesota. My issue is with the naming of Hayward. The geographical references to the namesake of Hayward incorrectly, my researched opinion, refers to a David Hayward. I maintain that this is incorrect. My research indicates the namesake is George S. Hayward. The Freeborn County Historical Museum staff concurs with me. Researching the county records reveals no reference to a David Hayward ever living or owning property in Freeborn County. The same research has multiple references to George S. Hayward living and owning property in the county and the township. Additionally, historical records indicate the namesake originally arrived in the mid 1850's from Postville, IA. Postville, IA has no records of a David Hayward. Concurrently, all records from Postville, IA do indicate a connection with George S. Hayward. Additionally, historical records indicate that Mr. Hayward moved to California and died as a result of an accident in 1869. There is no record of a David Hayward passing in California at that date. However, there is a cemetery in Colusa County, CA with George S. Hayward. This fits perfectly with all previous accounts. My belief is the confusion originated when George S. Hayward and David Judson concluded a real estate transaction and somehow a previous researcher inadvertently transpose the names.

I would like to see the error corrected and the source documents reflect the same.

Gary Skaar Garyskaar (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

@Garyskaar Hi Gary! Thanks for writing to me. I'm happy to help get this fixed, but I'll need some sources I can cite – even though I believe you, I can't just edit the page and say "Gary said so". If you don't have any books or research papers (secondary sources) that say this explicitly, could you get the museum to put something on their website? Toadspike [Talk] 17:20, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Good morning. Thank you for your timely response. Here is the correct reference you requested;

"History of Freeborn County" Franklin Curtiss-Wedge, 1911. pg. 84.

"Hayward. This town takes its name from Geo. Hayward the prominent citizen of the early days." ..... Garyskaar (talk) 12:38, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the source, I have made the edit [5]. Toadspike [Talk] 13:57, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm 82 years old and this has been bugging me for years. Now I can rest in peace, thanks to you. Sincerely, Gary (Gerhard E. Skaar) Garyskaar (talk) 14:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

AGF, please

It seems you may be misunderstanding me. Framing my good-faith, instructive advice to a new editor to use best practices as “casting aspersions”!, then re-framing that with a non-apology apology and doubling down on your original accusation with a scolding attached. I certainly did not “take a shot at the nominator’s character/conduct to advance [my] opinion on the deletion debate”. Wow, just wow.

BTW, I am pretty sure that an AfD nominator doesn’t need to be pinged, as the page is already on their watchlist, and they will likely get a notification if that preference is selected. Is there something else you would like to share? Netherzone (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Netherzone Yes, I know you didn't do any of those things. I was trying to explain what prompted my original concern. It was not my intent to double down or accuse you of anything. When I said "it is easy to misconstrue this kind of comment", I meant "this is how I misconstrued your comment"; I was admitting my own mistake, not accusing you of making one. If anything, this exchange has made clear how difficult it is to judge a person's intent from what they write on the Internet.

Many editors, including me, rarely or never check their watchlist. It's also not possible to subscribe to AfD pages easily. There's a good chance the nominator doesn't know how to find this discussion again (via AfD Stats or their contribs); since they nominated using an automated tool, they may not even know the discussion exists. (WormEater13, if you are reading this, I mean no offense.) There are also experienced editors who deliberately "fire and forget"/COAL at AfD, like NPPers simply looking to mark a page as reviewed and move on.

If you would like to teach WormEater13 how to do a good BEFORE search, which I think is a good idea, I highly recommend heading over to their user talk – it looks like they are very friendly and receptive to feedback. Toadspike [Talk] 15:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the job recommendation, but I must decline. Acting on your own good idea might be something you enjoy. Regards, Netherzone (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright then, I'll go let them know. Toadspike [Talk] 16:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Anthony Stephen (dog trainer)

@Toadspike I never thought the page (Anthony Stephen (dog trainer) got deleted so fast, why is the other GNG is not recognized? Spanizh fly (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Toadspike why not use it as stub? Spanizh fly (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires all article subjects to be notable. If the subject is not notable, we don't have an article – not even a stub. Being "notable" means something very specific on Wikipedia: it means that we have enough high-quality sources to write an article. The basic requirement for those sources is summarized at WP:42 – that is the standard by which I and others judged the sources in that discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 19:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/World Figure Skating Championships/archive1

Good Evening! Please let me know when you have a chance to examine the improvements I made to this article per your feedback and suggestions. Thank you so much! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:14, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Bgsu98 Sorry for dropping that – I do plan to get back to it, but I keep getting distracted. I was hoping to review the remaining prose section before wrapping up my review. I will try to do this tomorrow. Toadspike [Talk] 22:19, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate your time! Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

WikiCup 2025 May newsletter

The second round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 April at 23:59 UTC. To reiterate what we said in the previous newsletter, we are no longer disqualifying contestants based on how many points (now known as round points) they received. Instead, the contestants with the highest round-point totals now receive tournament points at the end of each round. These tournament points are carried over between rounds, and can only be earned if a competitor is among the top 16 round-point scorers at the end of each round. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far. Everyone who competed in round 2 will advance to round 3 unless they have withdrawn or been banned.

Round 2 was quite competitive. Four contestants scored more than 1,000 round points, and eight scored more than 500 points (including one who has withdrawn). The following competitors scored at least 800 points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,233 round points from 24 good articles, 28 Did you know articles, and one In the news nomination, mainly about athletes and politicians
• Thebiguglyalien (submissions) with 1,127 round points, almost entirely from two high-multiplier featured articles on Black Widow (Natasha Romanova) and Grace Coolidge, in addition to two GAs and two reviews
• History6042 (submissions) with 1,088 round points from four featured lists about Michelin-starred restaurants, nine good articles and a good topic mostly on Olympic-related subjects, seven ITN articles, and dozens of reviews
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,085 round points from three FAs, one GA, and four DYKs on military history, as well as 18 reviews
• Arconning (submissions) with 887 round points, mostly from four FLs, six GAs, and seven DYKs on Olympic topics, along with more than two dozen reviews

In addition, we would like to recognize Generalissima (submissions) for her efforts; she scored 801 round points but withdrew before the end of the round.

The full scores for round 2 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 13 featured articles, 20 featured lists, 4 featured-topic articles, 138 good articles, 7 good-topic articles, and more than 100 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 19 In the News articles, and they have conducted nearly 300 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed in Round 3. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2025 (UTC)