Talk:St. Thomas, Ontario

message: Who is this Sam Beaudry chap anyway ? The only person I found googling for this name is an high-school student... StefanoC 08:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It  looks to me as if Sam needs some defenders soon or he goes.  Three sections of red ink on one entry is tooooooo much. Carptrash 16:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  notable residents 

message: in regards to this so called external links controversey i think people here are missing the big picture. 2 weeks ago as it appears an ip added several links to classified websites they were removed as spam and promptly re-added by a similar ip. Often ive seen in the last year that when someone has been told that they are doing the wrong thing they appear to become an advocate of the policy in which they were wronging in before. Sometimes people take it too far and mis read the actual wikipedia sources on the policies and a full blown edit war occurs, which im sad to say appears as if its going to happen. Lets pause for a moment and play devils advocate if the st thomas times journal is an external link why cant my st thomas be?, as i recall theres tiny artyicles on the my st thomas site. the difference is that one is regularly published and the other is limited to buisness prinitings in the chamber of commerce. So what is the solution? if you edit it in(the times journal link), and not allow the other links my guess is (based on what ive seen on other sites) that it will allow this user to post those classified spam links under the same grounds. This is spam and has been dealt with on other city sites( calgray's page was hit with smillar buisness classified entries as spam util they were removed(ironically by one of the ips that added it here on st thomas)). I would suggest to remove the the times jounal hyper link and create a small sub sction for it refering it to its other wiki article St. Thomas Times-Journal where the user can access the site from there(or is that spam too?). 
I also noticed poor taste by one of the users sending a block threat(when they are not a administrator), not being one myself i am still aware that people have a right to respect and curtosy, that was in no way classy, it discourages edits from observers and encourages more aggression from other users. Open dialogue is key. type your concern on user talk pages dont use an aggresive admin template for a minor edit. I am being direct in what i am saying here and allowing everyone to hear my views because this edit controversy is just a waste of time and is way too small to warrent lil 'edit wars'. with respect to you all Jgale061 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What a waste of time

message: Alright, lets find out from Mayormcgeez, why under the current circumstances, he believes that the Times-Journal link should not be included in the external links section "because it falls under the wikipedia spam guidelines", as he states above. Mayormcgeez, please give us your reasoning behind that opinion.Deconstructhis (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My answer still has not changed, you can see my previous posts stating my reasons.  Jgale061's post "what a waste of time" is a more elaborate explanation and if I had anything to add I would of added it under that sub-heading.  At this point I'm going to publicly ask you to stop calling me a spammer, stop making half-true public assumptions about me (and my reasoning) and stop wasting time on this subject.  If you have something new, then I would like to hear it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayormcgeez (talk • contribs) 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: [cut and pasted from my own talk page]
I have publicly asked you to stop the behavior towards me and I feel I should also ask you to stop in your talk page.  You have publicly called me a spammer, quoted half-truths about my views, and continue to question me about the same issue over and over.  I appreciate you helping to teach me about Wikipedia rules, but I feel uncomfortable with your behavior and I am asking you to stop.
(Mayormcgeez (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmmm....I have to admit that you've confused me a little by your responses to this situation, both on the discussion page of the article itself St. Thomas, Ontario and now on my talk page. Our initial disagreement seems to me to have began when a link to a 'want ad' type site was removed from the external links section of the article by myself and a couple of other editors, which you then proceeded to replace. You then stated on the discussion page of the article, that after further consideration you had subsequently come to the conclusion that a link to that particular site, in fact *did* constitute "spam" and believed that it didn't belong in the external links section after all. Subsequent to that, you removed the external link to the only daily newspaper in St. Thomas (The Times Journal) site from the links section of the article and began to make the claim that *that* link constituted "spam" according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but so far you haven't told us why you believe that is the case. I was genuinely hoping that you might explain your reasoning behind that position, but it now appears that for some reason you are unwilling to do that. In my personal opinion, this is a 'no brainer', an external link to the only newspaper in a community of 35,000 that has a daily circulation approaching 7,000 and which takes a 'mainstream' editorial approach covering general news in the community, can only be viewed as a potential asset to the average reader of a Wikipedia article who is looking for fast access to current information regarding a city. Inclusion of this type of external link to a local media site is common practice on Wikipedia, something which I'm assuming you already know. Without further explanation as to why you feel that an external link in this situation is not appropriate, I believe that you are acting arbitrarily in excluding it. I'm prepared to wait a day or so once again to provide you with a further opportunity to explain your position, after that, I support replacing the link to the paper once again and I'm prepared to defend that position through regular 'third party' review processes here on Wiki. By way of compromise, would you support placing an external link to the Times Journal in some sort of 'subsection' for media?Deconstructhis (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To point it out, the only explanations we have had is that "it falls under the wikipedia guidelines of spam", and it is "plastered with banners". I already rebutted against your argument about it being "plastered with banners", saying that 'plastered' wasn't an accurate decription. Is this all the arguments you have to present? Or do you have more? Please make this clear. -- Reaper  X 19:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'll repeat this: to point it out, the only explanations we have had is that "it falls under the wikipedia guidelines of spam", and it is "plastered with banners". I already rebutted against your argument about it being "plastered with banners", saying that 'plastered' wasn't an accurate decription. Is this all the arguments you have to present? Or do you have more? Please make this clear. -- Reaper  X 04:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Specific Reasoning

message: *Is the inclusion of the link helpful to someone such as me who has never ever heard of St. Thomas, Ontario before. Yes. 
:Does the inclusion of the link breach any Wikipedia Policy? I don't know.
:Aatomic1 (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reconsidered - on second thought, I've noticed that other cities with separate articles for their newspapers (Barrie, Sudbury) don't have links to their papers.  For consistency's sake, perhaps the same should apply here.  Blotto adrift (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Uninvolved

message: After reading the wikipedia page of london ontario I read a number of people listed on this page (st thomas) as notable londeners. I removed them as they were clearly st thomas residents. However; I began to think a bit and this section could use a bit of house keeping. Primarily what is the criteria for this?., Are we putting people here that were born in St Thomas or just reside here?, Could they have resided here in the past? Or currently reside here? What actually is notable? Is a hockey player whose played one NHL game notable(how many games??) (Some people actually dont like hockey, believe it or not). For singers I remember aaron walpoles 3rd place finish but that was some time ago. There are many professions that I would say are more notable such as doctors or engineers who come from St Thomas with many publications and many lives saved. Londons page mentions notable londeners and includes deceased residents, should we?, if they're notable? So my open question is basically what is the criteria for this list? what do you think? 
Jgale061 (talk) 20:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Recently a profesional blogger was added to this page. We could include it I looked at a davidcubed page and he sounds legit. the only problem i have is a professional blogger notable over a professional doctor or engineer as mentioned above. I could be wrong I may not know his background entirely. Maybe criteria is necessary to prevent removals like mine. London Ontario indeed has a set of guidlines though not entirely mandated. 'Anyone born or currently living in London', this makes Racheal McAdams and Joe thornton notable Londoners, which they clearly are st thomas is there home. Could we at least start with  a simple criteria that they have valid wiki page stubs, that way if they are indeed not notable for enclycolpedic addtion there stubs will be deleted by third parties etc. Thanks for your time Ottawa4ever (talk) 14:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, when entering names in the "Notable residents" section of an article, as others have pointed out, in the vast majority of cases unless the proposed people already have an existing article in the encyclopedia they should be excluded. Without this as a basic criteria, Wikipeida is far too easily used as a "promotional tool". A good rule of thumb is that if an individual subject person already has their own article and thus has been able to pass the general "notability" and "reliable source" policy requirements in the encyclopedia as a whole needed for any new article with a living person as its subject, they should be considered for inclusion in a "notable person" section for a community. Until they are capable of meeting those standards, it seems to me that their appropriateness in the list is somewhat dubious. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable residents Criteria 

message: The source that I added, indicates that the community was named in 1825 for Thomas Talbot by its oldest residents William Drake and Daniel Rapelje. The "St." was purportedly added as a sign of respect for Talbot, as the primary early land developer in the area.  cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Just heard from some people it was named after the st and not thomas talbot, thanks a bunch for clearing it up Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name origin 

message: I like the idea of adding him to the notable residents but would also think that Hap day should be included if we have deceased people...Maybe Notable residents is misleading and needs a better title if we include deceased residents. I guess a question should be posed as such; Should deceased residents be included and if so the title of the section should probably be changed to reflect that. And finally Would Hap day be okay to add, even though he only lived in st t? Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Jack Garney 

message: Ive heard from (an unreliable soure so to say) that St. Thomas incorporated a small village of Millersburg when it became a city. Does anyone have information on this event, thanksOttawa4ever (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Millersburg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on St. Thomas, Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081211031041/http://www.downtownstthomas.com:80/web/pages/about-us/history.php to http://www.downtownstthomas.com/web/pages/about-us/history.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on St. Thomas, Ontario. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110615053347/http://www.heritagefdn.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_7016_1.html to http://www.heritagefdn.on.ca/userfiles/HTML/nts_1_7016_1.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion