User talk:Toddst1/Archive 3

This page, Toddst1/Archive 3 contains archived talk page discussions for Toddst1 (talk).
Please do not edit this page.

• Current time: December 15, 2024, 02:19 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

Thank you, Toddst1. I wish you all the very best for the new year and also look forward to working with you! Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 01:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The HellGame

Hi,

thanks for taking an interest in the article I started. I have added a link to an independent review, so there are now two independent, third-party sources (in addition to the official web page). Does this satisfy your notability concerns? Sverre (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Tony Two Guns" Oberto

Did you look at the references? Those that are not non-free make no reference to the subject of the article. --Deadly∀ssassin 15:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. See User_talk:651obiwan#Anthony_.22Tony_Two_Guns.22_Oberto. Toddst1 (talk) 15:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

closing AN/I discussion

I understand that AN/I is not designed to answer questions, but it is the most public place to ask for information, and the best chance that have someone who is knowledagable on the issue see it. I have seen other such questions on AN/I, and it is not forbidden. I would rather you return the question (unresolved) to the page. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

{{unblock}}

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shustov&diff=262182504&oldid=262181805 Prodego ^talk 22:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad Todd

No barnstar for you. Tan | 39 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

honestly, will that FNG odour ever wear off? –xeno (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC) I cleared the autoblock for you.

Busted! I hope this covers it. Thanks for nuking the autoblock. Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My Accidental Blocking

Thanks for that note on the block log. I am sure that the note, along with the immediate unblocking, will be sufficient to let others know that the block was accidental. Thanks! Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Userfying

Thank You so much Toddst1. I was trying to create a subpage and then actually place on the user page once construction was complete but I was confused on how to do that. Can you help with clarifying the process. I really appreciate your help. Abcdefg35 (talk) 14:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Replying on User talk:Abcdefg35. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 before I get started, once I work on my article in my sandbox subpage do I just hit save and it will just save only in the sandbox subpage. And once I have the article completed how do I move it to the User Page? Your help is invaluable to a beginner, thank you so much!!! Abcdefg35 (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of revisions

Hi Todd - just dropping you a line to ask you to be more careful when deleting revisions of pages. I had previously deleted a lot of revisions from Talk:Ctrl+Alt+Del for BLP reasons, but when you went to delete your most recent revision, you restored all of them. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Proprietary protocol

Hey, thanks for the comment, sorry for buggin the admin on this one. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Question on a Table

Toddst1 you have been so helpful the past couple of days I am hoping that you can take a look at my subpage Abcdefg35/ITG and tell me how to put information into the table that I created at the bottom of the page. Do I use that tab formatting to insert the data. And I also want the table to be at the top right of the page and I want to insert a logo - can you help with that. Thank You. Abcdefg35 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving Ahead

Wow, you are so FABulous! Thanks so much. I am going to work on it and I will be back in touch.Abcdefg35 (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Raymond A. Mason

That's fine by me. At the time that I did that cut/paste move it was in my earlier days of editing, and I did not yet know how to properly move a page to a better name. Thanks. -Jrcla2 ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry to bother you but i attempted to correct a spelling mistake in an article earlier (pedant) but was then told it was constituted as vandalism by you. All i did was correct said mistake so I was wondering what I did wrong. Obviously I am new at this so any input from you would help immensely.Thanks, FOTB —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotb (talk • contribs) 03:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuses like that may work with your parents but not here. Toddst1 (talk) 16:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Delicious carbuncle

I have semi-protected this for a month in view of the eight vandalisms in a few days. This way there is no target if the IP feels like messing with it after their block, and nobody is inconvenienced (nobody but the user should be editing the user page anyway}. Please let me know if you think this is unwarranted. I am informing you as a courtesy as I noticed you had reverted and blocked one of the vandals. I have informed the user too of course. Best wishes, --John (talk) 06:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Llama fur

I've turned this into a redirect for Llama for the time being, marking it as {{R with possibilities}}. Whilst I agree we don't need articles for animal parts, we do have articles for wool, leather, etc. and if it is possible that in future a reasonable article with good sourcing could be written about the use of llama fur, then I think it could stand alone. Any thoughts? —  Tivedshambo  _(t/c) 08:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Qwerty060108 you deleted my article re:phillip westwood. can u email it back to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwerty060108 (talk • contribs) 06:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Mis-reported vandal account

Sorry about the vandal account I mis-reported; I've been reporting any anonymous account with multiple blanking records on Jan. 14, as it looks like Wikipedia is under automated vandalism via a botnet of some sort. My apologies if I was trigger-happy. Teddks (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• Why exactly was my report of As Blood Fades to Gray (talk · contribs) a bad report? He received a final warning, and then vandalized again. JuJube (talk) 05:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Albert Einstein

Thank you for taking care of the User:Einsteincorrea situation. Are you in process of rebuilding the Albert Einstein talk page to omit that one user's post? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Bencherlite clued me in that your attempt to restore and remove might have crashed. He's going to post that guy's remarks to the oversight committee and hopefully they can remove the personal info from the history. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, sorry for not checking in with you first, but quite some time had elapsed since you deleted the talk page so I guessed you'd hit a problem, perhaps due to the number of edits involved - I thought that there was a software limit on deleting pages with more than 5,000 revisions, but I must have got that figure wrong. Anyway, I did my incompetent best and have left the rest to Oversight. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 14:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I got the major "Wikpedia has encountered error" message -the one that usually means the servers are down (not the usual delete error message) and assumed it hadn't been deleted. Thanks for following up. Toddst1 (talk) 14:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Ping! you have mail. Bencherlite^Talk 14:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Again

Thanks so much Toddst1, I am going to review each link to see which applies directly to the article. I do have a question, how do I add the logo in the box and also how would I add the website can I just replace one of the title names that I do not need, I tried that and it caused the word Headquarters to be black in font color instead of blue. Can you help with this? Merci. Abcdefg35 (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Mohave County, AZ, NRHPs

Hi Toddst1, I have been developing List of RHPs in AZ somewhat and notice your contributions of articles especially for Mohave County. Its new table stands out as the most developed of AZ counties. I believe that you did a fine job starting the articles, but many of them are now marred by refimprove or other cleanup tags. I wonder, would you be interested in revisiting them and adding sources or developing them otherwise? I know it is feasible to get copies of detailed NRHP inventory/nomination documents for each one of them, and could help with that. Also, I wonder about targeting NRHPs in Kingman on a future pic-taking trip, and/or whether you have taken pics or could take pics? doncram (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The on-line available Kingman MRA document is one good source, have just created a stub article about the MRA and added a link to it from the first NRHP on the Kingman list. It's a 7.1MB PDF document. doncram (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/habs_haer/ for photos of NRHP sites. You couldn't ask for a better source. All photos are public domain as they're US Govt publications. Toddst1 (talk) 03:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, HABS/HAER is certainly worth checking. All i find for Mohave county is the moved London Bridge and Pipe Spring Fort, Moccasin vicinity, Mohave County, AZ: 11 photos, 14 drawings, and 5 data pages, at Historic American Building Survey. Do you know if this fort is within Pipe Spring National Monument, one of the NRHPs on the Mohave list. If so, this could be added at least as an external link for the moment. I take it you have no pics of the area yourself? I'll watch here for ur potential response. doncram (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

User: DPRVig

Hi Toddst1. I am asking you to revert this block in the spirit of WP:BITE. This user joined hours ago, spent much time in userspace making Delta Pi Rho, then put it into mainspace. Someone put it up for speedy deletion under a7; I declined it. In the interim, this user had removed the speedy deletion notice several times, likely because he or she just joined Wikipedia. They also got several templated messages regarding vandalism for removing the speedy deletion notice. I explained things; they stopped; but then you blocked the user for 72 hours. I do not think that is fair. Please reconsider. Thank you -- Samir 04:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Haven't seen your reply so I have taken the liberty of unblocking this user. Please inform me if you think this is unsatisfactory. Thank you -- Samir 05:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I was off-line for a while. However I am very surprised you even considered unblocking given this edit after blocking. At first I thought you must not have seen that, but it's clearly not the case. I've been trying to figure out what happened here and the only thing I've been able to come up with that it appears that you do not believe new users should be blocked for repeated removal of CSD tags on articles they create. That would be a very strange belief and even stranger behavior for a seasoned administrator. Am I missing something? Toddst1 (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it is seasoning that allows me to see this more objectively than yourself. This is a classic case of WP:BITE. Here is someone with little WP experience (2 edits until yesterday) who was trying to make an article in good faith, and not a vandal. He worked on that article for some time. Look at his contributions -- he was revising it in userspace for hours and learning about Wikipedia syntax as he was going along. In the end he created a short sensible article (albeit one that will likely be deleted if he cannot substantiate its notability during AfD). Someone puts a speedy deletion notice on this article. I am sure this user had no idea what to do about it. So he reverts it and gets templated. This continues and he gets reported at AIV. I was reviewing AIV at the time, so I look into things. I remove the speedy deletion notice and explain in English what the appropriate thing is to do when an article has a speedy deletion notice. He stops and doesn't touch the AfD banner. The situation was dealt with.... but then you swoop in and block the guy for 72 hours for disruptive editing. That is what makes entirely no sense.

What does he do when he's blocked? Of course he's upset, hence this edit. We see this all the time. After, what does he do: he goes back to improve his article in his userspace!

Clearly this is not a disruptive character. It's someone intent on creating and improving an article who doesn't know our "rules": rules that can be funny to people unfamiliar with them. We should have patience with new users who are clearly editing in good faith, and not just template and block them over a span of 15 minutes. That is the spirit of WP:BITE, and if you think it is strange behaviour, I think you should review WP:BITE again -- Samir 17:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I fundamentally disagree. After uw-4, when disruption continues, it's not BITE. The editor is about to be blocked again for removing maintenance templates. Toddst1 (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Toddst1, sorry about my last edit on Delta Pi Rho. I was not aware that I was required to keep the COI|date=January 2009 and Refimprove|date=January 2009 on the article. Those are both after the line that told me I was allowed to edit, and did not think it would be a problem. At this point with the article though, I do not have much more to add from 3rd parties as we are not that notable as of yet. I'll understand if it does get deleted since I don't have that many 3rd party references. Even if it does get deleted, I will in the future recreate the article when we have more information that will help make us notable. Thanks! Also thanks to Samir for helping me along this process. DPRVig (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Naturalising Philosophy

Have you looked at those edits? If you check the content you will see that they are close to vandalism and the editor concerned simply re-inserted the text rather than gaining consensus on the talk page. A similar pattern exists on other pages. When I coudn't stop that I took it to ANI which I think is the proper procedure in a case of this kind. --Snowded TALK 06:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

While they may or may not be constructive, they do not obviously meet WP:Vandalism and reverts are subject to WP:3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 06:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty close I would say! Given that I took the matter to ANI to avoid 3RR I don't really see the need for a warning. Clearing up this type of POV edits(in this case a particular religious position being inserted on several articles) with editors who will not use the talk page is a pretty thankless task and some support rather than a warning would be appreciated. --Snowded TALK 07:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Snowded

sections combined by making this a subsection

Thank you for your concerns Toddst1 and will be more careful in the future, I too am concerned because the user Snowded(talk) is "not engaging in consensus building" and is reverting every edit I've ever done in what seems to be an attack on me, frankly I don't know what to do in that situation, if you can help me in any way I would be very grateful Theology10101 (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly advise both of you to disengage from this. Toddst1 (talk) 07:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I did disengage Toddst, when it appeared that text would just be reinserted without building consensus I raised it at ANI to prevent edit warring. Isn't that what one is meant to do? --Snowded TALK 07:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Could you give me any advice if he doesn't stop reverting all my edits? I feel like I'm being held prisoner Theology10101 (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:DR please. I'm done here. Toddst1 (talk) 07:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The appropriate level of warning

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I suspect uw-4 wasn't the best way to greet this vandalous user. Toddst1 (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (this line was trascribed from User_talk:E_dog95 by E_dog95)

The user placed "Upham, New fuck dick" in the article. My take on this is that we'll never have a productive user out of this contributor. And so I don't think what I did will scare him off and that we'll lose a good editor. I just don't think that's true. What I did do is give us an opportunity to block him on the very next instance of vandalism. And hey, guess what? He did follow up with another bit of brilliant word usage. Am i wrong here? I don't think I am. I welcome folks with "Friendly" when appropriate and I also warn losers of an upcoming block if and when they damage our encyclopedia.

Are you asking me not to warn folks with that high of a warning? I will consider what you have to say, but I don't agree with WP:BITE. In my early days I was never cautioned with any level of warning. Why? I will also go out on a limb and say that you too were never ever warned with any level of warning. Why? Consider those thoughts in your response. E_dog95 ^Hi 03:10, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Returned discussion to User_talk:E_dog95 in two sections. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

College IP

Hi Toddst1,

Yes that would be my college's IP. I'll get in touch with ITD on monday and just let them know. Thanks for telling me   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Focus on the content, not the editors please

With this edit, it's clear that your focus was on the editor, and not the content. Please don't re-introduce unsourced content.

Regarding your message regarding my oops. Yes, it looks like I may have hosed that one. You have perused my history of contributions. Please continue, as you'll find that these types of events are rare indeed. E_dog95 ^Hi 18:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

On your first issue, unfortunately I see your POINT. I don't speak polish like you might. I do understand that on your insistence that the editor use English sources is incorrect. I can only take it on good faith that you have verified that the claim was not in the citation.

Yes, I've perused your recent editing history and find your edits and reversions tend to be very heavy handed with newbies and careless in your application of Wikipedia rules. I've found several transgressions in the past 36 hours which you seem to not care about. Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have been heavy handed several times recently. That is true. I have heard your (and another editor's) concern about that. My wikistress had gone up considerably and I was warning folks too firmly. But for you to say that I don't care is ignorant on your part. When did I say this to be true? Please don't answer that, because I do care about this encyclopedia. The lame vandalism is the source of my wikistress.

What I have seen from you is a series of errors. Both of them have occurred while you were on a mission to find fault with my edits. So, sir, I have accepted my mistakes. I make them. Yours are of a different nature though. I won't point fingers ,though, because that wouldn't be fair or polite.

We are both making mistakes here. Can u see that? Lets both be careful. Take care. E_dog95 ^Hi 20:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have made no mistakes in my interaction with you. You have violated policies and guidelines. I have not. You just don't like what I'm saying and are being POINTy as I noted above. Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You are making errors like I am. But you are an admin, so the errors have a different meaning. Todd, I think your feathers are ruffled. I will have little faith in your leadership if you can't admit your errors. I have acknowledged my errors. You have not. Think about that. E_dog95 ^Hi 21:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If you believe that I have in any way abused my privileges here, I emplore you to take your case to WP:ANI or WP:RFC otherwise knock it off. Toddst1 (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what that means so I'm not going to "knock it off". Sir, do you see how this dialog isn't working. We seem to see things differently, and that's OK. What needs to happen at this point is that you and I should go our separate ways. I have no real problems with you, so no WP:ANI report is necessary. That's pretty silly. So on this note lets call this a done deal as we're both getting pretty nit picky. Bye. E_dog95 ^Hi 18:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Logo

Can you please help with the uploading of a logo. I added the fair use rationale and a copyright tag but for some reason the logo does not appear as it had prior to another editor removing it because I did not know that I had to add this information. Thank You. Abcdefg35 (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you just need to explain why the image meets the fair use criteria. To be honest, this is one of my weaker areas of knowledge on Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

71.130.177.206 (talk · contribs) was a school IP?

I thought it was by the random pattern, but I couldn't find anything certain when I traced it. HalfShadow 21:58, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Check out the WHOIS result:

CustName:   Calnet Manteca USD 

Googling that reveals that USD stands for "Unified School District" –xeno (talk) 22:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah; I only looked at the ISP, not the organization. Still, no loss to us. For people supposedly getting an education, how can they be so stupid? HalfShadow 22:04, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the extra eyes. Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally when I see a bunch of nonsense coming from a random IP, the first thing I think is 'school-IP' so I check it out so I can tag it. HalfShadow 22:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Breast article

I’m sorry to bring this up again but I’m reporting this before 3RR could be violated or someone would end being blocked. I did write a simple crystal clear facts, it even didn’t take a minute before it was reverted without any exploitation, I’m just telling --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

why do i get a last warning i have not cahnged anything since the first revert? --Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 01:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing Toddst1 (talk) 01:39, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Ani#User:_Honeymane

That Fife quote kind of cuts both ways in this case, eh? :) "Andy, he's callin' me names!" Meanwhile, even just looking at that one user's talk page, it's a wonder he's escaped the chopping block so far. He actually was indef'd once, temporarily, but apparently it didn't have any noticeable effect on behavior. At this point, I must defer to Barney once again. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I followed the recommendation of ANI and put a comment on his talk page advising him that personal observations are insufficient, that a source is needed. I don't know what else to say, so that kind of rounds out the subject. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bollywood

Looks like Martineejames (talk · contribs) who you blocked earlier has created a sockpuppet Glitzman (talk · contribs)? See the latest revision to the Bollywood article. 19:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat}

Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) beat me to it. Toddst1 (talk) 19:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Bombardment

Hi. Sorry to get you involved in all of this mess - this is the guy: User talk:B29bomber. Now, he has two "articles" he's created - you'll notice 330th Bombardment Group and The 314th Bombardment Wing. The articles are obvious copy-pastes of pages I've mentioned in SD tags and aren't really worth anything. He claims (probably is) the owner of these page, but these are not even articles. He maintains a very aggresive tone towards me (see his talk page), even though I've tried to be as fair as possible, considering his stance and the fact he's done multiple avoidant vandalism acts. Anyway, you are probably a neutral party in all of this. Do you have any advice? Thanks a lot. Peasantwarrior (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the only one who declined it besides the author was Michael Hardy. I've talked to him and he was the one who suggested me to put a copyvio (another CSD) tag. Peasantwarrior (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Just received an email from Permissions Wikipedia in reference to my copyright references to the 330th Bombardment Group. I received permission to use it as set forth in free license agreement. Thank you for mediating between an overzealous moderator and my inexperienced self. B29bomber (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)talk]]) 21:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

How do I stop random people from deleting my page?--B29bomber (talk) 14:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Beanboy911

Hello Toddst1. Beanboy911 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, — Aitias // discussion 21:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment: User appears to request unblock in good faith, perhaps this is worth a second chance. — Aitias // discussion 21:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Any relation of Evil Anti Bean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), do you think? See [1] Bencherlite^Talk 21:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ater reviewing the situation, Evil Anti Bean seems to have been created by someone to vandalise wikipedia and then blame shift the blame to Beanboy911. What do you think?

Re: Biting newcomers

Seeing as the page had been deleted before, it seemed that it probably wouldn't be edited by others, and that further appearances of it would be vandalism. So, I felt that it was necessary to delete it yet again. Elm-39 - T/C 18:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

330th Bombardment Group

Thank you for your advice and assistance.B29bomber (talk) 23:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: February 2009

Hey Toddst1,

This is about the conflict between me and the user 'Ranga2k8'. I've tried to be civil with him and warn him politely. But he just does not respond to my messages and keeps making the same changes.

I'll stop reverting his things for now and see if he stops vandalizing.Prabhodh (talk) 05:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I see an edit conflict - not vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Review

Hey man - sorry I never got around to your request. I was in Tulsa all week on business (see my editing history - wasn't able to do much). Do you still want me to review that situation? Tan | 39 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have cooled down, so I'm not as concerned as I was. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

User:CCFSDCA

Hi - I’m User:CCFSDCA (Christopher Corbett-Fiacco) and I understand the concerns expressed by many of you regarding the articles I’ve posted at Wikipedia the past week or so. I am in fact the author of The Whole World Calendar Book of Holidays Around the World, as stated (an as-yet unpublished book which is based upon the self-published The Whole World Calendar 2008 [and 2009; email me at wholeworldcalendar@gmail.com and I’ll be glad to send you a sample page and info on ordering, if interested]). I have sent Wikipedia its permissions grant for using copyrighted material as requested and assure you that I am not self-promoting. My mistake is in not yet spending the time to figure out exactly how to cite the book as the reference for the article, which I’ll do as soon as I have the time. My intent in adding the articles is that they are actual national/religious/cultural holidays and festivals, are therefore ‘newsworthy’ if not particularly important, and, having spent two years researching the topic, I can assure you that it is quite difficult at times to find such information -- try to find out what Earthquake Victims Memorial Day is in Armenia and you’ll see what I mean. It is my intent to self-publish the book within 6 months if I cannot find a publisher. Meanwhile, feel free to delete my articles as desired. I’ll revisit the subject at a later date and repost them only after I’ve ascertained that I am, in fact, doing it right. Meanwhile, I’m not copying from somebody else -- those articles are my own -- that’s the way I write. Thanks much. CCFSDCA (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Chris Corbett-Fiacco

See WP:RS Toddst1 (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Fancypants

Hi Todd, I updated the page with citations and external links. Please let me know if anything else is needed or if I should e-mail you somewhere else. Thanks. Soccerman7 (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks better now. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Ooops.....

Errrr... I think you have become my first accidental rollback victim here. Took me a while to work out how it happened, I didn't even realize it had happened until 10 minutes later, but as ANI is on my watch list and I was flicking through it at the time, I must have hit the rollback link. Standard disclaimer stuff :): Obviously my edit should not be in any way taken as comment on your edit in any way.... (etc.. etc). Sorry about the goof. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 17:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

8-) No worries. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Just a note to say thanks for your quick response re. user Octaviaalliance (talk · contribs · count); hopefully, nobody will have to roll back all those links anymore. Best, -- Docether (talk) 15:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

MY CHEMICAL ROMANCE IS DEAD WHO CARES,IT GO THEY SUKED ANYWAY

Hi, I'm sorry that I accidentally recreated the page that was deleted. I was tagging the page for CSD, and I guess twinkle flipped out because the page had been deleted so it recreated it :( -Zeus-^u_c 22:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I was about to tag you as a sock of the first editor, but looking at your talk page quickly realized something must be wrong. Sorry I labeled your re-creation as vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's no problem, you acted on the information you had. It is annoying that Twinkle does that, though... this is the second time. -Zeus-^u_c 22:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that's happened to me a couple of times too. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dead Beats Ltd.

Thankyou for the prompt reply todd, i can assure you my username is not a role account, it represents me alone, on my mac, at home and not Dead Beats itself in any way, although i am part of the team. I intend to continue using this account for any other edits or new pages i may create.

I do not intend to use Wikipedia as an advertising ploy to promote Dead Beats, as we are non-profit, we only give things away for free - i appreciate my original page format was heavily promoting dead beats and, being honest, i copied it directly from an article i wrote for leeds met student wiki (http://thestudentwiki.org/dead_beats) which is operated by our university and we had been told we could promote the site on there, i didnt stop to think when i put it on wikipedia. i have removed all of what wikipedia stated was 'blatant advertising' from the page.

I'd also like to say why i feel Dead Beats deserves a mention on wikipedia. wikipedia is the worlds most highly respected resource for the documentation of all things informative and i realise that doesnt mean that it is a business directory, but dead beats as an organisation working with the local community, in particular the massive student community, is information worth documenting. if wikipedia does not feel we are as 'significant' as any of the other UK independant record labels you have listed on here, then by all means 'speedily delete' the page. Upon what is significance judged though? Im sure i could find enough people in the Leeds area alone who would endorse us.

thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadbeatsltd (talk • contribs) 23:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku block

Was that in response to my WQA filed involving those two diffs? If not, I'll just remove it before anyone comments.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, checked the timestamps: you beat me by almost an hour.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the block was not in response to your WQA. I checked his contributions independently and saw both issues which is why I blocked him. But your figured all that out already, I see. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR

This editor User_talk:128.208.32.177#Three_Revert_Rule is back again as soon as his temporary block ended and is implementing the same changes that he was blocked for. We have overwhelming consensus over the subject, but the editor seems insistent on changing it. Mkdw^talk 15:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Can you please document where I made three reversions? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

John Nicholas Ringling is where the edit war appears to be. Perhaps you should read what I wrote. Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Mark Albion response

Just trying to help. Have no idea how this thing works and at 57, probably won't learn too much more :). Never meant to be disruptive; only to add real content. And by the way, the proceeds of my books are all donated -- Net Impact, Social Venture Network -- so they are labors of love.

good luck, MarkAlbion (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)mark albion malbion@phdbe1981.hbs.edu

Your block of User:Elbutler

He certainly did go way beyond 3RR, but some context may be in order. Articles related to the Balto films are favorite targets of banned user User:Bambifan101 and it is entirely possible that User:96.227.233.68 and User:Lmvp990766271 are both his socks. Socks of this user usually come around on the weekends to edit children's film and television articles. Looking at their edit histories, I can't say for sure but it fits the general pattern, and I would imagine Elbutler was probably acting in good faith to stop a banned user, although neither of them used proper edit summaries. Since he hasn't filed an unblock request, I guess I'm not asking for one either, just thought I'd bring this to your attention. In case you aren't familiar, this [2] will give you some idea of the scope of this problem and the pattern of edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I've come across Bambifan before, but never fully understood the context. Thanks for explaining it. I had actually stubled upon Elbutler when he/she reported Glen5544 (talk · contribs) for vandalism which didn't turn out warrant a block. I warned both parties about 3RR since Elbutler had incorrectly labeled that user's edits as vandalism. Then I took a break. I came back to find Elbutler in another edit war with 96.227.233.68 (talk · contribs). It was as simple as that. Unfortunately, many good faith editors run afoul of the 3RR. I think it's one of the few blocks that otherwise good wiki-citizens end up with. I usually look for extenuating circumstances in the edit summary or content reverted but in this case, couldn't find one. You may be right about Bambifan though.

Thanks for bringing this up. I always welcome reviews of my actions - especially blocks. I've also been known to make my share of mistakes. Cheers.Toddst1 (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• In retrospect I'm not sure what I was really asking of you, as El has not asked to be unblocked and did not give any real explanation of those actions. I think I just feel like if that was what happened, I feel partially responsible, as I had been counseling a WP:RBI approach in this that may have been taken a little too literally. I note that there is now a request for adoption on El's userpage, maybe that will help prevent a recurrence. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Glad to unblock if rquested. Toddst1 (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: February 2009

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I only reverted 2 edits within 24 hour on the ABC Kids (US) article not 3 so i am not violating the three-revert rule. Powergate92Talk 20:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

74.170.198.238 also did not violating the three-revert rule as this edit is not the same as this edit. Powergate92Talk 02:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you even read WP:3RR? You've got 6 reverts over 6 days. Toddst1 (talk) 06:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR doe's not say anything about 6 reverts over 6 days it says "Contributors must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period" Powergate92Talk 16:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're interpreting it far too narrowly. "The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day."Toddst1 (talk) 16:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Moved back to User talk:Powergate92

Re: Broader concerns about reversions

I labeled these four [3] [4] [5] [6] edits as Vandalism as ABC Family, WealthTV, and Fuse don't have broadcast affiliates and the user that made the edits is a sock puppet of Dingbat2007. See this discussion. Powergate92Talk 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

How do you know they're deliberate and how do you know they're incorrect? Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See this discussion. Powergate92Talk 17:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

SummerPhD

This complaint didn't sound much like SummerPhD to me, so I looked a little bit. I'm sure that this is the sequence of edits referred to:[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

Based on This whois and this whois, it's apparent that it's the same editor, so all of this previous interaction applies.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Having now seen a sock report and this info, I tend to agree. Without that info, I can only see what's presented at AIV. Will note summer's page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Heads up on a Block evasion

IP 24.187.112.15 has evaded your block. See this diff [16] The similar part of the IP is the "24.187." Just FYI. Not sure if you can range block or not... ► RATEL ◄ 21:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Scriptural Reasoning

Dear Toddst1,

I noticed your recent posting on user Scripturalreasoning's user talk page, regarding Gordonofcartoon. I wonder if you might extend your admin interest to the article talk page which prompted the exchange between GoC and Scripturalreasoning. GoC became involved because user Scripturalreasoning posted a COI notice regarding the article Scriptural Reasoning. The talk page is verbose, I'm afraid. But a third opinion would be much appreciated. Many thanks Thelongview (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

TLDR Toddst1 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed... Thelongview (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Block of User:92.10.187.232

Hi... It appears this anon user was actually undoing earlier vandalism. --Rrburke^(talk) 15:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've unblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

Regarding your comments on User talk:Scripturalreasoning: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing.

Re "Exactly how loud can this WP:Duck quack? Toddst1 (talk) 22:09, 20 February 2009 (UTC)" --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I fundamentally reject your assessment that this was a personal attack. Rather, your warning is a breach of Wikipedia guidelines and an indication of your continuing disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Careful, Todd. He has God on his side. ;) HalfShadow 23:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no "admin-Wiki-guidelines warning" anywhere in your comment. Purely direct personal abuse. When I provided an explanatory reply (without responding to your abuse) you directed me to a page containing statements to "fuck off" by HalfShadow and others. When I responded to that behaviour as that of "arseholes" unlike other Admins on that page who had the decency to block those who initiated the provocation, you later chose to issued a "Final Warning" to me for using those words. Double standards - and your comment above was clearly personal and abusive. --Scripturalreasoning (talk) 06:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nickcoop's edits

I hope that you have read through his edits. It started as large scale deletion. After an initial warning, he switched to cut and paste. First citing lack of references. Now it is simply cut and paste. Please read the content or forward it to a medicine administrator for review. He has been driving his agenda first by large scale deletion of the Mohs surgery article and basal cell cancer page since April 2008. It recurred again in Jan 09, and he has had several warnings concerning his edits of Mohs surgery, and basal cell cancer - basically driving his own agenda.--Northerncedar (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If you truly feel there is disruption, take it to WP:ANI. It doesn't seem to be obvious vandalism, yet the edits might (or might not) be considered disruption. WP:AIV is for obvious vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing

Canvasing? I am just frustrated to see continued "under the table" edits by someone to drive his own political agenda, and continued unsubstantiated edits that is repeated again, and again. I don't understand's wikipedia's methodology. I am not sure the process is working as intended?--Northerncedar (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping is frowned upon. Please open a discussion on the talk page and if disruption is the consensus of the discussion, take to ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Karmaisking/Michael.suede

This guy goes beyond sock puppeteering. He's now engaged in deliberate disruption, creating socks as fast as they can be blocked. I'd appreciate it if you could help.JQ (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Univision Texas

Well, KUVN-TV, KAKW-TV, KWEX-TV, and KXLN-TV have to be in boldface because they're owned-and-operated. Fran46 (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

An edit summary explaining that would have been helpful. Where in WP:MOS is that? I haven't come across it before. Toddst1 (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Question?

Can i ask you a question? Fran46 (talk) 16:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

uh.. sure. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Ignore him -- Fran46 is a suspected sockpuppet of Dingbat2007. -- azumanga (talk) 04:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Bob Marks

it would be highly appreciated if you would stop deleting the Bob Marks page. He is a meaningful, and highly eduacated teacher at West Genessee High School.24.58.32.129 (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Also

Can you let Ikip know he didn't make the MfD nomination properly? It's not on the MfD page (assuming that it shouldn't be closed per WP:SNOW). Thanks. THF (talk) 17:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you do that directly. Toddst1 (talk) 17:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

IP 24.187.132.126 block evasion

Hi, you blocked this IP [17] but there was immediate evasion. He openly scorns attempts to block him and has returned to edit warring the same issue that earned him the block in the first place.[18] [19] [20] I suspect he has also created the username Zooplibob (see contributions) to edit war the exact same thing (can you do an IP check on that user to confirm?) So I'm requesting a range block and/or a longish semi-protect on the Drudge Report page. Thanks ► RATEL ◄ 00:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to do an WP:RFCU for that, which I don't have privileges for. You can request one yourself as part of a WP:SSP report and request a range block. Toddst1 (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Krabs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

24 hour block? With that block history? Surprisingly lenient.—Kww(talk) 01:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm not known for lenient blocks. That being said, I will go change the block. Toddst1 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have blocked him at all. He was reverting an incorrect edit - whilst he shouldn't have broken 3RR because it wasn't obvious vandalism, he was obviously acting in good faith. Black Kite 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotect request

Hi Toddst1

Could you please have a look at recent edits to Rescuecom and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KyleBuckout? Then (if you agree), could you please (1) semiprotect the page; and (2) revert the latest edit by Specmanfun?

Thanks. Bongomatic 02:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Uploaded File

Can you please help with the uploading of a file. I have uploaded an image/logo, the filename appears but the image does not, can you assist with that please by letting me know what exact steps to take in making the image appear. Thank you! Abcdefg35 (talk) 15:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Have you gone through Wikipedia:Uploading_images? Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing?

You banned my IP address (71.169.162.244) for "disruptive editing." All I was doing was updating The Office episode pages to reflect the correct episode numbers as shown in the infoboxes. How is trying to make the episode numbers match "disruptive?"

StyrofoamChicken (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You're telling me you've evaded a block, correct? Toddst1 (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was investigating his unblock requst at User talk:StyrofoamChicken, and looking at the original block on the IP address, I cannot find where his edits were disruptive there. Additionally, he claims that his IP edits were made while inadvertantly logged out, which is plausible. Could you please explain why the IP was blocked initially, which could go a long way towards explaining why this whole mess started... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 12:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Replied on User_talk:StyrofoamChicken Toddst1 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have left additional comments and difs at his user talk page myself. Please review my arguements, and consider an unblock of both his IP and his account. If you look at the totality his edits, it doesn't look like vandalism; he clearly had a good-faith purpose in his edits, and his boldness is all that caught up with him. I am not saying his edits should have stood, but he was NOT randomly vandalizing. I will agree that it certainly appeared that way, looking at random edits, and in your position I would have likely blocked him as well. But please consider the evidence I have presented at his talk page and consider supporting an unblock based on that evidence. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

216.100.95.90 unconstructive edits

Maybe I'm unclear on what constitutes vandalism as opposed to unconstructive edits. The edits made by 216.100.95.90 in the past four days include randomly changing dates and numbers, as well as adding "germany sucks" to the Immigration article. This isn't vandalism? I actually am asking in good faith, as I'm relatively new to editing WP. --Gotophilk (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

This does not appear to be vandalism. This appears to correct an error in the article. Also, no recent final warning. That's a shared IP meaning the person that got the warning yesterday might not be the same person today, and have never seen the warning. Toddst1 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to this and this, but fair enough. I'll keep an eye on the page. --Gotophilk (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Question

Thanks Toddst1 for looking into my report. I don't enjoy wasting people's time, and I don't want to continue this on the discussion page in question for fear of setting off Magkantog (do you like the mockery last-shot-over-the-bow on the discussion page, real civil, even after a warning), so I'm going to ask for clarification here so I don't make the same mistake again. I know you must be busy, and seeing what other edit wars and vandalism are going on, this must seem really minor. As you might already know, I'm a new user, having only made minor edits before now, and I'm trying to get straight on this. I don't want to dispute content or character here. I'm not denying that there were explicit or implicit personal attacks in the discussion by both parties; however, once I researched the core content policy, I tried to just edit the page with respect to those, and I think I was pretty cool headed then, referring back to core content policy, even quoting it so that we were all on the same page, and asking others to do the same (which I think is pretty reasonable). I tried to stay sharply focused on content not character from that point on, per the WP:3RR. What confuses me is that you didn't address the issue of content policy violation, so I want to make sure I'm understanding protocol here. My reasoning was that, according to the WP:Vandalism page, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." I then thought that content policy was established in order to ensure integrity on the site. Thus, my reasoning went, if there were violations on core content policy (verifiability, neutrality, and original research), they would also be violations to the integrity of the site. So, when there was what I saw as pretty clear content violations, I either made the edit myself to bring it more inline, or I pulled the content, explained on what grounds I pulled the content, namely content policy, and asked editors to justify the content or rewrite it so that it was not as gross a violation (in one case, the editor with whom I had a dispute even committed a copyright violation, but instead of accusing him of such, I even told him how he could restate the same sentence so that it was not such). Nonetheless, the editor in question would just argue about about things not relevant to policy. To, me, that's implicit admission to a violation, and an intentional violation at that.

So, in your judgment, did you feel that there was a content policy violation? Do you feel that there were violations in content policy but that they did not constitute vandalism? Is it inappropriate for one to make a vandalism notification for suspected core content policy violations (even after WP:DR)? Are you putting a hold on it and then revisiting it later? Thanks in advance for your time. Lhakthong (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Phi Kappa Phi article

Toddst1: Yesterday, user Lhakthong (User talk:Lhakthong) was blocked for violating the WP:3RR rule for editing and deleting what I had written on Phi Kappa Phi and for which we had reached a consensus to retain it for its relevance and well documented presentation. A few hours later, another user User talk:144.62.240.2 did the same thing by deleting the same exact sentence. That user's talk page is filled with charges of vandalism and WP.3RR violations. I suspect that the user is either Lhaktong using another IP address (sockpuppetry) or his wife that he keeps mentioning in the Phi Kappa Phi page as supporting his constant violations of WP.3RR rule.

Could I ask you to put a block on the Phi Kappa Phi page to prevent further editing as was agreed yesterday following your warning on the WP:3RR rule? That would end this edit war, which should not have erupted in the first place if Lhaktong kept his word on upholding the consensus we had arrived at yesterday afternoon.

Additionally, may I ask that you keep Lhakthong's account User talk:Lhakthong suspended because I have a feeling he is repeating what he did yesterday and the entire week this week by using another account or a meatpuppet. Thanks.Magkantog (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Really bad misunderstanding which was 100% my fault

[Changed title from Personal Attacks II]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[refactored out, I was an idiot, and I apologize Todd] Ikip (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a warning from an uninvolved administrator about your edits, not a personal attack. You are allowed to be offended, but a better response would be to change your behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out that I should have notified THF, Toddst1. Based on what you have posted on our respective talk pages, I see that you only have the best interest of wikipedia in mind, as we all do. I didn't know this is the preferred behavior of editors on the Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring, can you point out this behavioral guideline for this page, for future reference? Ikip (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Procedure_for_this_page:

*Notify the reported user(s). Place a polite short statement on the user(s) talk page, or on the talk page of the article if several users are involved, to notify them that you have filed an alert here.

Toddst1 (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you have taken the role of impartial administrator/diplomat, which can be clearly seen in the way that you treat me and THF equally, can you remove the hidden tag that THF added Talk:Business_Plot#Deleted_material_of_User:THF? And ask THF to answer at least one of the questions I pose to him?

[refactored out, I was an idiot, and I apologize Todd]. Ikip (talk) 16:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Returning discussion to User talk:Ikip Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question: Have I done something wrong? If so, I'd like to know so I don't do it in the future. And if the answer is that I haven't done something wrong, I'm curious why you're suggesting I walk away from an article where I haven't done anything wrong just because another editor is being disruptive about my good-faith edits. Since Ikip's apparent intent was to drive me away from editing the article by making it unpleasant for me to do so, your suggestion seems to have the perverse effect of rewarding his bad behavior. Thanks. THF (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

[refactored out, I was an idiot, and I apologize Todd] Ikip (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

deleting 1400 well referenced words yesterday, changing the article name with no discussion in the midst of an edit war, hiding other editors talk page contributions repeatedly, refusing to answer neutral questions in an attempt to gain consensus qualifies as something wrong. Ikip (talk) 17:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Take this to your own talk pages. This isn't about me. Toddst1 (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be a nuisance, but given your warning that I have adhered to, how much of [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] am I supposed to take before registering a complaint? He's also deleting my talk page comments on Talk:Business Plot. THF (talk) 23:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry Toddst1, THF is tenacious, and despite being asked not to post here, he continues to.

I am on the talk page only, I have not edited the main page for over a day. Collect, who shares your same POV is happily editing the article and talk page. This is really a three person edit war.Ikip (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit one, two: [33][34] "This obnoxious chart by User:Ikip" Calling another editors edits "obnoxious" is a violation of no personal attacks, it can be removed, as I did. You also hid all of my comments.

Edits: [35][36][37][38] Comments on THF talk page, as Todd asked, "Take this to your own talk pages. This isn't about me," above. Including asking you to unhide my comments on the talk page, which you have refused to do.

Last edit that THF posts, has nothing to do with THF, but is my notification that I am deleting Todd's [refactored out, I was an idiot, and I apologize Todd], here, as is allowed.[39]

[refactored out, I was an idiot, and I apologize Todd]

I have no problem moving this discussion to THF's talk page, and not posting here again.Ikip (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Mea culpa

I feel like a complete idiot Todd. I am so sorry, I misunderstood everything with your message on my talk page earlier today (see my talk page for explanation). You were trying to help in a difficult and thankless situation, to be a diplomat, and to be a peace maker, and in response, I accidentally deleted your two messages, which from your perspective justifiably looked like "bad faith", and then I accused you of things which were completely false.

I will answer your two questions tomorrow. Ikip (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Peace
		The Barnstar of Peace is awarded to users who have helped peacefully to resolve conflicts on Wikipedia. This barnstar is awarded to Toddst1, for his willingness to help out editors in difficult and thankless situations, always remains civil, calm, and reasonable in the most trying times. Toddst1 reasoned behavior is a model for all wikipedians on how to help other editors, and to improve the project. Ikip (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Two questions belatedly answered

User:Toddst1 wrote on User:Ikip's talk page two questions:

First

Question: What do you mean with this edit? Are you saying that articles or pages listed in Xfd processes should not be edited? Toddst1 (talk) 17:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer No, of course not. I actively edit articles for deletion to help save them from deletion.

Second

RE: In response to User:THF, User:Ikip writes: Please do not post on my talk page again

Question: How would you propose to resolve this if you don't want to discuss here? Toddst1 (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Answer On the article talk page, please.

Ikip (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize in advance

I returned to Talk:Business Plot to address the concerns of a third editor (since User:Ikip felt it safe to go back), and then took the bait when Ikip started hounding me again with the same nonsense he got himself blocked for last time. I'm withdrawing from the page per WP:COOL, but hope that Ikip will not continue to forge my signature to comments I did not make on Talk:Business Plot. I hope someone opens a WP:WQA report, because the editor simply does not get it. If someone could explain to him the difference between a strikethrough and deleting a comment that someone has already responded to, that might be helpful. THF (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for having to come back again too. I am sorry to involve you in this Todd.

RE: I'm withdrawing from the page per WP:COOL.

More new edits by THF on the talk page at 18:15, 28 February 2009 20:16, 28 February 2009

I want to respond to THF, point by point, but as you wrote above, take this to our talk pages.

Ikip (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for the barnstar and the compliments. Toddst1 (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC) (Posted originally on User talk:Ikip)

thank you for protecting the page :) I am so deeply embarassed and sorry for my huge mistake with you. I guess when you spend so much time in hightened tension arguments, when the intentions of the editors don't seem in your best interest, you irrationally start feeling like everyone is against you.

I need to take a real break. Ikip (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR Violation of Phi Kappa Phi: Block Request for Further Editing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Toddst1: The same user edited the same (well documented, salient and relevant) sentence for the third time. We all agreed yesterday to keep the second and third sentences as a consensus, but it has been edited thrice again today. Specifically, we agreed to keep them because Lhakthong wanted to include the superlative "respect" for Phi Kappa Phi which I agreed to provided the dispute is noted and provided it is qualified by the sentence and citation about Phi Beta Kappa.

Phi Kappa Phi's respect derives in large part from Phi Beta Kappa's precedence (PKP copied the symbols, traditions, organization, membership, eto. of Phi Beta Kappa) and preeminence (PKP draws the bulk of its membership from the arts and sciences students which is the field of Phi Beta Kappa). Hence, the cited New York Times, Washington Post, historian Richard Current's book, the Baird book, etc. all indicate that Phi Kappa Phi is an "imitation" (their terminology) of Phi Beta Kappa. Even the name, Phi Kappa Phi (as you will see from the organization's national website) had to be changed three times between 1897 and 1901 to come as close as possible to PHI Beta KAPPA and gain respect or acceptance in colleges and universities without a Phi Beta Kappa chapter. In some colleges, I understand Phi Kappa Phi uses deception to market themselves as Phi Beta Kappa because these colleges do not have Phi Beta Kappa chapters which is considered the hallmark of excellence in honor societies as documented in that third sentence. Hence, because PKP rides on the precedence and preeminence of the name of Phi Beta Kappa, it has gained (questionable) respect, particularly in colleges without a Phi Beta Kappa chapter. Those are the colleges that Lhakthong cited, among others.

If you review/look at the user's IP address, it is the same one that (suspended user) Lhakthong User talk:Lhakthong had used when he was deleting the sentence and re-editing the article on February 24 and 25. Can you just put a block on the article after restoring that sentence for which consensus was already arrived yesterday per above Discussion Page? Additionally, I think the suspension of Lhakthong and his sockpuppet accounts should be made permanent. Thanks.

Magkantog (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please help restore neutrality to PKP entry Quoting from sources who express a point of view (e.g. "prestigious Phi Beta Kappa) is NOT eliminating the biased POV. We could quote hundreds of sites that claim to be the "true" religion the "more prestigious this or that, etc. The whole verbiage needs to go out in favor of the neutral text posted below. The PBK material belongs on the PBK site. We have also reported this to both PBK and PKP.

The Honor Society of Phi Kappa Phi (or simply Phi Kappa Phi) is the oldest all-discipline honor society in the United States.[1] Multiple university websites state that Phi Kappa Phi is one of the most respected honor societies. Founded in 1897, it now numbers over one million members and more than 300 chapters. Chapters are found primarily at public universities in the United States, but they also have been established at private universities and in the Philippines and in Puerto Rico.[2] The society's motto is Philosophía Krateítõ Phõtôn, which is translated as "Let the love of learning rule humanity". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.214.16.81 (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

REPLY

To 166.214.16.81: You had written the same piece above in the Phi Kappa Phi Discussion Page, and even threatened to report the WP admin.

For one last time, there is nothing wrong or biased or one-sided or undocumented about the third sentence on Phi Beta Kappa. It was, in fact, the writer of the Phi Kappa Phi introduction (suspended writer Lhakthong, see Lhakthong User talk:Lhakthong ) who originally wrote and included and accepted that sentence if you look at the Discussion Page, but he turned around later and deleted it. And that sentence is not only about Phi Beta Kappa; suspended user Lhakthong even cited Tau Beta Pi, Sigma Xi, etc. By the same token, quoting from sources about "respect" for Phi Kappa Phi does not eliminate POV. As noted above and in the PKP Discussion Page, by me and george sherman, there is need to qualify the "respect" concept or assertion for Phi Kappa Phi, because that is premised largely, if not entirely, on the status, precedence, prominence, preeminence of Phi Beta Kappa, as documented. In some instances, as noted above, we understand Phi Kappa Phi even makes some students think they are Phi Beta Kappa, since their names are almost identical, since it is so difficult to install a Phi Beta Kappa chapter in a college, and because both societies take top students largely from the arts and sciences. So readers of the Wikipedia article need to understand that the "respect" idea is qualified by the role and name of Phi Beta Kappa and this point is well documented by multiple sources through footnotes. Readers need to make an informed judgment about Phi Kappa Phi's issue or problem of "imitation" that has been raised by academic historians, newspapers, colleges, etc. Finally, my colleague sherman reminds me that I need to also point out to WP admin and readers alike that the imitation of Phi Beta Kappa is so pervasive that Phi Beta Kappa even sued Compaq in court for the latter's product, Phi Beta Compaq (see:http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-700638.html) which I understand has since been withdrawn. These are the things that make it necessary anbd urgent to qualify before encyclopedia readers the so-called "respect" for Phi Kappa Phi, which suspended user Lhakthong insists should be noted in the opening paragraph of the article without any further qualification or reservation.

If Phi Kappa Phi was not almost a copycat of Phi Beta Kappa (see their symbols, traditions, conventions, chapter organization, ceremonies and inductions, process of choosing students, process of setting up chapters in colleges, even their almost identical names), there would be no need to put in that third sentence in the Phi Kappa Phi page.

Toddst1: I am dropping you a quick note here also because of the falsehoods that user Lhakthong raised on 2/28 in his effort to get unblocked:

1)Lhakthong claims I (magkantog) was blocked for a day. I never was (see account talk/history, etc.). 2)Lhakthong's IP address (Cedar Rapids, Iowa) and the IP address of user 144.62.240.2 (also in Cedar Rapids, Iowa) who edited the same sentence yesterday, 2/28/09, are both located in the same state of Iowa, the same Linn County and the same metropolitan region. I find this highly suspicious especially considering that the same exact sentence in less than half a day was edited/deleted by both users. 3)The third user (144.62.240.2), who edited also today, is located in Alabama. But if you check the Discussion Page on Phi Kappa Phi dated February 24, 2009, and review the line of reasoning and points pursued by this user 144.62.240.2, they flow consistently into Lhakthong's own arguments over seven hours later on the same day. There is no difference in verbiage really. Lhakthong is in Iowa but it is possible that he has someone from Alabama who did part of the posts for him. People could always email their posts to their family or friends in another state to post for them on Wikipedia. 4)Lhakthong falsely claims I am from Cornell College which is in Mount Vernon, Iowa (also in the Cedar Rapids metro area). If you look at the Discussion Page he is citing, I said there very clearly that I was from Cornell University (by coincidence almost the same name) which is in Ithaca, New York close to New Jersey as our (me and colleague George sherman) IP addresses would show. I even said in that Discussion that we used to have a Phi Kappa Phi chapter at Cornell University; Cornell College does not have a Phi Kappa Phi chapter so how can I be there. 5) Lhakthong claims I used sockpuppets to set him up. I never did. He just probably wants to detract attention from #2 above. Let us wait to see what the SPI will show.

I would not have bothered to write these things, but Lhakthong "brought me in" again. I think he may be planning engage in another edit war (once unblocked) by making these baseless charges. Thanks for your consideration.

Magkantog (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

While both of you may have many good points (TLDR), this discussion belongs on User talk:Magkantog, user talk:Lhakthong, talk:Phi Kappa Phi and/or one or more WP:SPIs. Please discontinue this discussion on my talk page. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

123auction.it

Hi can you delete this page as a g12 copy vio? I can't tag it with the URL because it's blacklisted as spam by the software. --DFS454 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 17:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

continuing vandalism at Illuminati

Thank you for the quick action against User:Archenar. I see you included an account creation block. does that work if he uses a dynamic IP? In any case, could you keep tabs on the Illuminati article in case he comes back? Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the account creation ban does not work... Protection works for the article, but the vandal has simply moved to the talk page. Is there anything we can do to stop this disruption? Blueboar (talk) 13:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request of Adamc714

Hello Toddst1. Adamc714 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards,  Sandstein  21:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Baanq yhu--*

Do you think you could take another look at the block of this editor? I was going to decline it as insufficiently warned, myself. S/he only got two relatively low level warnings and hadn't edited after the second one. Cheers! --Slp1 (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You have an excellent point. [40] Toddst1 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Slp1 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

TungstenCarbide

I generally stay off the talk pages of blocked users except to control vandalism, but I have seldom seen a guy go off on someone so extremely when he was trying to help - I'm referring to his comments to Georgewilliamherbert. That response was so outrageous that I thought maybe it was just his strange way of being funny. So I decided to see if I could get through to him one way or another. I failed to do so. He finally said to stay off "his" page, and rather than explain to him that he doesn't own the page, I decided to just be done with it. And with that, I'm done commenting on the pages of blocked users, unless we have already had some friendly communication going (as with Soxwon). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with what you said and did. Found it amusing actually. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, a less tolerant admin might have given me a short block, so I figure I got off easy. Actually, the mother-hen in me was pretty angry at what he said to George, but I've found that anger doesn't work too well for me here, so instead I typically go for an attempt at humor. I figured he would either (1) ignore me; (2) have the lightbulb come on; or (3) continue being a jerk and probably trigger further action. I reckon I should have known it would come to (3), but sometimes I actually assume more good faith than logic would dictate. C'est la vie. He can come back in the summer if he's still interested in editing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. WP:Civil violations are a peeve of mine. Toddst1 (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He also probably had no clue about why I would say that being called an "upstart" would bother me, unless he's a student of Groucho, which I doubt. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

BLOCK REQUEST FOR USER LHAKTHONG User talk:Lhakthong

Please block the above user Lhakthong for editing the Phi Kappa Phi WP article, which is under protection at least until the end of March, pending resolution of highly disputed issues. Please note that user Lhakthong was suspended twice last week, and the block was lifted today, but he has already edited the Phi Kappa Phi page 17 times today, 03/03/09, in violation of the protection placed on the article. He has also written too long and many verbose stuff TLDR-- in less than a day since the block was lifted -- in discussion pages and edited those pages without allowing us to reply within a reasonable period of time. Thanks.George sherman 34 (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to request blocks. Try WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Be sure to cite specific policies that the editor is violating and provide diffs. Good day. Toddst1 (talk) 00:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Plaxico" strikes again! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Check my talk page. It took me about 30 seconds to realize this guy Plaxicoed himself. I blocked George Sherman 34 indef, and the main account for 1 week. I have also watchlisted the contested article. I expect further problems... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

He shot himself down in record time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your understanding throughout this situation. I apologize for creating such a major problem. Adamc714 (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ominous user name

A new user this past month or so, named User:Confront, who immediately starts finding sub-pages. [41] I wonder what's up with this one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

New admin school

Where is this school of which you speak? I bet I could use a refresher. Rklawton (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New admin school of course. Toddst1 (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hell, back in my day, we used chalk boards... (thanks). Rklawton (talk) 03:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor

Toddst1, a request for advice regarding the talk page of scriptural reasoning. A disruptive editor, Scripturalreasoning has resumed making long and irrelevant contributions to the talk page of an article. This in the past has meant a reluctance by admin to judge conflicting viewpoints, and is in my view disruptive. It would be good to keep the talk page succinct. As I am party to the so-called debate, I should not remove any material. Who should I ask for help, please? Many thanks, Thelongview (talk) 09:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Apology from Lhakthong

Toddst1, I just wanted to apologize for requiring more of your time because I kept messing up the SPI request. Thanks for the help. Your patience is appreciated. Were I you, I'd be frustrated with me. I know now what an edit war is, and I'll stay away from it. I also know now what sockpuppets are, and I'll make sure if I talk to others about a dispute to specifically request they not engage. I'll keep reading policy pages to understand Wikipedia culture more. Thanks again from a total newb. Lhakthong (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No problems. Good luck and happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

How long does the "suspected sockpuppeteer" tag stay up on my user page? I thought you did that at first as a stopgap to the edit war while you were figuring out what was going on. Can I take it down now since things seem to have been cleared up and my editing privileges have been restored, or is it meant to be permanent? Just wondering. I didn't want to try to remove it without first asking. Thanks. Lhakthong (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Am I paranoid, or do you think Angtitimo is another sockpuppet of Magkantog? Short edit history, what he's telling me isn't even true with a quick fact check, and he's trying to prevent a more neutral lead from being placed. Sorry, but after this whole fiasco I'm suspicious. Thanks for your time. --Lhakthong (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And this person says "Stop editing it because nothing is wrong the way it is written right now. It will look like you have a political motive if you keep touching it" even though I haven't touched the lead since the edit war was stopped and this person's account was one hour old at the time. They would know about the history of the page how (edit war debate is archived; doubt he read it in the 30 minutes his account had been established)? Accusing me of making a politically motivated edit when that is on what I challenged Magkantog on my talk page? Give a glance when you can. Thx. --Lhakthong (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please take this somewhere else. Toddst1 (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Didn't mean to bother you. Just thought because you were familiar with the situation it'd be best to ask you. Apologies for an inconvenience. --Lhakthong (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding your message

Hi. How is someone's repeated attempt to replace verified facts with original research that has no sources and delete pertinent historical facts not considered vandalism? This is particularly of concern because the person doing this has a conflict of interest in this context. Thanks so much.--Manime87 (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not attack

Dear Friend, I did did not attack, my messages were nice but they replied with a bad tone that I am a person who can can just read in the internet. They are also trying to introduce Lily Mazahery as a person who helped Ahmad Batebi (symbol of pro-democracy movement of Tehran University students) to escape from Iran. It's not right information. A Kurdish party helped him to escape from Iran to Iraq. I ask you to prevent them to spread wrong information through Wiki. --Shayan7 01:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shayan7 (talk • contribs)

Sorry to bother you, but ...

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with the AIV process, and there are a few things I don't understand.
Having written what's below, I realised that the reason I'm writing is to ask two questions:

• How do I know that the IP has been blocked?
• How does the IP know that they have been blocked?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

However, having written all this, I'm loath to delete it, so I'm leaving it here so that you know what I'm talking about:

I noticed an IP editor's vandalism, and a final warning on their talk page. I'm afraid I have a "thing" about toothless-tiger warnings, so I decided to do something in the hope that the warning actually did have teeth.

So, I did this and this.

Soon after, I noticed this. I understood what it was saying, but I don't understand the implications, (if any).

(Comment: It would be useful if this bot explained itself better. Or, at least, I think it would be useful if ... )

The next thing that I noticed was this with the comment: HBC AIV helperbot2 m (3 IPs left. rm 204.174.129.204 (blocked 1 day by Toddst1 (AO ACB)). 1 comment(s) removed.) AO means "Anonymous users blocked only". ACB means "ACB: Account creation blocked". OK. I'm not sure what it means, but OK ...

I looked at User talk:204.174.129.204 and the revision history. No changes there. I thought to myself: "What's going on? Has anything happened? It doesn't look like anything's happened."

So I looked at the block log. It says: 11:45, 6 March 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) blocked 204.174.129.204 (talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked, autoblock disabled) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ ({{schoolblock}}). What does that mean?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's actually a good question - one I've never been asked before. Good sleuthing! Basically, I blocked the editor with a normal {{schoolblock}} and forgot to leave a note on the talk page. I'll do that now. AO means that if someone already has an account, they can log in from that school and it's ok - we're only blocking anonymous editors. ACB means they can't create an account from that school during the block to get around it. Toddst1 (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The tool we use to block someone doesn't automatically leave a note on the talk page - probably a hack that's needed. Toddst1 (talk) 03:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well! This is an unexpected pleasant surprise. Thank you! (It is nice to be appreciated. Very nice.)
(Oh, and by the way, thanks for answering the questions.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment about Cornhole

I resent the fact that you deleted my bob cornhole entry. it is true that bob cornhole is a fictional character created by stephen colbert. why is it ok to post biographical information about other fictional characters, say superman, or santa clause, and not for a character created by Colbert? I think you people were out of line for deleting my entry and I think you should put it back up the way I posted it if you want to have some decency and integrity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fodads (talk • contribs) 05:15, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Fodads Toddst1 (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not invent Bob Cornhole, Stephen Colbert did. As such, I don't see any problem with a wikipedia entry noting the creation of the character. There is a wikipedia entry about Mr. Hanky, there is a wikipedia entry about, the masterbating bear. How is Bob Cornhole any different? Stephen Colbert created the character so what's wrong with having a wikipedia entry noting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fodads (talk • contribs) 07:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Impossible pictures"

AVT caught that comment by "Impossible pictures." While this is probably unjustified, could you check if they are a sockpuppet of Bastard77? Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 06:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't do a Checkuser, but I see no behavioral evidence that says their the same. Toddst1 (talk) 06:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats at User talk:Ahmadbatebi

Hi Toddst1, don't know if this popped up on your watchlist, but in response to your note to this editor, he threatened legal action if he wasn't allowed to edit his own article. I've responded as well as indef blocked, but your input into my comments and actions are welcome. AKRadecki^Speaketh 17:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Threats against editor despite warnings

Hello. I wanted to direct your attention to this post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vistaboy99 If I remember correctly, you had warned this user (Shayan7) from threatening others, so I thought that I should bring this to your attention and receive your feedback. Thanks.--Joaj (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Very new and interested

I would appreciate your help making my page Self heating food packaging more of a resource for people in the food and packaging world. There's a lot going on with smart packaging, but we seem to be only wiki-ing about RFID. Let me know what I can do to not get deleted! If it'd be better to keep it in the sandbox and develop it, that's fine, but I'd still like your help on getting the article Wikiworthy.Jodiegg (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

CSD on FireStarBomb's userpage

I noticed you blocked the outers of User:FireStarBomb. I CSD'd their userpage because it is nothing but vandalism, and outing vandalism at that. Would you care to look into it? Thanks! ~SunDragon34 (talk) 06:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops!

I don't think I meant to nominate it, but tag it. I have tried to fix some of the tone on it. Thanks for the heads up! Cheers. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)^{What I Do} / _{What I Say} 14:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Ragging Deaths

I would disagree that this was the case; I would also disagree that this is a "third" bad tagging. The first two noted there were part of a dispute with the other poster. In any event, there was no intent in being disagreeable, nor disruptive. My past track record speaks in that regard. I can certainly be a bit heavy-handed, but I would disagree in implying bad faith. In any event, I'll stay out of trouble. --Mhking (talk) 02:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I can be heavy handed myself. Toddst1 (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi. Just wondering what you think would be an appropriate process for blatant advertising which is the only content of a user page here? Thanks, Taroaldo (talk) 04:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Taroaldo (talk) 05:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically the answer is WP:MFD, but in this case I invoked WP:SNOW. Toddst1 (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

74.4.36.111

This is standard minor here and there, fly-under-the-radar kind of vandalism that User:BenH is known for. This is standard Revert, Block, Ignore. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 11, 2009 @ 16:45

Please Respond

please read my comments on my articles you've tagged for deletion. Samuelmccarthy (talk) 07:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Harrison Barnes

Samuelmccarthy (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

You just deleted USCGC Biscayne Bay (WTGB-104) for being a test page. However USCGC Katmai Bay (WTGB-101) was just created and it does not look like a test page to me. Maybe the Biscayne was a mistake? Undelete? --Ysangkok (talk) 21:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Not enough really to undelete. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Better? Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. --Ysangkok (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Valley2city's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Valley2city^‽ 01:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarkson House, MOSDAB rules

I reverted your edit to Clarkson House disambiguation page just now. The relevant wp:MOSDAB rule is that each dab entry has one bluelink, not one link. Red-link entries are allowed but are required to have an explanatory-type bluelink. FYI. doncram (talk) 06:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The MOSDAB section relevant is at shortcut MOS:DABRL. doncram (talk) 06:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hey Todd. I don't quite understand this edit [42]. The editor's statement is a bit ranty, but have you seen the comments posted on the Obama talk page against all new and experienced editors who tried to make changes or discuss the issues at the article? I also think the editor's statement shows a genuine frustration and that a new user dealing with contentious issues should be given as much mentoring and guidance as possible rather than a harsh lock down of a talk page. I haven't followed the editor or their talk page closely. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just seeking some clarification. I'm also wondering about this comment [43], which is not on a user's talk page, but on the article discussion page of the disputed article (one that has civility warnings and such right at the top of the page). With the large number of warnings and redactions and blocks that have been dished out, I'm wondering why this comment remains on the talk page and if you think it's appropriate? Yes, I know there were some, maybe many, who were unreasonable and their blocks warranted. But this post I'm showing you wasn't by a new editor and numerous editors have commented on its incivility and inappropriateness, yet the same editors who so aggresively acted against those who feel the Obama article isn't balanced, have taken no action. As newcomers and established good faith editors whose attention was drawn to the page by discussion on and off Wikipedia have not been treated very well, I don't think it's far fetched at all to conclude there is a double standard at work. The level of ownership on that article and the incivility and intolerance shown for those of differing opinions is deeply troubling. As you've been aggresive in locking down the talk page of a misguided editor, I hope you'll step up enforce the same standards and show fairness for everyone involved in trying to improve the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A couple of comments:

• Regarding the first diff, I didn't dive in to the long history on Obama. WP:TLDR I came across the editor when s/he was reported to WP:AIV; I looked at his/her recent history and behavior and quickly determined that a block was appropriate. I often watchlist editor's talkpages that I block and I noticed that the blocked editor had posted to their own talkpage. A blocked user saying others are "being literally fascistic" is inappropriate which led to the reversion and protection. It doesn't matter whether they're frustrated or not. Most folks that get blocked become frustrated.
• I don't care to dive in to the can of worms on the Obama article. There are clearly a lot of polemic opinions and attempts to spin going on there and it seems like a quagmire. (pun intended). We're all volunteers here and I don't want to bite off more than I can chew. I'd be fine if the article were fully protected and changes were only permitted after consensus.

Hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please show consistency and treat the comment describing other editors as "batshit insane fringetards (and the poor sheep that follow them)" in the same way. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Todd. My mistake. It's still early here. :) I apologize, I thought your comment was a response to my comment here, but clearly you were responding to a comment on my talk page. Sorry about the misunderstanding. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Colds7ream's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Colds7ream (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Three revert rule

Sir, I apologize if I have broken any of your rules, but I am under the impression that I have only committed three reversions, and I am thus acting under my rights. I ask you to reconsider. John Norrison (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

David Smithington

That account actually -is- a hijack account. I just want to make sure people are aware, not attack the user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryoushi19 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 13 March 2009

Pretty observant for your first edit ever. See Wp:Sockpuppet Toddst1 (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I made the account specifically because it annoyed me that such a person was allowed to do that. Look at his contributions, if you don't believe me. I know what sockpuppetting is. This is my only account. I have editted wikipedia anonymously before, which is where I get my experience with the website. For someone who's so strict about personal attacks, that's a pretty strong one you just threw out. So please, give my comments a second thought, read over the guy's contributions, and if you're not going to let me edit his user page, at least do some moderating on the guy, because it's incredibly obvious that he's a hijack account.Ryoushi19 (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Thanks for helping to resolve the ANI re: me. I am not sure how I could handle the situation much differently, but am open to suggestions. I have been here for nearly five years, and haven't come accross a situation as bizarre as that. Newguy34 (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. John appeared to be trying to do things constructively, but unknowingly ran afoul of a number of our policies/guidelines/customs. I suspect he'll make a solid editor if we can get him to do things in a more conventional manner, which I think he'll do. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will try anew to welcome him, mentor him (if he wants), and help him. I think it was the eight posts on my talk page from him in 31 minutes, followed shortly by the ANI entry, that got my blood pressure up (if you know what I mean). Best, Newguy34 (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Why did you ask if I was gay?

Why did you ask on my talk page if I was gay, that seems to be a personal and inappropriate question for this website, what is going on here? John Norrison (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He didn't. It was a random anonymous user. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow - I stepped out for a few minutes and look at all that went on! Thanks J. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He was probably asking if you were happy. That used to be what the word meant. HalfShadow 17:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that there's anything wrong with that. Toddst1 (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism Claim

Why do you claim I committed vandalism on Gang Bang (disambiguation). You can contest its relevance, and I won't restore the link, but the McGangBang is a word derived from the root "Gang Bang." That seems perfectly legitimate to me. I will be removing your wild allegations from my talk page. Whoppavirgin (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, you're having an awful lot of fun with all of those fancy tags. My, we certainly know our Wikipedia markup language. Whoppavirgin (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hell, yeah! Toddst1 (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

David Duke Discussion

I could understand if you objected to my first addition to the discussion, but my second was not inappropriate and was simply answering the question. If you don't want the question to be answered, then just delete the question. Mortician103 (talk) 02:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Did that way back here. What's your point? Toddst1 (talk) 02:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Not before giving me two warnings... Seems like you had no problem with the question and disliked the answer. Mortician103 (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like you should improve your conduct on Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see...

...this page for more on the User:Planecrash111 and User:JustSomeRandomGuy32 war that is going on. Something I tried to help mediate, but failed miserably. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 14, 2009 @ 04:19

uh... something tells me that life is too short.. Toddst1 (talk) 04:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah....that is why I gave up trying to help the both of 'em and sent it to ANI. I noticed your blocked of RandomGuy and thought you should know though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 14, 2009 @ 04:22

Pregnancy & Infant Loss Remembrance Day

Hi There is a big problem with this page.We have two conflicting interests.The US founders of the day and the Canadian side who have been dis-affiliated with the US side.I don't see why the Canadian side cannot still have there own day as it has been proclaimed in New Brunswick officially.Both sides are alternately changing the page and its getting to be a mockery.I have tried to sort the page out and have had nothing but trouble.I spent three hours two nights ago fending off constant vandalism.I suggest we either ditch the page completely due to the hostility of both sides concerned or we lock the page so that only certain people can edit it.This works well on the German Wiki.Watch out for the following who are acting out of self interest and are advertising their own sides opinions,they are involved in organization of the day in either Canada or the US.Their names and ip addresses are 98.196.142.94 TLCoggan 69.142.112.87 October15th October15thlisab.You will find that the most accurate version of this page is the one I wrote showing that their has been a rift between these two groups and that lawyers have been approached by the Canadian side.This can be found at Revision as of 22:54, 12 March 2009 on the history page under my normal English Wiki username I do hope you can help in this matter as many people appreciate the work all these people have done.However they are now ruining all the good work with the in fighting that is going on and they are making a mockery out of the Wiki by constantly changing it for their own ends.Cottesmore (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Jackal4 Sockpuppets?

FYI -- Sockpuppet investigations have been opened on Jackal4 at [44], following your 30-day ban of the editor.--Epeefleche (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello

You pointed on WP:AIV that the edits made by the user are not clear vandalism, and I agree. But these edits are obviously wrong (addition of unsourced information, or else with unreliable sources). Do you know where I can turn to? Or can you please help me with that? I think warnings are not necessary because the user saw the talk page messages and replied. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like it needs to go to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I'm not an expert in that area. Toddst1 (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not the problem. The sources are not reliable for a fact (blogspot, akhilesh, futuremovies) but he keeps at the same. Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the last edit. The editor has already been warned as a potential WP:3RR violation, so if it goes back the edit is blockable at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Now that I've edited the article, I shouldn't issue such a block as I'm now an involved party. Hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 08:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Adminship

Yeah, I've thought about it.

There are at least 3 independent threads to my thoughts:
1. Tolerance (i.e. I'm not the most tolerant person in the world.)

• I tend not to be very polite to people who I think have an overinflated opinion of their own self-importance, especially those who are condescending, pompous and/or "smart-arses".
• I tend not to be very polite to people who are always right and know that everyone with a different opinion to them is wrong, (and anyone with a different opinion is probably stupid too).
• I tend not to be very polite to people who blame everybody else for their problems, and take no responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.
• I tend not to be very polite to people who only want to broadcast their own pov and shove it down everybody else's throats, who refuse to communicate, who refuse to engage in discussion, and refuse to take any notice of other points-of-view.

2. Personality

• I tend to be a "details" person and tend to be pedantic. This tends to irritate-the-hell out of "big picture" people. (Especially those who never have to be responsible for the implementation of their "big pictures".)

3. Benefits and costs
3a. Benefits

• Nobody has ever explained to me the benefits of being an admin.

3b. Pseudo Benefits

• Some people like the idea of the prestige of being an admin. I'm indifferent to it. The admins I have respect for have earnt my respect by their behaviour, not by simple virtue of being admins.
• Admins have access to additional funtionalities. What are they:
  • They can delete pages - Yes, that one could be useful
  • They can ressurect (p.s. my spelling is hopeless) deleted pages - Yes, that could be useful
  • They can block people - I'd have to enhance my tolerance and patience
  • What else? c.f. 3. "Nobody has ever explained to me the benefits of being an admin."

3c. Costs

• It sounds a bit like being a prison guard to me. i.e. You voluntarily choose to:
  • expose yourself to the most unpleasant members of wiki-society
  • become the target of abuse and vandalism

That all sounds horribly negative and cynical, doesn't it.
Why don't you tell me some of the benefits, why you decided to do it, and why you continue to do it?
(Reply here if you prefer / if it's easier for you.)
Or via email if you prefer.
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

No hurry. I've been around for two years. I'm not going anywhere. Pdfpdf (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs socking

See this. The first IP was blocked by you. Thanks, Enigma^msg 20:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Social Hardware, Social Technology, Social software

DPardoeWilson (talk) 19:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Social Technology and Social Hardware -- both have been flagged (apparently by you) as neologisms. Social Technology is clearly not a neologism, since it was used as the title of a Rand Corporation book, Social Technology by Olaf Helmer, Bernice Brown and Theodore Gordon (Basic Books, 1966), 42 years ago! It has also appeared as part of the title of several new books, most recently Groundswell: winning in a world changed by social technologies, by Charlotte Li and Josh Bernett, and is all over the Internet as a quick Google search will show. There has been a course on it "The Power of Social Technology" at Stanford University and one on Social Technology in the UK, I forget exactly where. So, believe me, please, Social Technology is not a neologism.

Social Hardware is more problematic. The term is also all over the Internet, and the BBC in ads for a new personal communications device described it as Social Hardware, but I have not been able to find a book about it. The term was used in a 1970 paper by Johnston and Gummet, quoted in Theory of Technology by David E. Clarke (editor). There are several blogs on the web with the term Social Hardware in their title, but these are not good references. Nevertheless they illustrate that the term has entered popular culture.

There are, by the way, two! articles on social software, Social software (second word uncapitalized) and Social Software (second word Capitalized). The Social Software entry denies that it is about Social Software as we might expect the term to mean and claims that it is about Social Procedure instead, sigh.

What else can we describe writing implements, the telegraph and telephones but as examples of Social Hardware, especially when computers were not used at all?

It makes sense to adopt the (well-established, please) term Social Technology as a superclass for Social Software and Social Hardware, which would be entirely consistent with uses of the terms on the web, where all three regularly occur. So, it makes sense for Social Hardware to be a page describing, well, social hardwaze.

  dpw  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DPardoeWilson (talk • contribs) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC) 

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Wuhwuzdat's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wuhwuzdat (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tanman333 Sock

I noticed that you warned User:Tanman333. I have also warned and deleted many of his page creates. I just realized a while ago that he had created multiple accounts to create the same deleted page. Take a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tanman333. DougsTech (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Update - user appears to have created another one at User:Tanaman2222 --DougsTech (talk) 01:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

USER Forward planning failure has been vandalizing two article that I edited can he please get blocked from editing. Any question feel free to ask RobScheurwater (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for blocking abusive 66.157.27.212 (talk · contribs) earlier today. He now vandalizes my User page from another IP address, 70.156.102.111 (talk · contribs). If you agree that further action is called for, may I have your help? Hertz1888 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This really should have gone to WP:SPI as a block-evading sockpuppet. I took care of it. Toddst1 (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Didn't know that existed. I'll know the next time. All the best. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Toddst1 (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the RfC for "minimum wage"?

We desperately need some outside editors to take a look at this. Thanks. Academic38 (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Mortician103

Thanks for letting me know about Mortician103. It was pretty obvious, especially given the history of that article. Looks like it got taken care of right quick, but someone like that probably won't go away too easily. NJGW (talk) 07:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

indeed. Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Zclone listing at AIV about User:Duffbeerforme

If you don't mind, there's a discussion about User:Duffbeerforme here and I'm curious at your removal of the listing at AIV. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Man, talk about a can of worms. I ended up revoking rollback on the reporting editor. <sarcasm>Thanks for the heads up.</sarcasm> Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 03:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, what better way to pass the buck? =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm

I'm just saying, but he keeps vandalising even after he deletes his warnings. Abce2 (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)Abce2

Re:Vandal fighting

Sorry about that, I didn't realize that was inappropriate. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's just that right after he had the final warning, he went back and removed the speedy deletion tag. But again, I apologize. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

He reverted all the warnings and block template on his talk page and replaced it with advertisement, to which I then reverted back. Just thought I'd let you know. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And again. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 05:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rotary Air Force

You have deleted the article Rotary Air Force. You have done so despite the fact that the article was already tagged by a third party as being worked on. (I forget the exact tag - and the article is now deleted so I can't tell you exactly waht the tag was but it was a "leave this article alone temporarily" tag.) So that was inappropriate behaviour. Also, you know that there is a brewing dispute to which you have made yourself a party regarding the attempted deletion of the article Rotary Air Force RAF 2000. You are therefore as good as damn it using your admin powers to intervene in a dispute to which you are a party. Furthermore, I think you are trying to elicit a response from me which will allow you to block me, as you have threatened to do, without adequate justification, as you well know. Well, not this time. But I suggest you ought to be blocked for this latest example of inappropriate behaviour. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with the deletion, the proper channel is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Spare us the ad hominem attack. It's getting too predictable. Toddst1 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And there is no tag which stops people from editing an article or indeed speedy deleting it if it meets the criteria. dougweller (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In responce

Hello. I am telling nothing more than the truth on The Flea 88.2 page. You told me not to add my name onto the page. But why not? I am one of the presenters on the station along with John Grant and Mike Baker. Please reply on my talk page. RandomWikiNerd (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

user:Cutlerowns19

This user whom you indefblocked is asking for a second chance. I draw your asttention to his request without comment. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My barnstar

Whoa, thanks! I wasn't expecting that! --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 23:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Warning

You left a edit war warning on my talk page. It has all worked out so everything should be OK now but if you haven't had a chance please take a look at the edit histories and there summaries along with the talk page of the article since I feel that you might have jumped to a conclusion without all the facts. I also could have deserved the warning but thought I would point out the complete incident. Thanks.Cptnono (talk) 05:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, Toddst1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a ban of a user you were involved with. The discussion is about the topic Proposing a ban of user El Machete Guerrero. Thank you. --— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for your comments on my talk page. I've enabled the user preferences to force an edit summary and un-minorise edits, so I will now struggle to avoid the higher standard of stewardship you implored! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/66.194.44.250

Please reblock. thanks, Enigma^msg 15:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Kodylikessushi

if my edits are so defamatory then do some research yourself instead of being authoritarian because of whatever problems you may have. willie nelson is a buddhist, he said so on the daily show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kodylikessushi (talk • contribs) 03:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Do You Have A Double Standard For Your Use of the Block?

Why have you not blocked the two people who personally insulted me in the Obama discussion under "Photo Agenda". I believe you blocked me just for calling someones actions juvenile or some such thing. My actions and myself were called "Stupid" "lunatic" and "lusting". Is this a giant double standard in your blocking policy? Thanks. JohnHistory (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

Not a double standard at all. I just wasn't looking. You should take the editors who have done this to WP:WQA. Toddst1 (talk) 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

66.76.200.2

OK, I am a little confused. Do you think that the edits by the user are vandalism or not? This might not be AGF, but the I am certain the same user has deleted the same sections from the WVVA page under other IPs. If you check the history section of the WVVA page you will see this person really doesn't want the RTN section on the page. He claims the station doesn't carry Retro Television Network or RTN, but the RTN website says they do....which is good enough for me. I have explained to this user (on other IPs) that the official network website is all we need, it would be like saying WCBS-TV isn't a CBS affiliate enough though it is on the CBS.com site. Obviously I didn't get through to him. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 23, 2009 @ 05:51

Have I missed it?

As I said, I'm in no hurry, but I'd be very disappointed if you had gone to the effort of a reply and I hadn't seen it. Have I missed it? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Toddst1 (alternative account)

FYI[45]. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bridge to Breakwater Vandalism

Toddst1,

Could you please help. Now that the edit protection has been taken off Bridge to Breakwater, 72.211.236.126 (talk · contribs) continues to "edit war" and commit vandalism removing references. Thank you. Samotoottat (talk) 09:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Lido Shuffle

Thanks for keeping the article Lido Shuffle, Toddst1 -- DAK4Blizzard (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Beast Quest

Hi,

I reported a user named Hougo for vandalism of Beast Quest, and I saw you blocked him as a 3RR violator. I reverted him about 4 times, and I was wondering if I would get in trouble for violating the 3RR rule. Thanks. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 14:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Technically, you violated 3RR because it didn't seem to me like obvious vandalism that you were reverting. I looked at it and thought about issuing a 3RR warning to you but decided not to. If you want to obsessively observe the rules, feel free to take 24 hours off. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 14:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I might do that. PS:You'll have to yell at User:J.delanoy as well, because he reverted the same thing I did! Thanks for the help. --Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 14:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks for the cookie. BTW, Delanoy is cool - s/he only reverted once. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, but he reverted the same thing as me, so I believe that my reverts were justified. I'll be taking 24 Hours off anyway. :)--Riotrocket8676 ^{You gotta problem with that?} 14:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way. See WP:3RR. BTW, I was only joking about 24 hours off. Toddst1 (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Václav Klaus and vandalism

Hi Toddst1, I don´t know teplates that warn vandals at en.wiki, I am not here so often to be able to answer them and I am not native speaker. That´s the reason why I alerted admins and wrote "Warn (or block) them and watch their edits". --Dezidor (talk) 22:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Why?

I'm a radio producer and it's my job to make this page for a show on our station. Why did you delete it? This is part of my job to make this page and I'm now frustrated and going to get in trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bridgetandcarey (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your job is to produce a radio program not spam Wikipedia. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Andy Vollmer

The article still refers to the criticism of the SEC by both Congressmen, and cites the same sources, so if people want to read the full details they can do so. --Nick Boalch\^talk 15:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocking IP's

Hi, I see you've blocked 209.66.193.32 once before, for one year. You might consider doing that again, as the IP has started molesting articles again. I just noticed because he did it to a very interesting article I was reading about tarmac. As you can clearly see here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User%3A209.66.193.32 it is not exactly the first time the IP has been blocked. How about making it permantent this time :) Sorry for not bothering to log in with my user right now. 80.202.108.45 (talk) 01:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of blocking for another year... Typically IPs are not blocked permanently. –xeno ^talk 18:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Bookarmy

Hi Todd, I understand why you deleted the page, and will seek to make it neutral asap. Can you tell me where the page has gone? The article is in my userspace because I created it there first as instructed by Wiki's guidelines. This is my first article so I'm still getting used to Wiki! Also, I wondered what you meant by Google producing nothing "non-trivial"? The site has been mentioned in reputable publications. Somervillerose1 (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The article seems to have been deleted from my userspace too, why is this? Wikipedia's guidelines told me to make the page in my userspace first, before publishing it. Can you tell me how to get hold of the article please? I need to access a copy in order to edit it! Somervillerose1 (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't delete the article - rather I proposed its deletion. It was actually deleted by Ged UK (talk · contribs). You had developed the article in your user space which is good but on your user page - which is not good (see Wikipedia:User page). I have placed a copy of the old article in your user space at User:Somervillerose1/BookArmy.

As far as the deletion, I proposed it for deletion using a lengthy discussion and peer review at what we call AFD. Unfortunately, our peers determined that the article didn't deserve such a discussion and speedily deleted it. You can see the brief discussion here. I know this is seems complicated to new users, but it's how we keep chaos from erupting.

Going forward, the things you probably should learn about to get that article in shape (if it's possible) are:

• Conflict of interest
• Notability
• Articles that appear to be advertisements.

I hope this helps. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that's much clearer, thanks Todd. I'll read up on the guidelines and try to make the article adhere to those. Somervillerose1 (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Userboxes

How can three userboxes be way too many? I'd say you're closer to having too few :-) Nyttend (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you appreciate the sarcasm there. Toddst1 (talk) 20:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For your help. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

UAA

To get rid of one obvious violation, see Paul the prick. I figured I would contact you since you were the first UAA admin I saw. :) Ceranllama chat post 00:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive Vandalism

Hello, I noticed you sent a final warning too Derry City Warlord about his disruptive edits to the page List of hooligan firms. Just to let you know, since you last warned him , there has been two more edits by this user, trying to add the same material on to the page as well. There has also been two similar looking IP's adding the same material. Regards and Thanks Footballgy (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Jojhutton (talk · contribs)

Hello. You have blocked Jojhutton for an external link on his userpage to a seemingly harmless YouTube video because the link could mislead users to think it was an internal link. However, the link is not to material that is offensive or dangerous. I kinda of think that the block was a little much. I also see that another admin has declined the unblock request. Is there more to the story than that? If no would you please reconsider the block? Charles Edward (Talk) 15:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No more to the story. 12 hours is not that long. Toddst1 (talk) 15:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright. :) Charles Edward (Talk) 15:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey Todd, since there was a prior ANI discussion with no consensus that the link is inappropriate I suggest an unblock would be appropriate. I'm certain a new discussion will now take place, so perhaps clarification or a new consensus will be reached. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to agree that the block seems a bit much for something so trivial. Annoying? Certainly. Disruptive enough to be blockable? No. Please reconsider. Thanks —Travis^talk 18:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

• This was raised here. Courtesy note, etc., etc. –xeno ^talk 19:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Todd, quick consensus is this was a bad block. Please unblock Joj before this gets carried away. Grsz¹¹ 19:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Babylon93

I have created Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Babylon93 which includes page blanking and is almost entirely vandalism. Please would you raise a checkuser. I don't know how. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fails WP:duck test. Indef blocked Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Now 86.165.65.125 (talk · contribs). Kittybrewster ☎ 18:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Lucas Jackson

Why did you delete the article about Lucas Jackson? There was nothing promotional about that entry. He is actually rising in popularity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucasajackson (talk • contribs) 03:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Most appreciated

Thanks for getting back to me. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What

Why did u decline to block Fahadsadah ? He clearly WANTED TO BLOCK EVERYONE TO NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE SANBDOX. THATS CLEARLY VANDALISM, in the TD he said "YOU ARE PWNED YOU CANNOT EDIT THIS PAGE". IT WAS VANDALISM, PUNISH IT. AND BTW, the user Wknight94 tried to delete the petition before and you didn't do anything about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.184.38.148 (talk) 17:22, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Only policies that apply to the sandbox are the non free content ones, and the Libel/Offensive content ones. fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 17:27, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on User_talk:fahadsadah Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox Vandalism

The user is an average troll. Very few policies apply to the sandbox, and WP:VANDALISM certainly doesn't. I was just testing something out - what the sandbox was designed for. The user is obviously a troll or someone I have previously pissed off (probably with huggle). fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 17:30, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Replied on User_talk:fahadsadah Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

RE: User:Llewellyn Ls

It is, isn't it? Went on for some 2 hours. Caught them while doing some recent changes patrolling. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 18, 2009 @ 22:48

Thanks! Nah, not an admin. Want to be one one day, but since I was blocked awhile back, I don't see that ever happening. Thanks again...NeutralHomer • Talk • April 18, 2009 @ 22:57

"on wheels" vandal?

Hi, Toddst1: the account User:WHEELS on deals was just created. Does this seem to you like one of the "on wheels" crew or copycats? --Rrburke^(talk) 22:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Could be. Let's keep an eye open. Toddst1 (talk) 22:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Goose Bay

No worries. I think our SOP is to delete the diff, but do they still need it for the IP address? If you're not sure the prudent thing would be to wait a couple of days and then delete it.--chaser - t 23:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

RCMP just called back asking me to email the link to the DIFF I hope nobody deletes it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of me is irrelevant.

Simply put, I do not consider anyone here 'alive' as you understand the term. You exist as nothing but text to me. Your comments to my page are a minutes worth of time you could have accomplished something with. If you require my assistance with something, feel free to request it. If I have broken any rules, feel free to let me know. If you simply want to tell me what a bad man you think I am, use that time for something constructive instead. HalfShadow 02:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding_to_suicidal_individuals#Dealing_with_improper_responses_from_other_editors_to_a_suicide_message is good sense.

In real-life, people die - they don't get deleted, they don't get oversighted. We admins usually try to prevent users from getting blocked. Which is more important: preventing some editor from being blocked or preventing a mentally-unstable teenager from prematurely ending their life? Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Fahadsadah's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry, forgot to talkback you before fahadsadah (talk,contribs) 18:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

User:86.11.100.50 block

If you don't mind, I think your block of User:86.11.100.50 may be relevant here. Is he block evading? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

User:212.219.92.205

Hi, The length of you block of 212.219.92.205 (talk · contribs) seems very long. Just a day to quash a current spurt of vandalism would seem more in order. --Salix (talk): 17:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

The editor is fresh off a 6 month block with an edit war and a vandalism spree since unblocking. The edit war was on an article edited a year ago so there's indication it's the same individual. A 12 month schoolblock seems perfectly in order. Feel free to change it if you feel strongly. Toddst1 (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thankyou for deleting my article, Alastair Joseph Scott. I meant to not save it, then when it was there I couldn't delete it. It's about this guy I went to high school with by the way, no-one notable,--Please don't look at my real username. I hate it. (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

The findsources template will help me A LOT for all the articles I am about to afd. 16x9 (talk) 00:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice shortcut for what you would have done manually. Glad it helps. Toddst1 (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

What I have done manually, to many times. I really like the google news search not picking up pr. I learn a new trick every day. Thanks again. 16x9 (talk) 01:02, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocks on user:Eckstasy and user:Quotebucket

Heya, I've been informed of your blocks on these two accounts and my review of it makes me think this is not a case of strongly abusive sockpuppetry. I think a warning/talking to on the main account should suffice rather then an indef block on both. Thoughts? If you don't want to do it, would you mind if I did it? Thanks —— nixeagle^{email me} 02:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with that (actually appreciate the extra eyes). Glad to have you sort it out. I figured that user would be unblocked as did FisherQueen, per [[46]]. Toddst1 (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do it now. In the future please don't use talk back and simply copy paste the reply to my talk page. I'll be copying this to mine now. :) —— nixeagle^{email me} 22:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Jack Lenor Larsen

Thanks for the heads-up and the new sources, I only noticed that the webpage was affilated with him after I'd nearly finished writing the start/stub, but didn't want to toss it after all I'd done so thought I'd post and come back to it later and add in more non-affilated sources. That's a very useful tool, that Find Sources infobox doodah - love it! Mabalu (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad it was useful. At first Larsen looked almost non-notable but after adding that tag, the first article that came up was a NYT article about him. At some level, that should be required for any article going to AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh it was - I was bothered by that odd red link in the final listings of the Neiman Marcus Fashion Award pages (there's still one redlink there, but I've left that as there are two equally plausible candidates it could be and I've no clue which is the winner.) so decided to do a quick stub for the remaining red link. Like you I'd not heard of him before, but when I did a Google, I found dozens and dozens of links - just went for the first one that had a good bio on it, not realising at first that it was the webpage for his sculpture garden/house. Anyway, I've added refs from the NYT article so hopefully it's a little less AFD-like. Mabalu (talk) 23:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Albbbbeeeennnnoooo block evasion

Hi Toddst, a user you indef blocked for disruption is evading his block and making the same unconstructive edits via his IP. Cheers John Sloan (view / chat) 23:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Since I made this request, the user has been active again with his misinformation vandalism! John Sloan (view / chat) 15:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have context there. How about issuing a few warnings? Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I cant be bothered warning a user who has used multiple IP's and at least one user account to spread misinformation about football players and their clubs. He clearly has no desire to stop any time soon. If you're not interested, thats fine. I'll take this to another sysop. Sorry for taking up your time. Have a nice day! John Sloan (view / chat) 15:11, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for taking care of our fair Blappo. I just saw he was up to no good and filed the reports, then tried to stay clear. Since his unblock was declined, he made some pretty harsh edits on his page, it might be time to lock him down. I appreciate your help. Dayewalker (talk) 06:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And now, he's returned as Blappos Avenger to harass again. Dayewalker (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, blocked already. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Blappo

I would suggest lengthening the block to indefinite again. The user has made several more personal attacks on the talk page, along with telling you to kill yourself. I don't see a constructive contributor here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Another disruptive user

Hi Toddst, I thought I may bring to your attention 217.37.194.117 (talk · contribs), he has made several disruptive and unsavoury edits to the pages Gary Croft and Joe Colbeck over the past few months. I have undone the vandalism, but this is not the first occasion I have had to take the unacceptable comments about these people off of the relevant pages. I am assuming the user knows both people and thinks its funny to have a pop at them in this manner. Thanks Footballgy (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

fyi - re a block you just made

I see you just reverted and blocked this IP on an article I'd edited; you reverted back to my edit.

• [47]

Compare the ip's edit with two other recent ones on that page.

• [48] and
• [49]

Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added that user to an open RFCU to verify. Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll look for that next. I was just looking at the unblock notice and the apparent assertion that the ip is not whomever you meant. My edits there had nothing to do with the above edits, but I have recently encountered DF. We'll see. Cheers, Jack Merridew 15:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

This section is being discussed here: User_talk:EEMIV#The_Clone_Republic Ikip (talk) 18:16, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Help Request

Dear Toddst1, Could you please help me with the following page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Tavera I am a little stripped of time and don't think I can finish it! I you think you can help, please let me know! Thanks in advance,Ken Durham (talk) 16:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I've done about all I can right now. See the links on the talk page - there aren't very many sources that we can use, but the one I inserted should be enough to show some notability. Toddst1 (talk) 17:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, It looks better small than not at all, you know what I mean. Anyhow, Thanks much.Ken Durham (talk) 17:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI report

FYI. Abecedare (talk) 18:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I did the original block of B9 with autoblock disabled. That seems to have been a mistake! Often, people who are blocked for 3RR are basically good editors who just got carried away. This case updates my intuition on that. EdJohnston (talk) 18:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I, in fact, don't doubt that this editor thinks that his/her edits are improving the encyclopedia; even though multiple reviewers (including me) have pointed out that they appear as incomprehensible, garbled, jargon-y, surreal, unsourced or poorly sourced, new-ageist performance art (sorry, I find it impossible to describe succinctly; see this recent edit for an all too typical example).

Unfortunately wikipedia is very good at catching technical disruptions (like 3rr), but poor at diagnosing and rectifying behavioral and especially content problems. Establishing the latter generally requires dedicated effort by one-or-more editors (who in turn often face accusations of wiki-stalking, assuming bad faith etc, and advised to disengage) - and since no one (again, including me) has taken the time to start an RFC on User:B9_hummingbird_hovering, the user has continued unchecked to make over 10,000 edits in mainspace and (IMO) degraded >1000 articles.

Btw, in case you are wondering I have relatively little overlap with the articles the user edits - this "debate" has been the extent of my interactions over the past year, I think - and have been more of a silent observer than active disputant. Abecedare (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Toddst1, for unblocking B9 hummingbird hovering :) You've saved a very productive, helpful and genuinely concerned Wiki editor. My faith in Wikipedia is restored with this unblocking. :) I concur with EdJohnston's evaluation of the situation. NazarK (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I trust things will remain under control going forward. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

User talk:208.39.161.114 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

When you made this trim to the history, it masked the fact that the last block was three months. Given that every edit since at least January has been vandalism, that might not be the optimum move. Your call.LeadSongDog come howl 18:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone looking will see the block log as well as the talk page history. If you're suggesting I should have implemented a longer block, I might agree with you. Toddst1 (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Name

How do you do the thing were your name is different?--Abce2 (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking for Wikipedia:Changing username or WP:Sockpuppet? Toddst1 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean it like that. I mean were it says Abce2 (talk) were you can make it Abce2 (Write) or something like that. --Abce2 (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You're talking about Wikipedia:Signatures. You can set them by going to preferences and entering wiki-markup. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --Abce2 (talk) 21:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

TomCat4680 (talk) has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Kittens must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Cad Bane

Do you happen to know anything about Cad Bane?--Abce2 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. Toddst1 (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Moors # Seensawsee's edits # The facts

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at Talk:Moors#The_facts. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC) The Ogre (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

See my comment on your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

ok?

Dude, one edit cannot be a edit war.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 14:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Restoring Warnings

My friend... I have stoped! Not only restoring, but also giving warnings to Seensawsee!! And the "restoration" of warnings done, was done in the context of new warnings regarding his edits. Please do participate in the discussion mentioned in my previous section. Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You guys work it out. I've protected Moors until you do. Toddst1 (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best to extend the protection on the page moors, it does not seem like it is going to be solved Talk:Moors#The_facts because ones it wears off "The ogre" will continue to put his invalid sentence in the article and there is no way the edit war will stop if he does Citionthehill (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for extending the protection on the page, but the editors who say they “began” the discussion are not discussing anything and the people that are, are being called socks. The other administrator who intervened got tired of it. And just to set the record straight reported me and I guess I can call it the "opposing side" last week when I logged back on wiki I found this on my talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Citionthehill/Archive. Even after this they are still using the sock excuse. To make it worst it seems like there is a fight going on now. I do not want to get involved because I don't want to make it worst. Talk:Moors#The_facts Citionthehill (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Jim Warner (poet)

Hello Toddst. I've declined speedy deletion of Jim Warner. Google Search offer many links and sources related to that (maybe marginally notable) poet. I think this isn't suitable for speedy. I'll watch it and possibly take it to AfD, but it has some room for improvement IMO. --Vejvančický (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

All good - appreciate the extra eyes. Toddst1 (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Malice in Wonderland (band)

Hi, I decided to remove the speedy after looking at the no.wiki article and doing a brief search through major Norwegian publications. While the article may not in itself make a credible claim of significance, I found a non-trivial mention that should prevent it from being a direct A7 candidate. That said, the article may very well not survive an AfD, or even a PROD. decltype (talk) 17:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Well well well... What do we have here.

Why did you delete Diverse_Boards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rabbayazza (talk • contribs) 21:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well well well. Try reading your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad report?

How is this a bad report? As seen on his or her talk page, as late as May 2, 2009, he or she continues to vandalize discography sections. This is not some editor innocently making mistakes. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Insufficient warning, lack of recent activity... Take a look at wp:blocking policy. Toddst1 (talk) 04:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

He or she has had plenty of past warnings and plenty of recent activity (and, yes, this recent activity has been significantly unconstructive). May 2, 2009, for example, was very recent. But, if a registered user or IP here at Wikipedia always has to be warned three recent times before an administrator will block (as I have been aware of in the past), I will warn this user two more times if this user continues these unconstructive edits. I suppose I should have sought an administrator independently to give this user a stern warning, and then went to the Administrator intervention against vandalism project for a block if this user continued his or her unconstructive edits (since, apparently, that project is more about blocking). Flyer22 (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Why 'Institute for Tourism Studies' is deleted?

Hello Toddst, I want to know why the page 'Institute for Tourism Studies' is deleted. The page was an introduction of the IFT(Institute for Tourism Studies' in Macau, where you can find detail in the following website: http://www.ift.edu.mo/

Can u please restore it, so that we can put more information for the page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsand (talk • contribs) 04:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7 Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As what is written on A7: an organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools) But IFT(Institute for Tourism Studies) is an university in Macau, which I think should not be apply to speedy deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldsand (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note, the article has now been userfied to User:Oldsand/Institute for Tourism Studies  Chzz  ►  08:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Good call. Toddst1 (talk) 14:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Whinge

Hello, please restore Live Wire (AC/DC Tribute), a tribute act that is featured on the official AC/DC documentary (AC/DC Fannation www.acdcfannation.com) and mentioned throughout all of the official AC/DC websites (www.acdc.com, www.acdcrocks.com, www.youtube.com/acdc). (Bonfireny (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)).

Substantial confusion

Hi. Partly on the basis of my warnings, you blocked IP 81.37.10.122 (talk · contribs). They may need to be unblocked...

1) Two hours ago, Wikipedia was acting oddly: accepting my edits, but not actually making them. Other irregularities were occurring. I made a partial evaluation of 81.37.10.122's edits, but may not have been getting correct information when I "double-checked". Wikipedia was being very slow to respond, and I just gave up for a couple hours. Until now.

2) In consequence, I did *not* notice something about 81.37.10.122's edits -- which is that they appear to be adding *appropriate*, but duplicate information. For example the Track listing, here [50], but then immediately deleting their own work (!), as here [51].

This is easily the most confusing situation Wiki situation I've been in, and it might be appropriate unblock, or at least to query 81.37.10.122 about their impression of what they were doing? Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked. I should have investigated more thoroughly. Thanks for the heads up. Toddst1 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

More than one editor saw their behavior as vandalism. If it indeed was not vandalism, then hopefully not too many feelings were bruised. The fact that Wiki was not showing correct information, and not responding normally to commands confused the issue. Thanks for unmuddling this before it got worse. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

While our actions may have been unfortunate, I think we both had the best of intents. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Mason, Yvonne

Hi Todd. Thanks for the welcome and message. Yes it is my first contribution to Wikipedia. I have a question. You deleted the page because you said it had advertisements. I did not realize that putting where an author's books could be purchased was considered advertising but I thought about it and understand how this violates the advertising rule. I will rework the page and remove the links for her book sale sites. I did not mean to break Wiki's rules. I will make sure it looks like an encyclopedia page. Thank you. Regards, --Fairylady73 (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Greetings

Thanks for the help. 173.11.92.206 (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Personal user sub page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

What do you have against people using sub pages of their user page? I put something up under a sub page of my user page and right away I get this?--That's Life, "Stuff" happens, people die, life goes on. (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving conversation to User talk:Mrboire. Toddst1 (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jake Kouns

Yes, I did. It seemed to me that, if the organisation is notable enough - and no one seems to be arguing about this - to be on wikipedia, then its founder and present boss is also. I could of course be wrong, but it's better to be safe than sorry. Deb (talk) 11:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Editor would like to use Wikipedia for promoting of No.Limit_Clan_SaintDruG

hello, this is extremely important to have this page abou Chris Abou-Chabke SaintDruG, since Cyprus is in need to promote it locally, and there will be a CYPRUS contest with Chris that will need also to be included, i cant believe EFG Gaming, OPTX Clan are approved, and for No.Limit Clan NOT to.

11:08, 5 May 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) deleted "No.Limit Clan SaintDruG" ‎ (Speedy deleted per CSD A7, was an article about a club that didn't assert the importance or significance of the subject. using TW)

The Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No.Limit_Clan_SaintDruG

its needed in the Cyprus community to have a small topic about SaintDrug being n1 in Cyprus for 4 consecutive years, representing his country in europe in Counter Strike Source.

Please revised the deletion OR tell me exactly why cant we include him? since you included other teams such as OPTX, clown, Moe etc.. efg gaming —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintdrug (talk • contribs) 12:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

WP:Advert, WP:NN, etc. Toddst1 (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Same range, different IP

I missed that the vandal on Julius Malema moved IPs within the same range; the latest revert isn't from the blocked IP but actually from:

• 116.0.61.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Can you whack that mole also? 9Nak (talk) 14:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

done and I semi-protected the target page for a couple of weeks. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. 9Nak (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ogle family

Pl see my note on this talk pageOrdyg (talk) 16:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Julius Malema

Sorry about the vandalism probably not the best way to go about things. I’ve created a new page called Julius Mampara as he’s known here in SA. This page includes some new information and new links so is adding to the body of knowledge about JM. I also created it under a pseudonym of the title so shouldn’t be misconstrued as an article about me. How do I link the original page to this one? Cheers JM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julius.mampara (talk • contribs) 20:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Extending User:Slash kh8812's block

You're the blocking admin so I just wanted to see if you are ok with me extending User:Slash kh8812's block. His unblock request here doesn't indicate someone we need at all here. I know it's not necessary but your view? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Forget it. Already did once he reverted me again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Stop deleting well documented fact based edit to Tea Party Protest

Do not delete the well documented fact that President Obama's tax cuts target only those legal persons with income exceeding 250,000 a year. This evidently does not square with your political desire to mislead people into believing that the basis of the Tea Party Protests is a populist one. You are obviously keen on supporting a political agenda of supply side economics. But most Americans support and benefit from progressive taxation and do not need to be misled or manipulated into thinking that Mr. Obama is trying to raise taxes on everyone.

It is not within your power to threaten to block me from contributions to Wikipedia, and I will not stand being talked to in this way. The appropriate forum for resolving disputes does not allow for you to unilaterally determine whether my views are to be blocked from "Wikipedia." If you continue to act as censor, I will report you to the administrator. You are on notice.

"Freedom of speech is useless unless it applies to those with whom you disagree."

(----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bertinotti (talk • contribs) 12:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Good idea: "report me to the administrator." And specifically which edit of mine are you referring to on Tea Party protests? Hint: count my edits there. Toddst1 (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Christ myth theory

Thanks. That got out of hand quickly! I was wondering what to do (and couldn't do it myslf obviously). Dougweller (talk) 17:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

no prob. Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Chromana Ltd - COI

I am new to this so thank you for raising your concerns, of which I do appreciate - particularly after reading Wiki requirements, my intention was to differentiate us as a company from your user 'Chromana' who's statement 'Hello, I'm Chromana. - Talk to me, baby!' is obviously inappropriate and appears promenently in Google. Upon reviewing entries such as Cocoa-Cola I was content that a brief statement of our activities would not constitute a COI.

More than happy to discuss as I would greatly appreciate your feedback.

ChromanaLtd (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

what a worthless dispute resolution at Catalan people...

I find incredible that an admin finds ¡¡¡10!!! removal of references a "a content dispute". You just gotta be kiding us all! With resolutions like that what do we need the Administrators' noticeboard for? Meanwhile, thanks to you, the anon keeps reverting even after your placed your comments in the talk page... How many more reverts do we have to wait until you stop finding it "a content dispute"? 1, 3, 10 more? You are a "great example" of the care and dedication that some admins take in protecting wikipedia and making this project a better one... Way to go Toddst1 and Thanks for nothing! --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 19:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The page is now protected to stop the edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Thank you for semi-protecting Public image of Barack Obama. I left a probation warning on the IP vandal's talk page, so hopefully they will back off anyway. :) -- Scjessey (talk) 23:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Toddst1 (talk) 23:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess this guy isn't going to back off after all... -- Scjessey (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Appleton

Thank you for the notes. I keep forgeting that the warnings, unlike the SD notifications, do not have an automatic date-stamp/signature. I am keenly aware of 3Rs and would take it to the appropriate place if this was approaching. I have reported Appleton to Admin:Vandalism and the hoaxes seem to have stopped at present. CheersPorturology (talk) 02:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks, that clears it up. I was concerned that removal of warnings could be taken as evidence of their non-existencePorturology (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Deletion

Why did you delete Alcatraz? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artgan (talk • contribs) 04:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Read your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 05:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why was the article on BillionaireXchange, Inc Deleted

It is no different than the Wiki article on Ebay. Ngomes709 (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Read your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Twinkle

Absolutely!! thanks so much - which genius thought of it?Porturology (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno - it predates me here. I remember when I figured out what it was - I think it was similar circumstances. It totally changed what I do here. It's kind of hard to be an admin without it. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Natasha Yi

Yes, I did. To make the correct year of birth 1979 a year that she was born. I don't want an anonymous IP user to change the wrong year to 1981. And User:Matty is accusing me to try to get me blocked. Steam5 (talk) 05:49, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Hauke Harder, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

70.44.153.18

I tried to give the user some advice in a more personal tone, in the hope, however unlikely, that it might do some good after your block expires. Please see also WP:ANI, [52]. DGG (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the collision. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ragemanchoo82 = indef blocked User:Ragemanchoo

User:Ragemanchoo, who you indef blocked for chronic incivility in August, appears to be back as User:Ragemanchoo82. Hard to believe, I know. Same civility problem, too: [53] [54]. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

SocialSense

In contributing to the SocialSense article I have tried to be completely objective and factual. This product Networked Insights key platform. The company has significant media coverage and notoriety and I thought that it would be a good idea to reference their key social networking products. At this point, considering the fact that the article is already up, would you recommend I retract it and let someone else work on it?

Best regards, --PiRSqr (talk) 00:31, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I removed quite a bit of adverty stuff. You should be mindful of further WP:COI though. Toddst1 (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a million!, shall do --PiRSqr (talk) 00:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response

Thank you for your notification on my talk page. Is it in response to my raising of the subject of Luis' edit war on the noticeboard? [55]

I do not believe that my edits of the Reporters without borders page amounts to edit warring. I have sought on every occasion to respond to Luis' tagging, deletion of sourced content and original research added to the page. Every time I answer one reason for his edits he comes up with a completely different unrelated one to make the same point. For instance, as soon as he removed the WP:SPS tag after discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard he's added "verify tags" to the same sources from Counterpunch [56].

If you look into this you will see it fits a pattern of Napoles edits. If I was a carpenter (talk) 12:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

replied on User talk:If I was a carpenter Toddst1 (talk) 12:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Law School Tuition Increases

Hi Todd

Admittedly I have a "conflict of interest" according to the wikipedia guidelines. I am dissatisfied with the results of my legal education and many others are too.

For those not familiar with the topic, law school tuition has doubled over the last decade due to many factors. However, given the poor economy and increased debt load many students are carrying, I think it an important service to people seeking objective information about attending law school to know what the tuition is and any potential conflicts of interests the administrators may have.

As of today, student loan debt is forever. I believe people seeking objective information about attending law school should understand the risks and potential downsides.

Thanks.

I look forward to having a good discussion with you about this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Berknyc81 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 13 May 2009

A7

A7 explicitly doesn't apply to software – it even says so on the template itself. You should know better than that! iridescent  15:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course I know that. When I read in the article that "This is a Web Site", I nominated it as non-notable web content. I hadn't read the last paragraph. It appears that it is a web site, but will also have a software distribution. You are correct that this appears to be software and I should have figured that out.

Always good to hear from you. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem – although something like this it's always good to go through AFD; Linux distributors are notorious for "I know my rights"–ing – no comment on this particular one, but as a veteran of the fight against Neutral777 (talk · contribs) in his various incarnations the word "Linux" sets off alarm bells. (Neutral's "rival to Wikipedia" which he set up in a fit of pique never fails to raise a chuckle – the Jesus/Linux comparison in this article in particular is something unique.) – iridescent 15:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. I hadn't seen that. I love the "threw the Lord Jesus Christ" bit. I even gots gooder grammars than that. Toddst1 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this one on there. ("WARNING! Satin will most likely try in a direct or indirect way to stop you from reeding this.") I can't think why people don't take him seriously. – iridescent 15:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Arthur_Delaney_(musician)

HI

Can you please inform me as to why our post Arthur_Delaney_(musician) was deleted? We are a music company representing this artist in the UK. This page is totally supported by not only the artist but by us his company. Let me know what we have to do to stop deletions.

Damon Macklin Felt Music

damon@feltmusic.com

Arthur_Delaney_(musician)

HI

Can you please inform me as to why our post Arthur_Delaney_(musician) was deleted? We are a music company representing this artist in the UK. This page is totally supported by not only the artist but by us his company. Let me know what we have to do to stop deletions.

Damon Macklin Felt Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthurfan123 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Your deletion of Evans' 1st law

I know it's phony. You know it's phony. But, strictly speaking, hoaxes don't fall under WP:CSD#G1. That's why I only put a "prod" on there, and asked the author to self-delete. --John Nagle (talk) 05:34, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that falls under WP:SNOW, but in this case it was jibberish. Toddst1 (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I know. I put a note on Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion that we really should broaden G1 a bit to formally allow such deletions. It's routine to do what you did, and the rules should be adjusted accordingly. --John Nagle (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

"Blatant misinformation" = G3. No need to change the rules. 92.15.47.67 (talk) 06:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the CSD rules work pretty well as they are. There are times where WP:SNOW or WP:IAR is appropriate as well. This happened to be one of them. Toddst1 (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar

Thank you for the reward, I really appreciate it. ^(C/SGT)G2sai_(talk) 20:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Brooklyn Law School Wiki page block

I dispute your contention that I am biased contributor. My edits regarding the Brooklyn Law School US News ranking controversy were fact oriented and were sourced by major news outlets. Furthermore, the page as it stands now is incorrect. Brooklyn Law School is not ranked 61st. As my US News source illustrates, the ranking is incorrect and subject to modification. In addition, after your protective block was added to the page an editor named "Javajava2" was able to make changes. His/her edits are unsubstantiated and not reliably sourced. "Leiter Report" is an independent blogger who is merely providing a non-objective opinion. I respectfully request that you undo the block and restore the previous version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.45.181 (talk) 01:30, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course I protected the wrong version. See Law_School_Tuition_Increases above. Toddst1 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy Toddst1's Day!

Toddst1 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Toddst1's day! For your tireless work in helping to maintain our encyclopedia, enjoy being the Star of the day, Toddst1! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 04:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC) If you'd like to show off your awesomeness, you can use this userbox.

Congrats. Well deserved. A day like no other... :) Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks folks. That's really nice. You made my morning. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 15:45, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message on my talk page. Advice definitely appreciated. If I was a carpenter (talk) 16:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC) You're very welcome. Toddst1 (talk) 16:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your message

I appreciate your message. I knew exactly what was going to happen, how it would happen, and what I was getting into. This project is voluntary, after all. My apologies is to editors such as yourself for dealing with a WTF situation and not being able to do anything about it. Thanks for your words, happy editing to you. Keegan^talk 20:52, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

please un-delete content

hello, you participated in a review of the blocked account of my friend user:JD Caselaw. I can't opine whether it's copyright violation, (because I can't see the text of the page) but I'd like to resume writing those articles since we're collaborating. If you would please un-delete the articles, or restore the text to my user page, I will expunge any copyright violations. thanks. Agradman (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC) PS I would also appreciate if you removed the block on her account, but that's between you & her.

WikiProject User Rehab

Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Abce2|AccessDenied 04:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Oh, cool. You got your own day! --Abce2|AccessDenied 04:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at PirateSmackK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oh damn I'm also on your hitlist now :p PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 11:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could find something constructive to do that might be within policy. Toddst1 (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made several constructive edits that are within policy. (not that one, that ) PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 11:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Happy holiday

Happy holiday dear faithful admin, enjoy!

Toddst1, PirateSmackK has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 07:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and I hope your experience with Ironholds is positive. I'm really glad it worked out this way and I'm hoping to observe you as a solid contributor shortly. Let me know if I can help. Best regards. Toddst1 (talk) 02:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Shameless thankspam

FlyingToaster Barnstar

Hello Toddst1! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. FlyingToaster

RE: Supervision

No problem. The aim with sanctioning new users should almost always be "how can we turn them into a valued member of the community". I think simply topicbanning him wouldn't have worked - firstly it would spark resentment, and secondly it was a time-based sanction that would've expired in 6 months regardless of whether or not he'd learnt anything. I think having someone around to help him out will work better. Ironholds (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

ThankSpam

My RfA Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) ~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

User:Ytcracker

Now that the AfD of the article about him is concluded, would you be willing to read through the discussion on his talk page and consider an unblock? He was wrong to canvass his fans, but he does have a three-year history of useful contributions that are not related to himself, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Will do. On mobile now.Toddst1 (talk)

You're a nice guy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Shh! Someone might hear you. Thanks for taking care of this. Toddst1 (talk) 11:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

TOV

I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Threats of violence and Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm. As someone who has interacted with law enforcement extensively on numerous threats including several against elected officials, this is something I take very seriously. I hope you do too. Most of the times I've run across them, they're from anonymous IPs which is very easy for law enforcement to deal with. In the case of registered users, a quick RFCU gets the IP and the law enforcement take it from there. In every occasion (including suicide threats), law enforcement was very grateful for the information, even if I had to spend 20 minutes explaining what a diff was and how they worked, etc.

I am aware that there are some here on WP that feel that editors should not react at all. I could not disagree with them more strongly. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume that working as a vandalism patrol gave me some form of resistance - or perhaps ignorance, if you will - against these kind of messages. I do not disagree with seriously handling some of these messages, but i wonder if we would have any form of effectivity with these. While we can extract IP numbers for anonymous users (And trough checkuser for registered users, though that can take a few hours) it would still provide us with limited information. In fact we would only know a country and a provider, provided that we do not encounter a proxy. Seeing general laws on privacy it might take hours, if not days, before any connection to a suicidal user can be made - Also seeing and the average police mentality regarding this form of messages(At least around here) i doubt that they will even write such a thing down. Then again - even if we have 10.000 fake ones to prevent one valid one its worth the time. Thought i am interested in one thing: Is there a threshold on what to report? Personally i would take a digital version of a Suicide Letter much more serious as a line say "OMG OMG, I'm G0nna go Suuuuiic1de! BYEBYE Cyasss :D" Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:11, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a good question. That's why I look for good judgment - not just solid contribs in an admin candidate. FWIW, with IRC, we can usually get a CU done in a couple of minutes for TOVs. I think you have the right idea in general. I think you'd be surprised in the police responses. They typically take great pride in using their tech crimes units to roll a response to the address involved.

In the last case I was involved with, the police determined that the computer was in a public area in a shopping mall. The mall had just closed when the police arrived at the mall, and after the security guards let them in, they confiscated the computer. They quickly ran some forensics on it and quickly ID-ed the person by their facebook posts before and after the edit on wikipedia and rolled to the individual's home. The parents were extremely grateful and nobody died that night.

Reporting things like that are without a doubt, the most important work I do here. Toddst1 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I am pretty intruiged that such threats are taken seriously on the other side of the ocean. At this side of the ocean the law enforcement isn't handling these issue's so well - There are enough case examples where people went to police stations physically to report such cases in person (Preventing hoax idea's), only to be told "Its the internet, what do you expect"? or "Oh come on.. Do you really believe that?"

But since you indicate that it IS taken seriously in some countries, i will keep an eye open for these kind of edits - I won't report the unbelievable ones such as my latter example, but if it seems serious (or if i do not know for sure) i will report them from now on. I'm already glad i don't see those often, seeing from your example that some are actually real. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 18:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW the last one I mentioned was in New Brunswick, Canada. Toddst1 (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That is, for me, the other side of the ocean. :) Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 07:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Regarding Zaiger420's userpage, Brian is a personal friend of mine and it was an innocent joke between colleagues. AGF good sir, my edit history shows I'm not a threat. Enhance your calm. :) That Thing There (talk) 10:17, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Not cool

This was not cool. Since I didn't mention his name there, he's not technically the subject of an ANI discussion. And for all anyone else knows, I could have been talking about someone else spamming links and you dragged the wrong person in. I appreciate the willingness to help, I really do. But the last thing I need is a block for outting someone. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:39, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I think your intent was clear and well intended. I would strongly oppose any attempt to block you for that post at ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 13:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, since another admin outted him, I expanded the issue at the ANI thread. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 13:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE DELETE

I wish to be deleted from Wikipedia. TY.Ivanhoe610fa (talk) 20:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Alexis Bledel

Dude, why did you protect the page on Alexis Bledel? I have some new information I would like to add to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.53.210 (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Ironholds's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just weighing in on the whole thing, since it's apparently my intelligence that is being called into question here... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Sneakiness

The following discussion has been moved from User talk:Ironholds to this page because at this point it is a discussion of the block
You probably will wish to mention to your mentee that this, even if it was a joke, wasn't really appropriate. I think EVula is a fine admin and 'crat, but he's human; and it's entirely possible he may have not noticed the deception until after the fact. bahamut0013^words_deeds 08:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you fell for it. :P I was referring to the fact that he piped sysop permissions in that link instead of rollback. I have a very hard time believing that it was accidental. bahamut0013^words_deeds 11:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Bringing it up does nothing, though - he'll cry AGF, as he always does. If you can think of anything to do, give me a poke. Ironholds (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a large cartoon hammer to the skull may help. bahamut0013^words_deeds 10:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

It was a typo...or nine..I meant to Special:UserRights PirateSmackK^Arrrr! 13:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

That's rather a large typo to make. And you didn't notice the difference between UserRights and uhh, MakeSysop? AGF only goes so far. Ironholds (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I've seen enough. That's about the most egregious deception I've seen on wikipedia. I indef blocked. Let any unblock discussion prove me wrong, but it's time to be bold here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeesh, let's have just a little faith in the fact that I'm not a fucking idiot, shall we?

I'll grant you that it was a really stupid joke on Pirate's part, but there are a couple of other factors at play:

• Special:MakeSysop has a very big "this system is deprecated" tag at the top. I'd have to be wearing my I'm a total idiot cap (which I very, very rarely wear... I really should get rid of the thing) to not see it. Granted, there's no way for a non-'crat to know (since you don't even get that far if you try to view the page), but still, it's pretty hard to "accidentally" use that page.
  • (for those that are wondering why I'd bother clicking the link at all, it was because I figured it'd be a good idea to refresh on when his rollback was removed)
• Somehow, there's an assumption being made that I would have granted the rollback in the first place, even if it had been a real link. I had no intention of doing so, which is why I let it go; it was a dumb joke and yet another attempt at getting rollback, and I wasn't going to have anything to do with it.

So, yeah, that's my two cents. I think the indef block is a bit extreme, despite the fact that he's on such amazingly thin ice. I'd say pare it back to a month or so. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, like I said, all the faith and confidence in the world to you, EVula, but I think the fact you have such a hat means it must be worn every once in a while (we all have that particular weakness). Perhaps I should have made use of the words "slim" or "practically nonexistant" to modify the word "possibility" in my previous statement, but it never occurred to me that it would become a point of issue. In summary, no offense was meant.

In regards to the block, I'm not an admin, but I believe it was probably justified. This is the most clear example that he has a far more in-depth understanding of Wikipedia than he lets on, and plays dumb for whatever ends he may have. I have considered briefly that he may have malicious intent, but I have no clear evidence of this; though I do think it suggests he may be the sockpuppet of another user. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I just found the ANI thread. bahamut0013^words_deeds 16:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment from blocking admin

Thanks folks for your comments here. Evula, This wasn't meant to insult your intelligence. It was clear you didn't (and probably wouldn't) fall for such a sophomoric stunt. However, in the context of the broader power-lust and other disruption, and the comments above, it was clear that the mentorship wasn't working despite Ironholds' efforts. IMHO, a temporary block would be punitive, so I issued an indefinite block which I figured would be controversial.

Ironholds, I'm going to close this discussion and move it to my talk page at this point if it's ok with you, since at this point it's about my block. Thanks to Ironholds for trying to help here and apologies for cluttering up your talk page. Again, thanks to all for their comments and perspectives. Toddst1 (talk) 12:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
End of material copied from User talk:Ironholds

Remember to substitute user warning templates

Hi, just wanted to remind you that you should substitute user warning templates such as {{uw-username}} when you use them. For example, write {{subst:uw-username|reason}} instead of {{uw-username|reason}}. This makes it easier to do category cleanup later on. Thanks! That pesky wolf from Kings Quest I (talk) 10:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh..? Toddst1 (talk) 23:20, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't quite clear. What I am referring to is, for example, the page User talk:TheMichaelScottPaperCompany where you wrote the following:

{{usernameconcern|It sounds like a [[meta:role account|role account]]. In addition, you should take the time to read [[WP:COI]] and [[WP:ADVERT]]. }}

What you should have done is to write "subst:" before the word "usernameconcern", thereby substituting the template instead of transcluding it. This should generally be done for all user warning templates. It makes it easier later on to remove the user from categories automatically added by the template if that is necessary. That pesky wolf from Kings Quest I (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Good point. I guess that's a hazard of using TW all the time. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Call

..on Trusted Opinion, Inc. t'shael ^mindmeld 23:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Block of Some guy (talk · contribs)

I'm inclined to think that this user should be unblocked while the RFC and Arbcom petition are in progress. His behavior toward me has been unfortunate to say the least, but I would not characterize it as harassing, as he's more or less left me alone and confined himself to what he perceives to be the appropriate channels. See our recent discussion on his talk page for more info. I'd recommend that this block be lifted. Of course, if he does begin to harass me or anyone else, I would not oppose reblocking him. ⟳ausa کui ^× 06:56, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Good to know

Vandalism=blocked for about 30 hrs. Responding to baseless accusations in an "uncivil" manner=blocked for a week. Totally logical. --208.38.59.163 (talk) 20:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

User:C2marcom's edits

I actually saw the link deletion on Telecom Expense Management that the editor made and probably would have snagged it myself. After review, the link looks more or less like some self-serving linkspam from a competing company. So I think he was right, but for the wrong reasons. If you don't object, I am going to go ahead and kill it.

As far as the actual article he wrote, I am close to prodding that for deletion. All sources appear to be company press releases and it does not appear to be notable. Again, since you tagged it as WP:COI, I will defer to you before proceeding. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 04:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

thumbs up Toddst1 (talk) 04:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete request

Hi Todd, saw you were around working on CSDs, would you please delete Roychavarcode? The person who created it also created it at the proper capitalization, Roy Chavarcode, so I cannot just move it. If you could just nuke that wrong cap/title that would be great. I wasn't sure which CSD template that falls under, lol. Ariel♥Gold 04:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

gone Toddst1 (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So fast ;) Thanks! I didn't want to bother with the repair pen if I could find someone around. Ariel♥Gold 04:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

dreier edit war

thanx todd. please check out the notice i placed on the biography of living persons board: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard

Furtive admirer (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

NPA

You recently removed a template I added to the page User:Collect/Molepuppets, now called User:Collect/Concerns, which I had tagged as an attack. The page states that it is "based upon material from a userpage on an actual editor". The editor was identified as User:Ikip but his name was later removed.[57] Later, quotes were added where people discussed User:Ikip[58] but the names were replaced with "JJJJ" and "KKKK" with the comment "no editor is named for this to be an 'attack'".[59] Anyone can view previous versions to identify the person described. Could you please have a second look at this because I think that this page might be seen as a personal criticism. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think it's ok. The names have been removed and you'd really have to dig to find out who it's referring to. Feel free to take to MFD or ANI if you feel appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 16:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Reg Mantissa Page

Hi Todd,

Thanks for helping me to avoid an unintentional violation of wiki policy. Honestly, I didn't mean to advertise in the wiki. I just wanted share information about Mantissa Software company.

It will be helpful for me as well as for others, if you can clarify when a company's information can be published in the wikipedia. Beginners see other company details and just get tempted to post such pages, just like I did.

Thank you very much once again

Best Regards, Thangavel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thangavel soft (talk • contribs) 16:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:128.135.226.167

Thanks for the back up. SGGH ^ping! 20:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

De nada. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Well done for that, but unfortunately the exact same game is now being played by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.36.105.190 . Best wishes, DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

...or perhaps not! :) DisillusionedBitterAndKnackered (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Username: AgricMarketing

I first started in Wikipedia by writing the page on Agricultural Marketing, so when I needed a name..... This is my area of work. I work for the UN not for a private company. I use AgriMarketing for economic edits but a different name for other contributions.Agrimarketing (talk) 06:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Article pulled but explanation not give as to why

Todd, I posted an article yesterday regarding Dennis L. Karchner's artwork. I checked first to verify that no other articles have been submitted on this subject. Once posted, I was immediately notified that the article was inappropriate and was subsequently removed. Could I get an explanation of what was inappropriate and how I might correct what was submitted? I've read through the guidelines found here and other than the fact that the article is lengthy, I don't understand what exactly I am doing incorrectly. Lkarchner (talk) 17:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Lkarchner. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Your userbox

Your userbox with the TOV thing now has a new vector graphic available. Just letting you know. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 17:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated it. I'm inferring from this that SVG files are better than PNG? Toddst1 (talk) 04:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomCat4680 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at TomCat4680's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Block.

Hello,

Just saw that you blocked 63.246.123.57 (talk · contribs). I understand that he was just vandalizing, but he had only two warnings. His first warning was a level four and the second was a level two. Is this sufficient warning to justify a block?--gordonrox24 (talk) 02:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It really depends on the circumstances and this one was a bit strange. I didn't go through all the editor's edits, but for some reason the first warning went all the way to uw-4im which is a final warning (albeit strange in being issued). The editor continued to disrupt and you issued what looked like a {{Uw-unsourced2}} but the disruption continued [60] [61] [62] ... It seemed the only way to stop the spree was a block, so I did. It could be viewed in some ways out of policy, but IAR applies sometimes when it's clear there's only an intent to disrupt. Toddst1 (talk) 02:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Looks good to me. He apparently had no intentions of stopping so it was probably for the best.--gordonrox24 (talk) 03:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

New Town Plaza Phase 3

Please don't delete the article too fast. I'm editting it now Ricky@36 (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

8 mins after creation was slightly on the fast side, and with your indication of intent, I've restored it. Toddst1 (talk) 02:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Bangla book by Humayun Ahmed

Is back. Since you are the admin who deleted it, I thought that you should know. -t'shael ^mindmeld 07:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Please disregard. -t'shael ^mindmeld 07:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Kudo's for efforts in diplomacy most considerate

Nice to see that someone in this realm promotes "consideration"

Now if someone in this realm knew enough to creat a Wiki school (others might "pay" to learn)

Keep up the civil mindedness!

Laserhaas (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

The article has been protected for more than a year already. Why not to unprotect it and allow anonymous users to contribute to the article? SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 19:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a possibility. Why are you asking me though? Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I offered you to unprotect the article as you protected it. But of course it's not obligatory ;). Just an offer/reminder. SkyBon^{Talk\Contributions} 17:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My read on the protection log is that NawlinWiki (talk · contribs) tightened the page protection about 4 months after I protected it. I'll leave changes up to him/her. Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Catalan people

Hello, i don't know if this is the appropiate place for asking it, but in this article we have had a problem of POW that has been solved, reaching a consensus. Unluckily one anonymous user who has never had the intention of reaching any consensus or to show their POW is vandalising the article. Could you please semi-protect the page so only the registered users can edit it? The vandal is only one person and anonymous, so it's probablby enough with a semi-protection. Thanks. --Coentor (talk) 16:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Bangelo510

Why did you remove this user from AIV? They have been doing nothing but vandalizing since they registered last week. The moment they vandalize again I am gonna report them since they should have been blocked earlier today. TJ Spyke 19:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor was not blockable as they were not currently active (among possibly other reasons). Every administrator who looked at the list from 15:22 when you reported the editor to 19:14 when I removed him/her declined to block, including me. At that point it was stale. Toddst1 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Catalan people

If you accuse me again of violatiing WP:3RR you are pushing too hard! You know the anon keeps vandalising the article even if a consensus was reached. On your part you are not doing anything to prevent it. The anon has edited many more times than me and another bunch of users is also reverting the vandal anon. Why am I the only warned by you? Is this a personal fixation against me? Watch yourself Toddst1... I'm thinking about opening at Wikipedia:RFC/ADMIN an Appeal to the Arbitration Committee against you. Are you going to block me again for asking them for help? Or will you prevent the article to be vandalize? Probably your only interested in getting another banstar to your collection instead than making your job as admin? You are so conceited. If you protected the article we would not need to revert the anon. I do not salute you. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 06:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Linas/Arbatsky's principle unmasked

Hi. Thank you for removal of personal attacks from the article. Now it is much better. But I feel that some problems remain.

• The article disparages its subject (now the scientific conception and its author), so it is still an attack article. So, formally, it is still subject to speedy deletion.
• Phrases like "This principle is claimed to supersede Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle. It does not.", "it is not very deep, it is a fairly trivial manipulation.", "Up to this point, the derivation is kosher; the controversy arises when Arbatsky suggests that this last form is a replacement for, or is somehow "better than" Heisenberg's uncertainty principle." are unacceptable in an encyclopedia article. (All negative phrases must be removed.)
• Phrases containing the word "I" must be removed also. They prevent other users from constructive work on the article.
• Linas ignores suggestions to improve the contents of the article. Currently, I do not want to do it myself. It should be clear, that now it is not a "battle" for scientific merits of the article. It is a question of general administrative policy here. So, I would ask you to remove those phrases.

Possibly, Linas is not interested in that article at all. (?) So, you should also take into account that:

• The article was created 3 years ago, and minor changes were made later.
• Currently, the article works as search engine spam; in fact, it is not devoted to the topic claimed in the title.
• Article breaks WP:NOT and WP:POVFORK. All valuable and verifiable information must be transfered to regular articles, all other information must be removed.

Thank you. Hunshi (talk) 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

B9 hummingbird ad nauseum

Hello - User B9 hummingbird hovering is back to its old tricks again, this time on Apperception despite its assurances that it would not engage in edit wars and would try to reach consensus when adding contentious material. As the un-blocking admin, who unblocked based on these assurances, what's next?

Dfwaviator...

...has accused you of "abuse of Adminsitrator privleges" here. It would seem he has found the "garden path to destruction" despite the efforts of others to steer him in a more proper direction. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 02:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: accidental block

apology accepted. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

who actually created User:Packers Pro Shop?

Twinkle couldn't seem to notify the page creator, and when I checked the history, the only change shown was my CSD nom. Whoever created it is obviously a sock of User:Packers Pro Shop, but somehow their creation of the page is invisible to me, maybe you could use your admin superpowers to figure this out? Beeblebrox (talk) 22:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the logs are out of sync. Here's what I can see:

Deletion log

    * 22:08, 18 June 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:Packers Pro Shop" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)
    * 21:31, 18 June 2009 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) deleted "User:Packers Pro Shop" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (view/restore)	
  	
Page history

    * (diff) 21:31, 18 June 2009 . . Beeblebrox (talk | contribs | block) (3,266 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G11). (TW))
    * (diff) 21:30, 18 June 2009 . . Packers Pro Shop (talk | contribs | block) (3,254 bytes) (←Created page with 'Since 1989 the '''Packers Pro Shop''' has been the official retail store of the National Football League’s Green Bay Packers. The 8,500 square foot two-story reta...')

Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Alrighty, that was weird. Thanks! Beeblebrox (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've had similar occurrences when tagging with TW, it happens when the page is deleted during the split second between when TW downloads a copy of the article, and when it saves it. This creates a new page, with all the previous content, but (due to the page deletion) the only edit showing in the history is that of the tagger, who (unknowingly) recreated the article. TW could not download the page history to notify the original contributor, because there was no history to download at that instant. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Disallowedfromseeing

If you havent noticed this is the pov pushing sock of ip 24 aka molecularsphere and et al I was just reverting all his removal of sourced content which he did not agree with hes a vandal and his edits must be undone 86.160.112.112 (talk) 09:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Your note on User talk:205.154.237.150

I have an e-mail from the school's sysadmin on OTRS (ticket:2009061910004077) that addresses two of your reasons for declining the unblock. Since the school year is now over[63], and since the school is discussing alternate means to prohibit future contributions from this IP, I think it's safe to lift the month-long block. - Jredmond (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are right. Done. Toddst1 (talk) 14:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Schmeater

If I were closely involved in swearing at J Greb why didn't I do it when Blackest Night: Batman got deleted. Think about that. --Schmeater (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't know, don't care. You were plenty close enough to fail the WP:Duck test.

"He who walks with wise men will be wise, but the companion of fools will suffer harm"

— one of them old proverb things

Toddst1 (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sperezlaw (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC) My unknown fellow, I beg to differ in your mischaracterization of my edits as not being liked by anyone. One user edited my page and clearly indicated their approval.

Is there any truly democratic way (and please, spare the insults, I am not a fifth grader) that I can submit my proposed edit to "peer" review on a large scale?

Thanks in anticipation of a civil response.

I said think about it. Do you just do things just to make other people feel bad. If you do that one of us Wise Men suffering harm is you. I mean if you response like that, think before you do. Also think how you would feel if this happend to you. AND why is this Sperezlaw getting involved he doesn't even make sense. --Schmeater (talk) 03:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at SarekOfVulcan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: IP user

eh, actually this is a long term abuser who keeps entering misleading labels into infoboxes (see his yet another IP userpage and contributions; Justicialist Party (see page history) being his favourite target). Sometimes blatant vandalism, sometimes more sneaky 'biasing'. I frankly don't care much, which rubbish he invents each day. As for the particular addition, he has been explained some one hundred times already, that left-wing is not a suitable addition to the position of ideology markers; it's just a provocation by his side to do it again. it's totally unsuitable stuff that time; I'd call it smart-ass-vandalism. --Miacek (t) 10:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

actually, I do suspect we have more than an individual's very persistent POV pushing. given that the same IP addresses continue similar soap-boxing in the corresponding spanish wiki pages, I tend to believe there are some political opponents and their money bags involved ;-). Tarring one's opposing political forces in wikis might be a tempting idea for some, xexe. --Miacek (t) 10:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to blocking the IP for persistent IP pushing if you document a case. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, there's not one but tens of dynamic IP addresses involved. He also had sock puppet accounts, mostly indef blocked now: [64]. A solution would be indef half-protection for some time for the articles most 'affected', but this has been declined a number of times. Specifically, those article history pages [65] [66] show the situation is terrible. More recent piece of wanton introduction of errors: [67]. --Miacek (t) 14:56, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's why we have range-blocks. There's a similar problem going on with a bunch of catalan-related articles as well. We need to establish what the IP range that the editor(s) are using and weigh blocking that range that against the problems they are causing. Usually we need folks like yourself who are familiar with the articles, history and IP's behavior to document a case. The problem with things like this is if the non-ip editors don't respond in a constructive manner, they often end up running into problems and frequently find themselves blocked. I think channeling the energy into a case is far more productive. Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy Toddst1/Archive 3's Day!

User:Toddst1/Archive 3 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Toddst1/Archive 3's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Toddst1/Archive 3! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. You have the userbox for this on your userpage but you're not in my archives for this prior today. Did I give this to you under a different name or something? — Rlevse • Talk • 00:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what's going on. Take a look at User_talk:Toddst1/Archive_3#Happy_Toddst1.27s_Day.21. Either way, I'm doubly honored! Toddst1 (talk) 02:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's Bibliomaniac's award. He started doing his after I started mine. Yesterday you had both his user box and mine on your user page before I gave you mine, so I was wondering if you'd changed names since you don't show in my award archives. Sometimes he and I give the award to the same people. Anyway, not a big deal now that you have one from both of us. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no name changes. FWIW I haven't touched the user page since the 18th, and that was to add the quote. Thanks again! Toddst1 (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice! You really deserve it! Abce2|AccessDenied 02:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

User:SallyFord

As the blocking admin, thought you'd want to know that she came back with a sock Sallie Ford (talk · contribs). Didn't even make an attempt to pretend otherwise, jumping right back to the same articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

My username.

You say it sounds like a Organization.

i assure you its not my name "MeteorProjekt" is my Gamertag for Xbox, as well as MULTIPLE accounts for different websites. I use it because its easy to remember than putting multiple different usernames. Thank you! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by MeteorProjekt (talk • contribs) 22:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Warning

I find it frustrating that you apparently acted by auto-pilot and issued editwar warnings to both me and User:jægermester. Firstly the editwar on Kuupik Kleist had ended because he finally had provided quotes for some of the possibly defamatory material he was inserting and he had agreed to remove the ethnic slurs. I had done three reverts to the consensus version and after that I stopped reverting and sought help to enforce consensus from administrators. At One Ani Page I was told to go to the other where I was finally warned and the non-consensus version stayed in place. This is frustrating. Secondly I think you should have looked into the situation and seen that one version was determined by consensus by 6 editors on the talk page and another (Jægermesters) was unilaterally being pushed - you could also have lookd at Jægermester's edit history and seen that his only edits since he registered a couple of days ago have been ichanging the same politically sensistive terminology to something he likes more. In short I feel that your warnings were not a helpful remedy for the situation and I encourage you to look a little deeper into edit disputes before you take action in the future.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. I had a very similar experience. I wonder why? Well... Wow. --DoyleCB (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit wars are edit wars folks. You should know that. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense - and any way it doesn't answer the concern. While it may have been an editwar the waring was over when you stepped in (I had stopped to seek advice and left his version in place). And the concern was how to make an editor respect consensus decisions. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Could you perhaps enlighten me about what would have been the correct approach here instead of doing as I did: reverting once, then use talk page to form consensus, then revert the non-consensus version when inserted two more times, then ask for assistance at ANI?·Maunus·ƛ· 18:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been around long enough to know what WP:DR is. Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the gratuitous condescension. The editor in question was not discussing. He was inserting his version over the one arrived at through discussion. I appreciate that ANI may have been the wrong forum but where should I have reported it at the Edit 3RRR notice board? When? Before or after reverting his edits? If I did it before then it wasn't an edit war and if I do it after then I was editwarring too. Notice that before i posted at ANI part of the issue was repetitive insertion of unsourced possibly defamatory material including inappropriate ethnic denominations in a living personj biography. This was why I found it to be a matter of urgency. He only suddenly introduced sourced and started discussing after I posted on ANI. The point is that I took the steps towards dispute resolution - the editor did not repond. One of the steps in WP:DR is to ask help form an administrators notice board thats what I did and I got a block warning for it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, If you blocked CBDOyle for this [68] edit and see this[69] as a personal attack then I think i understand what's going on. Don't worry I won't waste more of our time here.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Correction: I have never blocked that editor. Saying his edit war opponent has been on a witch hunt violates WP:Civil. Good day.Toddst1 (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DoyleCB negative reaction to declining unblock request

Doesn't it take two to edit war? I also asked for assistance at ANI before I was blocked. --DoyleCB (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It takes two or more. Perhaps you should come to terms with your block (which I didn't make). Otherwise you're heading back to the same level of disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In other words, shut up or I'll block you? Are you editing from Iran? Why the combativeness? Are you ever going to address any of my comments?

(There are four questions for you to answer. No need to be rude, by the way. Sorry you seem to be having a bad day) --DoyleCB (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not at all what I said. Let me clarify: you don't seem to understand that your block was legitimate and haven't modified your behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

SHECKYmagazine.com entry slated for deletion due to advert-- "Brian McKim" page slated for deletion...

I am at a loss as to how to edit the page and make it acceptable.

I could use some help.

Also not sure why the bios of the two authors of the website (me and my wife) were excised. Neither bio contains anything that isn't factual. As to whether the facts can be cited in MSM articles or in court records or wherever else facts are verified, I confess that many can't. But does one really have to provide such verification for facts like "He received a degree in journalism in 1981 from Temple University?"

As to making it less like an advert, I did that back in June 2007 and, until just today, that was satisfactory.

Last week, I inserted three or four citations-- with links-- from "real" publications like the Wall Street Journal and USAToday to verify some of the earlier claims.

I also took out some adjectives here and there to make it less like a press release.

As for the page about me-- of course it's "one of the first that I created"... it's actually the second. It's not a mistake... or, as the message on my talk page said, "A common mistake made by new Wikipedians." I did so because my name was removed from a Wikipedia entry on "Deadpan." I don't know who put me on that page, but I most certainly fit the category...and I reasoned that maybe one reason I was excised (no reason given) was that I hadn't had my own entry. So I put one up. It's pretty straightforward, it's not written like a press release (no more so than most other similar pages I've seen) and I think I pass the notoriety test-- perhaps even surpassing one or two comedians that I've seen in other wikipedia entries.

Perhaps I'm going on too long, but the magazine has been around for ten years... the entry is not an advert, but an honest attempt to place the magazine in the context of the internet and the history of standup... just ask nearly any comic if he/she has heard of the mag and you'll likely get a response in the affirmative. We are well-known and, perhaps most importantly, unique among websites.

As for me, well, I've been doing standup professionally for 25 years. I've been on television multiple times and, let's face it, there aren't a whole lot of people who can claim that-- for the simple fact that there aren't all that many professional standup comics to begin with.

I'd like to keep both entries up, and I'll do whatever it takes to make them acceptable.

Thanks,

[[[User:Bmckim|Bmckim]] (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)]

Thank You

Thank you for you opinion and in making me a better suited for this site. Thank You for being kind and in making feel welcome. Best of Wises Bernette

Alexcason Impersonation

Hello there. Just per your comment here, the user signed their username using the wikicode [[User:Alexcason|Fin]] here, which I took to be a (rather blatant) attempt at impersonating me (seeing as I had just signed the talk page above the comment), and so felt a warning was justified. Hope that's ok =) Thanks! Fin©™ 07:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh and sorry for exceeding 3RR, usually I'm careful enough about that sorta thing! Thanks! Fin©™ 07:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's easy to do. See additional comment on User talk:Alexcason Toddst1 (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool yep. Sorry I didn't make it clearer in the first place. Talk 'cha. Thanks! Fin©™ 07:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Scribner

Hello Toddst1. You have unblocked the above user without any attempt to discuss the issue with the blocking administrator first. I am sure you are aware of the blocking policy: “Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them.” Could you therefore please explain me how this block was an unambiguous error or, if it was not, why you did not care to act in accordance with the relevant policy? Many thanks, — Aitias // discussion 09:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My experience has been that if an editor blocked for an edit war requests unblocking with a statement that he/she will refrain from edit warring, then the unblock is routinely granted, most of the time without consultation. As blocks are to be preventative and not punitive, it seems within the spirit of the blocking policy to unblock upon such a request. I'm pretty sure a fair number of blocks I've issued have been similarly unblocked.

However, you are correct in your reading of the policy and technically my unblock could be viewed as outside of policy. Either way it probably would have been good to contact you. It wasn't my intent to wheel war and if the unblock has offended you, I apologize.

In this case, while the editor had edit warred several hours before the block, he/she appeared to be making good faith efforts to resolve the dispute even before the block, having engaged in the discussion about the dispute on the talk page and that was referenced in the unblock request. Toddst1 (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your explanation. :) I accept your apology. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 11:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for unblocking, Toddst1. The 72 hour block came without warning, was excessive and completely unnecessary. I had moved the disputed section to the talk page and myself and three other editors were discussing the edit and had been doing so for some time when the block was issued. I'm disappointed Aitias didn't show more diligence in this event. The POV smears against Paul Krugman are still occurring here, here and in a separate article here in which in each instance quotes are being taken out of context to promote a conservative smear. I'm personally surprised Aitias allowed it to happen on a BLP article. At any rate, thank you again. Scribner (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Footnote to this: ChildofMidnight who instigated this block has been restricted in editing BLP articles. This makes Aitias failure to apply due diligence even more surprising. Scribner (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's be clear: I never questioned Aitias' block at all. However it appeared that by the time I came along that it was no longer necessary. Toddst1 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving comment

There was already a Warnings section with the date of your warning so I popped it in there for neatness and to group them together. Please move it back if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Slimm (talk • contribs) 11:41, 25 June 2009

Re. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Michael_herc

Thanks for clarifying, and overall dealing with the matter of the multiple accounts. Thinking about it, I'm sure the user would of probably noted the multiple accounts anyway; they seem to have placed a userbox to that effect on their userpage anyhow. My report may have been unnecessary, but the past is the past. Thanks again. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for third opinion

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.

The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Brooklyn Law School, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to appeal this. I believe the fact that bernard madoff is included in the notable alumni section even though he did not graduate is another example of the so-called tendentious editing. Why is this ok for another user to post this?

Also, I made edits to New York law school's page that were apparently acceptable. These changes reflected the fact that the dean of that law school questioned the school's integrity in charging inflated tuition. In fact, he was quoted in a nationally recognized law journal.

I want to argue that historical data on a school's tuition increases that is documented through credible sources belongs in it's "history" section. I would like for another editor to review my arguments.

Thank you.Berknyc81 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian McKim

The entry I put up for SHECKYmagazine.com has been ajudged to meet notability criteria.

And since Brian McKim is the co-founder/co-editor/co-publisher of SHECKYmagazine.com, I am hoping that a similar judgement be made regarding the entry for "Brian McKim"

I scoped out a few similar entries (standup comics with similar credits, level of experience, etc.) and mine is similar to theirs... in tone, in POV/no POV, in references, etc. And since I don't have an agent or a manager, who is going to write an entry for little old me? (Of course, I'm implying that the others are self-written... or written by agents or managers or publicists-- which doesn't, in my opinion make them any less worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, nor does it make them any more of a press release or does it indicate a conflict of interest that would disqualify them... unless, of course, I am woefully ignorant of the mission and purpose of Wikipedia.

To restate it, many comics of similar notability have perfectly fine entries, but none of the comics profiled have ever started an online magazine about standup that's been around for ten years, interviewed Shelley Berman, Dick Cavett, Mitch Hedberg or Richard Lewis or been profiled in USA Today or the Wall Street Journal... so, I suppose my point is that the notability of the magazine somewhat bolsters the notability of the comedian who started it.

Lemme know if I am barking up the wrong tree.

THanks!

Bmckim (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)]

It's out of my hands at this point. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheckymagazine.com Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Deford, MI and Cass City High School

Hello, I was wondering if it was possible to continue to monitor not only Deford, Michigan but also Cass City High School. I have noticed that both have continued to be allowed to have unreferenced information and also information that has improper references that do not coincide with the information being provided. I have tried to edit the page as well as talk to the user responsible, but to no avail. I have the proper information for both pages as well as the proper sources that are very reputable. Thank you very much. Mrhercli89 (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to be nosey or anything but you seemed to removed 2 templetes that include Cass city high school. why is that? DanRother (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed them because Cass City High School is a Class C high school and this template seems to have been created for Class A high schools. I also removed Bay City All Saints because they are a Class D high school. As I just happened across the page, I noticed that another template was added. I am not sure if that was you, but I'm not sure if that is relevant to this page. Cass City High School is located in Tuscola County, so I'm unsure as to how it could possibly be a part of the Oakland Activities Association, which serves southeast Michigan. Mrhercli89 (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry

I am not sure who is in charge of sock puppetry, but since you have been helping me with issues related to this user, I thought you could help. I have noticed that because user Emily Bernette has been blocked, Avery_player2011 is now editing the same pages that Emily Bernette has been blocked from editing. They seem to be editing the same exact content and both not referencing their sources. Thank you very much for your help. Mrhercli89 (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to file a WP:SPI report. It's pretty easy. Once that's there, I or (even better) another admin can take a look. If you ask for a checkuser, it will be conclusive as that checks the IP address that the user is logging in with. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, never mind. It appears pretty obvious that they're either the same person or working in tandem. Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Template parameters reversed

The block box at User_talk:DoctorBenwayMD reads: "You have been blocked from editing for a period of Cameron Carpenter in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at 24 hours". Rivertorch (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

God bless you for bringing about an end to that farcical situation.--Just James ^T/C 16:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that was a mess that shouldn't have happened. Toddst1 (talk) 16:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Qelknap has also been at it on Computer physician order entry. I think I've cleaned up the problem. Bondegezou (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Some people just can't be bothered to read policy- but it's the ones who do, and just don't care, that are the dangerous ones. Thanks for your action, in keeping wikipedia free of "vigilantes". King ♣ Talk 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, again. There are ongoing problems with problem edits by Qelknap -- on the same pages as before -- and I don't really know the best way forward. Bondegezou (talk) 10:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

But..

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I told J. Delanoy I would stop, AND I told him that this guy was blocked. Other people reverted this guy. Also, J. delanoy told me I woulden't be blocked. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 16:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

EW using rollback is exceptionally uncool. Be glad you're not blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I told you I wouldn't block you. I cannot say what other people will do. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Moving this back to User talk:Andrewrp Toddst1 (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Judging from the revision history of electronic prescribing[70] User:Just James should have consequences similar to those suffered by andrewrp and User:Qelknap- he reverted 14 times just today.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I please...

have rollback back and a block... say about 1 or 2 weeks? Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 16:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ding!

you've got mail :) Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Help

You probably remember the fiasco I got into a month or so ago. You said I could talk to you if I need help. Anyway things have been mostly going well since then but today I filed an ANI which I thought was appropriate and Tan came out of nowhere viciously attacking me and dragging up the discussion on my talk page which was ABSOLUTELY IRRELVANT. I am extremely angry and need assistance. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Hostile_behavior_and_edit_warring Some guy (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Some type of response would be nice. If you don't want to help, that's fine, I'll find someone else, please just let me know. Some guy (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I started to look in to it and ran out of time. I'm hoping maybe to get to it tomorrow and dig a bit deeper. Toddst1 (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I talked to Tan on his talk page and he apologized and said he won't bring it up again. Thanks though. Some guy (talk) 03:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Little secret

I'm going to let you in on a little secret: The tons of information I bring to Wikipedia can be obtained by anyone with Internet access. Willi Gers07 (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Fhue

Just curious, and certainly hold no brief for the chap in question, but I'm fascinated as to why the username is a bad one. As far as I ever knew, fhuE is a gene of E Coli that codes for the FhuE protein. What else does it stand for? Is it rude? I have enough trouble keeping up with the new rude words my kids come up with.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Try "F you." Toddst1 (talk) 00:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No imagination, that's my problem. As soon as you said it.....--Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. You seem to know your genomes though. Toddst1 (talk) 14:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser

It looks like someone isn’t too happy with me. If it isn’t too much trouble, could you check to see if it’s Fhue evading a block? — NRen2k5^(TALK), 00:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't do that - I'm not a checkuser, just an admin. Try WP:SPI Toddst1 (talk) 00:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

about the biography

heitt! this is Noe and this is the second time the i write this biography.the source is at the bottom. ReggNoe Reyes Andrade (talk) 23:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

heitt! take the hint. Toddst1 (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka

Would you mind posting a more specific message at Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s talk page? I don't think he really understands the concept of personal attacks and he certainly doesn't listen to anything I say to him. I don't know how many times I linked WP:NPA for him but I got the impression he never read it. I think it is equally important to explain WP:OWN to him (and why it is an unacceptable behavior) for the same reasons.

Also would you mind looking at Nukes4Tots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) recent contribs (just skim the edit summaries for all of the reverts he's applied recently)? You may ignore the instances in which he has reverted me as we (we not including him) are currently discussing changes to the firearms article structure guidelines (though he did just revert a change I made which followed the existing article structure guidelines I think he may have misunderstood). I think he is also exhibiting clearcut ownership, but I would like your opinion/advice on how to confront the issue. Discussion? ANI? He doesn't listen to me much either, and I've linked WP:OWN a few times which I doubt he's read, so... I don't know, again just looking for your advice. Some guy (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re Koalorka, I'm going to decline as I think the block says it all.

Re Nukes, I'll see if I have time this afternoon. I have a deadline this morning and now that the morning fog has lifted, I need to get to work. Toddst1 (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Koalorka's block does not mention ownership *shrug*. Nukes has been blocked per another ANI due to a serious personal attack I stumbled across while searching his talk page history for a discussion he removed from it. Some guy (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

DataShackle Framework

Re Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DataShackle_Framework, if there was a deletion discussion of another similar article, can't we just speedy it? Where is was the other article (whether or not there was an AfD)? Thanks -  Frank  |  talk  13:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so, but as the prodder and the AFD nominator, I'm not going to initiate a speedy. Toddst1 (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

No need for that. If there is a prior AfD or PROD, just point the way and others can evaluate.  Frank  |  talk  14:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible request for unblock?

Dan729 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who you blocked for harrasment and personal attacks related to his vandalism, seems to be requesting unblock, but does not seem to know how to properly go about it. Just thought I would let you know. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk·contribs) 18:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Fhue

I unblocked him. I don't think this is anywhere near the kind of username where we can't allow them to edit while waiting for renaming to happen. While I totally see the offense and backed up that judgment, I will note that the first several times I saw it, in the list of users requesting unblock, I didn't see anything to be concerned about. Mangojuice^talk 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Was your judgement that much better than my own? Toddst1 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Was yours that much better than the unblocking admin, who set clear instructions (although templated) that the user complied with, different from what you expected, when overturning your block? Did you discuss with Cloudborne before reblocking? Still, yes, I should have discussed with you first; sorry. Mangojuice^talk 22:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

My block wasn't overturned- it was upheld and the editor was given permission assuming good faith to change the username. Reblocking does not require consultation. Editing (other than to request username change) with an inappropriate username is blockable and the block was appropriate. Blocks are preventative - as in preventing editors editing with inappropriate user names. Perhaps it's time for you to review some policy here while you're at it, drop the arrogance! Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if my last statement came off as sarcastic, it wasn't intended that way. I really shouldn't have handled it the way I did; it was rude not to consult you first. But I do think it's necessary to point out that WP:WHEEL does specifically talk about blocking and then reblocking a user after another admin unblocks; this is backed up by Wikipedia:Wheel war/Examples. Also, my understanding of how we handle username change unblocks is based on the wording of the standard response in {{unblock-un}}. Do you think that should be changed? Mangojuice^talk 03:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I've asked for clarification of the situation that led to the reblock on AN. To be sure, I'm not questioning your action on AN - rather, my own. Toddst1 (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:Koalorka

Koalorka is evading his block as anonymous IP Special:Contributions/173.34.97.54, notice he posted on his talk page as himself and has been editing many of the articles he normally edited. Some guy (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've already posted this to ANI...it must be a busy day...
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey, ah, now, I'm trying to de-escalate the situation, and extending the block from 2 more weeks to a month and protecting his talk page for one upset but not that rude comment is just not helping at all here.

There is a serious question as to the degree which Koalorka was provoked into all this - many, many WPMILHIST and WPGUNS contributors are complaining (and have been, for months) that User:Some guy was baiting Koalorka and Nukes4Tots.

Without disagreeing that the current round of initial rude behavior by both was across the WP:CIVIL line - the situation has evolved into serious punishments on two of MILHIST's best contributors and the provocateur getting away with it. This is not helpful.

I strongly urge you to reconsider the escalated response. I've already (prior to seeing this block extension) started a discussion on ANI about the sock block extension. I agree that Koalorka IP editing was not useful, but this is spiraling out of hand, and I think your last reaction here is not helpful or useful. I suggest more ANI discussion and consider retracting the extended block and talk page block. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Civility

Would you be so kind as to explain to me how describing something as "Bollocks" is uncivil? Where I come from, it's a very mild term and absolutely appropriate for the situation. Especially since the message in question was posted on the userpage of someone who happens to agree with me (at least, I would assume so) and not on the talk page of a popular article; ie, you'd have to be looking for something to be offended about to complain about it, IMHO. I also disagree with the action that led to me posting the message was "Well-intended" , but that's not the topic at hand here. At any rate, there's a wider picture here which I'm not sure if you're acquainted with. Commander Zulu (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Bollocks#As_an_obscenity is how I understand it. Disagree with "Well-intended"? WP:AGF much? Toddst1 (talk) 00:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cultural difference; I'm afraid- I was in fact using it in the Bollocks#"Bollocks!" sense; ie "...to annunciate a lie, an incorrect statement, 'an unfair situation, misfortune' or a hiding to nothing, i.e. "what a load of bollocks" or "bollocks, more like". Nothing incivil about it at all. It's a perfectly common employment of the word in the Commonwealth. And like I said, the entire situation is disturbingly complex and I have reason to believe it's not being handled in good faith by at least one party (not necessarily the blocking admin), but I don't want to get into a drawn-out argument with you over it. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"It dismisses a statement as nonsense, similar to "bullshit", but much stronger in its emphasis ". Some guy (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Your point being? Again, I'm entitled to think that something that has happened is bullshit and share that view with the person so affected. The comment is purely in relation to the blocking itself and is not in any way directed at any of the people involved. Commander Zulu (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Fwiw, I think Some guy is agreeing with you and adding for Toddst1's benefit (at least that is the way I read it).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, OK then. Thanks for the support, in that case! :) Commander Zulu (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't want my quotation to be interpreted as agreeing with anyone. Some guy (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears there are plenty of ways to interpret what Zulu said. Toddst1 (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Help please

I feel an administrator is harassing me, Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I admit as always there is the possibilty I am wrong, but he has repeatedly made unsubstantiated claims that "quite a number"/"many" etc unnamed editors take substantial issue with my behavior, disagree with my suggestions for policy changes, and think I am trolling and baiting. And he flat out refuses to provide evidence to back up these claims. I repeatedly told him that I did not appreciate this attitude and I did not like him telling me to go find these supposed complaints instead of pointing them out to me. He has continually refused to back up his claims to the point that I told him I would consider further unsubstantiated claims as harassment; after continued discussion beyond that I told him that I do not want him posting on my talk page any further, but he has continued to do so and is again making claims about "many" editors backing him up.

He has repeatedly suggested he will block me 'indefinitely' if I do not cooperate with him. I feel he is outright threatening me, I see no evidence to back up his claims and I am engaging in no immediately troublesome behavior. Would you please review the problem? Do I have the right to request that he cease talkig to me and if his claims have merit, a different administrator take over discussion with me?

If he is trying to "help" in a manner which I have repeatedly stated I dislike and am getting increasingly offended by, this is clear evidence that his bizzare approach to the subject isn't helpful. I have proved willing to discuss issues with other editors that have brought them up, but I do not want to deal with him specifically at this time.

Georgewilliamherbert is a member of Wikiproject Firearms; it seems to me like he is carrying out some kind of grudge vendetta for the two recntly blocked members of the project by threatening me and claiming some nameless army at his back. I have certainly not exhibited behavior that warrants an indefinite block.

Obviously I am concerned. I have very clearly told him that I do not like his behavior and do not wish to speak to him any further. I have learned enough from past events not to go escalating this to anything formal yet; I would like your advice. Some guy (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Some guy (and Todd, for reference) -

As one hint, one of the otherwise uninvolved WPMILHIST editor comments which I asked you to go look for and find was on my talk page a couple of paragraphs up above what you added just a bit ago.

As another hint, another one was posted by BillCJ. Right near other comments you made elsewhere. Look through his contributions history if you have to, for likely pages. It was a couple of days ago.

As I said - I found a large number of examples of other, not-conflict-involved editors commenting that Some guy is being disruptive or baiting people within a few minutes and few pages of starting to look. I didn't post a pageful of diff links because being able to find and assess this sort of criticism, being aware of when it's happening around you, and right above where you're commenting, is important in interacting on Wikipedia. If you are unable to see that people are criticizing you, right next to where you post, you are not communicating effectively and not aware of the community around you to a sufficient manner.

If you cannot or will not work to make yourself aware of how the community is responding to you, there is a problem. I am trying to lead you to water and let you learn how to find these examples, so that you will know how to look for them yourself going forwards, rather than me spoon feeding you specific criticisms already out there. Because you being aware of these things and being able to find them on your own is important to success in the community.

If you refuse to understand why this is important or cooperate in educating yourself on how to find them, you can appeal to all the people you want, but your career here will likely end around the time you cause your next incident. Even if you convince other administrators I'm somehow involved (I fail to see how - you're as much a firearms project member as anyone who's listed on the page now, from a contributions standpoint, and I have not engaged in the particular policy discussions that started this, nor am I particularly chummy with Koalorka or Nukes4Tots), someone else will have to review the situation, and your role in it will be taken into account.

I am not out to get you. I've spent a couple of hours and thousands of words trying to give you a chance to learn, help you, and work with you to allow you to work with the community in a positive way going forwards today. If all you can see is a conspiracy to do away with you then you are not doing yourself any favors. I'm warning you because you're doing things that have consequences, and it's not fair if you aren't aware of the issues and the consequences.

We can involve however many admins in this as want to get involved. But that doesn't change the underlying situation. You need to make yourself more aware of how you're interacting with people on Wikipedia and how the editors around you perceive that. If you are unable to interact constructively with feedback given to you or about you, and particularly if you remain unaware of it going forwards, you're going to end up in a disaster.

If you just out and out reject this issue, you're doomed. Please don't reject it. I want you to still be here, contributing positively and happily, a year and five years from now. But that depends on your being able to get along with people.

If you are having a problem understanding the issue, please say so. If you don't understand how to look for the feedback, as I said, I can provide diffs tomorrow. But it's important going forwards that you learn how to find it and respond to it yourself. If you just refuse to do that, you are dooming your own Wikipedia participation.

If you care about being here, care about understanding this, and try to engage constructively rather than running away from it. It's important.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

See also: WP:ANI#Some guy Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a heads up

I've changed the full protection on User talk:PirateSmackK to expire about six months after the initial protection. He's expressed interest (at simple:User talk:EVula#Flameviper) of being unbanned eventually; so that he can do that without bugging me directly, I've tweaked the protection.

Just a courtesy heads up, since you're the one that applied the original protection. If you disagree, feel free to reverse it; I won't lose any sleep over it. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff. Thanks for the heads up. Toddst1 (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Block of PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs) and Mauricy (talk · contribs)

Hi, I noticed your blocks of the above users and have to say that I don't agree with either block. I'm not saying either party was innocent as neither appears to have initiated discussion on the others talk page, however I don't think blocking is productive in this situation. The editors involved should have been encouraged to discuss the issue which cannot be done right now. Hitting each user with a block does nothing to resolve the issue and only defers it. Nev1 (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you have a right to disagree. However with PeeJay2K3's block log and the recent history with one of the more wide-ranging edit wars I've seen, I was wondering if I should have blocked the editor for a week or more, rather than if it was appropriate. I have no doubt that it was appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Addressing the symptoms will not make the problem go away. Unless discussion is encouraged this will probably just crop up again. Nev1 (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you've convinced me. I agree that this problem will probably just crop up again. There have been plenty of blocks for edit warring here. Time to move towards indef. Toddst1 (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm genuinely taken aback by that reply and your apparent disregard for editors. I'm no longer surprised that you didn't try reasoning with either party. Nev1 (talk) 00:24, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on. It's not as if PeeJay2K3 didn't know what an edit war was. It's pretty damn obvious that edit warring is a chronic problem for that editor. Toddst1 (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So why didn't you ask him to stop first and give him a chance to explain the situation? There's no need to be so fast to hand out blocks. PeeJay claims to be working within consensus, these claims should be examined, ie: where was the consensus reached. I don't think you've looked into this situation in enough depth. And neither did I as I was mistaken in saying PeeJay hadn't contacted Mauricy [71]; Mauricy did not engage in discussion and was warned again and subsequently ignored that too. Nev1 (talk) 00:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel that strongly, you are free to step in, unblock and mediate the situation. Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I went to leave a note to the effect of my previous comment on PJ's page, but see you've taken this there. I have retracted mind my previous comment. Toddst1 (talk) 00:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't notice the above comment before I unblocked both users per you granting me permission to mediate. Nev1 (talk) 01:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. That's what I get for changing my mind. Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Response

Hi there TODD, VASCO from Portugal here,

Regarding your message, i'll only say the following: Bruninho chose to edit at EN.WIKI even though he has very little knowledge of English, i did not force him to choose at which WIKI to edit in. As he has had several quarrels with several other editors on his sole field of editing, football, i often tried to lend a hand, and so write in his/my mother tongue, as simple as that.

For more details/confirmation of this message, please check this investigation, and also address to User:PeeJay2K3, User:JonBroxton and user/admin User:EdJohnston. Either way, i'll post another (more thorough i hope) message to BRUNINHO.

All for the moment, have a nice weekend,

VASCO AMARAL - --NothingButAGoodNothing (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Actuary

I understand why you deleted the link. I looked at it quickly, and didn't disagree. But I see it has been added back (with an explanation). I looked at it closer, and think it is an acceptable addition. I first thought it was a personal website, largely talking about the author's experiences therefore questionable. While some sections do talk about the author's experiences, they constitute a minority of the overall website,m which does have decent and relevant information for someone interested in the actuarial field. --SPhilbrickT 19:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Glendale / Armenians

Thanks, Todd. That editor has been driving me nuts for several days. Appreciate the protection. --Manway (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me know if our armenian gang-banger pops up again and extension needs to be extended. Toddst1 (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Financial training

Financial training (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested on unblock-en-l to be allowed to create a new account or be unblocked to change their name to a suitable name for editing. I am inclined to do so as they have been counseled regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. It remains to be seen whether they will actually edit anything other than an article about their own business, but I am willing to assume good faith based on our email correspondence. If you look at their contributions, you will see they did, before they were blocked do some editing [72]. Fred Talk 10:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, but it looks like they have withdrawn the unblock request. Toddst1 (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

They are asking on the mailing list unblock-en-l. I have created Joanna Smith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for her to use. Thank you for your patience. Fred Talk 18:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Toddst1 (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Race condition on Saaqib Shabbir‎

Looks like I tagged this article for speedy deletion at almost exactly the same time you deleted it. As a result it returned from the dead. Could you put it out of its misery once more please? Thanks in advance! Favonian (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Done. Toddst1 (talk) 14:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No idiocy thanks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Do you not consider that the phrase "extremely biased of Wikipedia to even mention Uruguay's recognition of Homosexual relations as legitimate" is bigoted soapboxing at its worst, and not an attempt at discussion. Therefore your template on my page is idiotic, kindly think in future. O Fenian (talk) 01:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Read that, and apologise some time soon. O Fenian (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is out of bounds and uncalled for. Please read the link before issuing warnings. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Homer, It appears you are not fully grasping the issues here. There are two points. I'm taking this discussion back to where it started (and belongs) on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 02:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Poor Man's Talkback Notice

Please see here for a couple responses to your post. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

78.180.217.154 (talk · contribs)

Do you have a suggestion for better handling of cases like this before reporting to AIV? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That's a tough one - just clear unlilateral ownership of the article. It was clear that the editor was being disruptive and not listening to anything you said. I blocked for EW without a formal warning for such, however I feel it was entirely appropriate. I think either there or ANI, but ANI seems to be overkill.

Besides, you're such a greek who hates turks. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

"Gerald Flurry" page deletion

Toddst1,

While I understand your supposition that this page is a "biography," it has clearly all been written from the attack standpoint. "Biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone." Most of this isn't even about Gerald Flurry, and a lot of it is factually wrong. I will make edits to it as you propose, but understand that writing a neutral version will probably bring back the same writers that vandalized the entry in the first place.

Wikiwikiwaki (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gene Ray Wisest Human

Why did you delete this? The reason for deletion doesn't fit the page, as it isn't the userpage. Did you delete the wrong page?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I screwed up. Glad you caught it. I meant to delete the user page as the whole thing is a moot point. I always screw it up when I close those things, but it seems the discussion is not necessary at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 00:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't it clarified that indef blocked user is not a CSD criterion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It's commonly done. Especially in a situation like this where it was (previously) contentious. In either case, it seems speedy close is in order. Toddst1 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the MfD is moot, following the ANI discussion and block. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

May I check your understanding (I think your finger tips were getting ahead of you).

• Deletion of userpages of indef blocked users (especially trolls/other disruptive editors) "commonly happens"?
• Deletion of indef blocked user talk pages, although once common, is contentious, and is no longer done routinely?

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

That's about right. Toddst1 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Axiom CMS

Hello Toddst1, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Axiom CMS has been removed. It was removed by Ncb000gt with the following edit summary '(Remove "deletion" status, see discussion page.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Ncb000gt before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 16:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Courtesy notification

An article you have edited, Nabil Abou-Harb, is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nabil Abou-Harb (2nd nomination). MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of page

Sorry, could you help me about that:

I thought I was following good practices described in [73] (as for term Futura_International_Airways.

"Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. . The scope of their activities is national or international in scale.
2. . Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.)"

Highbury GROUP is a lessor company and provides aircrafts to many companys (It was a lessor for Futura), I was searching more information to complete the page. Maybe should I saved it as a draft?

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luiscmas (talk • contribs) 09:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I've restored the article to User:Luiscmas/Sandbox where you can work on it as a draft before moving back into article space.

The article was deleted because it didn't meet the primary criteria for being notable - that is, "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.". I recommend you find some reliable sources for the article and cite them using footnotes. Then there won't be any question of notability.

You should probably familiarize yourself with WP:COI and WP:Advert before you go too far though.

I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind?

It's up on AIV, but block evasion seems to take a while to get dealt with. 81.151.165.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is him again, I will create a long term abuse report later. O Fenian (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No prob. We need that WP:LTA. Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MediaCurves

C'mon, you know you have something to say. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of MediaCurves

Hi, You had suggested the deletion of a page I wrote on MediaCurves.com because you felt I am attempting to promote the company. I just wanted to clarify this. I am not an interning for this company. While I can see how you inferred this from my username, I worked as an unpaid intern for my Uncle, who runs a small private consulting firm. If you would like me to send proof, I would be happy to email my resume over to you. I am interested in writing a MediaCurves page because I am a psychology major and am highly interested in psychometric tests, such as the curve assessments that this company does. This type of measurement could be used in many fields, especially psychology, for research on emotional responses to visual stimuli. Also, I realize there are citation error in what I wrote and would like to be given some time to fix them. Many of them are due to the fact that I had not realized the descriptions from these sources had been submitted by MediaCurves themselves (since I don't work there, I had no way of knowing what they wrote versus what someone else wrote). If you could allow me a few days to fix the citations it would be much appreciated. Thanks. --Bentheintern (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Ben

hello

you seem to be promoting spam for rapid suppression, this is hipocritical of your policies, we think you should refrain from this in futur as the possibility of this occuring to you personally is increased

if you would first explain your actions, as the reason discribed does not seem sufficient as it genrally only has two words.

before your first action, you should acknoledge when and where our behavior was concerning! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.133.183.28 (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding BQ

See also: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ThreeE, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Grandma Dottie/Archive, and Talk:BQ

I will happily admit to the person putting the term on there. It is no less notable than the other terms on there. It should also be noted that, IMNSHO, the user in question is a sockpuppet account of User:ThreeE or a meatpuppet of the same user. Since Wikipedia makes no distinction between the two, I won't either. There is an ongoing problem with this disambiguation page as "new" accounts "seem" to repeatedly make it their first edit. Conversely, others have made the bare minimum number of edits to not be "new" users, waited the requisite four days, and then made changes to the same page. There is an ongoing sockpuppetry case regarding these "users" (and I use that term loosely as it appears it clearly is the same person...)

As for the term "Band Queer" itself, it was once considered derogatory toward Aggie band members, but is now quite complimentary and band members take no offense at it (please see the BQ talk page for lots more information). As for it being unsourced, I have provided a number of sources for anyone to pick from and no one has yet seen fit to pick a source or sources. Moreover, disambiguation pages generally don't include sources as they are simply forks in the road leading people to the actual articles.

Given this person's penchant for disruptive behavior and stated intent to circumvent blocks for sockpuppetry, I request that the block be reinstated for User:Cokea. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Too bad about the sockpuppetry. It looks like it's taken care of though. Glad that was caught.

On the other topic, I've opened a discussion on Talk:List_of_Texas_Aggie_terms about the term itself. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Cokea

Cokea (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

SPI confirmed probable sock, as I had originally reported, and he was re-blocked. Much less of an issue now, though, since the one page he edits has been semi-protected. You just never know what specific article a troll or vandal will latch onto. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I guess you already knew all this. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw that, and it's unfortunate. However the edit he/she was making and edit warring over is one that I believe needed to be made because of Wikipedia:Disambiguation_page#What_not_to_include. I've reinstated the edit with explanation. Toddst1 (talk) 23:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The user object to BQ standing for "band queer". Now that you've removed that entry altogether, you might as well unprotect the page, since the sock won. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody wins. Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the sock won. It argued that "band queer" was offensive [74] and it finally won after being reverted and blocked a number of times under different guises. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The puppet was using the link issue as a pretext. His real objection (also reiterated by Cokea, among others) is that "band queer" is an objectionable term. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you're not going to bend on this one, so I went ahead and requested unprotection of the page, since the sock got what he wanted and it's unlikely he'll be back at that page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I stepped out for a sec. I'll be glad to unprotect. Toddst1 (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Already done, and you might as well unblock all those socks while you're at it, since they had one issue, and they won, and probably won't be back anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, leave them blocked. If User:BQZip01 decides to write a page on the matter, the sock might slither back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Tatars and 195.210.193.xxx

Hi - thanks for protecting Tatars.

You commented on WP:AIV that my report about the IPs was "unactionable" - is that as on that page, or in general? Can such IPs be considered sock puppets of each other? I'd like to know the best way to deal with it, in case the IP comes back after the protection ends.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they're sockpuppets. LessHeard vanU had commented that this should be brought to WP:SPI. SPI's require a bit more investigation that WP:AIV. Keep up the good work. Toddst1 (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Alas I was too busy after I posted the message to act on LessHeard vanU's advice; I thought I'd ask you as you'd probably looked into the case more given you protected the page. CheersVsevolodKrolikov (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. When the protection expires, if there's still a problem, I'll be glad to extend protection if I'm around. Let me know. Toddst1 (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

BQ

You should not have edited this page. BQ is BQZip01's page. Leave his entry alone. Circular references, OWN, and what Wiki is not do not apply to this page. This page is one of his many marks of self promotion and is not to be messed with. A quick look at the history of this page, and the owning editors history should make you aware that he never gives up. I would recommend that you admin somewhere else, at best he will 'compromise' with you and let you pick one of his two solutions that he will offer. You may be distracted by all sorts of truths and nonsense from him(Panic, SPI, End of the world, etc) but in the end BQZip01 will have the last word on this page. Please move on. Muscle I am (talk) 01:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I found the following in the history. I would say that this makes the entry noteworthy and encyclopedic. Possibly a new article could be written around this, would be great for DYK or featured content:

"BQ" was originally a term stamped on a cadet's file folder. It stood for "Band Qualified" at that time (the converse of that was "CT" which stood for "Cadet in Training"). Cadets' files were not stamped with both, so the distinction served as a point of contention between cadets. Soon, the cadets came up with nicknames for the others. Cadets not in the band were called Corps Turds and the band members were called Band Queers. Both sides soon simply took pride in these nicknames and called themselves those very things. Take your pick of the websites that back this up and will be sufficient for you since the one provided does not meet your personal standards.

Screw policy, guidelines and standards, this is important stuff! Muscle I am (talk) 01:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Andyj...

Andyjsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

...did he really just move his entire Talkpage and its history to an archive, then get someone to delete it? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That isn't allowed last time I checked, someone should undelete it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I looked before I deleted it as it didn't seem right, but didn't find any prescription against doing so. However, since it does seem like there should be a record of conversations - especially around blocking, I've restored it. Thanks for bringing it back to my attention. I've restored it and removed the speedy tag. Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Pot

Hello! When addressing vandalism for which you haven't seen a diff, please consult the page's revision history to determine whether the inappropriate text was inserted in place of appropriate text. In this instance, links to three of the most common meanings of the disambiguated term were vandalised, and you removed these items instead of reverting. (They remained missing until I just noticed.) Thanks! —David Levy 19:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

I noticed that you have posted comments to the page User talk:92.143.4.107 in a language other than English. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. Anyway, it was a private conversation between two french speaking users about an account creation on WP:FR that did not requested translation, because it was related to a previous conversation and because it was private. I don't know (and don't really want to know) about WP:EN rules, and I prefer the french rules : when some user writes in any language in any page except for the main pages, we try as we can to understand him and to answer in his language. Olivier Hammam (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. As it is written in the Good practices section of the quideline, for the « Use English » recommandation : « No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments ». So, translations in a talk page is not a rule. If I wrote in a common talk page (articles, wikipedia, help, etc.) I certainly did it in english (as it can be said that I write in english ) ; it was an user's talk page and as long as this user can read me, it's enough.

It is also said in this recommandation that « if you are requested to do so and cannot, you should either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy ». I'm requested, as it appears, but I don't think that this private discussion needs to be translated. If you really want it, please find somebody to do it. Kind regards. Olivier Hammam (talk) 05:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Fiber One bars Non-notable?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Why did you remove three links with signicant coverage and then label it as non-notable? I re-added the links as external links since I can't reword them good enough. Joe Chill (talk) 04:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Try finding a WP:RS. Those were pretty darn flimsy sources inserted in a very spammy context. Let's hope there's no WP:COI there. Toddst1 (talk) 04:42, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That's your pretty darn opinion. I think that they are reliable. Joe Chill (talk) 04:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And how are self-published sources reliable? Have you read WP:RS? Toddst1 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

They aren't self-published. There is more than one writer on each site. Joe Chill (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:RS. Toddst1 (talk) 04:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a very long time ago. I just have a different opinion than you which is common on this site. How are they self-published? Joe Chill (talk) 04:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Take this to the article talk page please. Toddst1 (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sockpuppetry

You have been accused of sockpuppetry by User:Gasp2009. Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz‎. Thank you, MuZemike 06:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Mount Hermon ski resort

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hey I noticed you protected Mount Hermon ski resort. I understand why you did this but if you check the edit summary, it is purely User:Fipplet engaging in edit warring because he is committed to this uneccesary "Israeli" in the lead paragraph. Everyone else is just reverting. User:Supreme Deliciousness and I agreed on the talk page that Fipplet's addition of the word was confrontational and innapropriate and frankly the only difficulty is Fipplet's persistent reverting of consensus. Could you please consider unprotecting the page or moving the word "Israeli" yourself per consensus AreaControl (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a discussion on the talk page but no consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but you have protected the version with the unilateral change. The previous wording had stood for a long time and the version now protected is the one with this word "Israeli" added. Fipplet should have discussed the addition first but did not do so. AreaControl (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

All article protections preserve the wrong version. Toddst1 (talk) 13:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are right to cite that link, the point is the previous version has been there for a good while and if you view our page on Golan Heights it will become clear that to cite the location as Israeli is somewhat politically sensitive. I personally do not believe the article should say either Israeli or Syrian as both would constitute an innapropriate attempt to explain a complex territorial dispute in an article about a ski resort which is clearly a ridiculous idea! AreaControl (talk) 13:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Take it to Talk:Mount Hermon ski resort and seek consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Blast Theory UK

Blast Theory UK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has requested either a new user name or a change of name on unblock-en-l. I am inclined to grant his request. He has been counseled regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. His new user name is jjhunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I will monitor his editing activity closely. Fred Talk 00:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 04:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Warning Runtshit?!

Really? You think Runtshit needs to have a full set of warnings before blocking?! If you're not familiar with a specified abuse filter, that's fine - just leave it for another admin then. Wknight94 ^talk 14:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

user:Gasp2009

You have blocked this user as a sockpuppet, but checkuser evidence does not cofirm this status. It appears that some of the initiative for the block was generated by user:Abductive who is in my personal view not above suspicion. He has been here under this name for only a short time, and his first three edits were WP:AfD nominations, which is not the behaviour of a newbie. Gasp does show a suspicious editing pattern, so I have not unblocked, but of course interpretation of editing patterns is always subjective. I see that you are away for a couple of days; would you like to consider this block when you next log in? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Addressed on gasp's talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Accidental Sockpuppet

I accidentally made a sockpuppet User:Divod3 before I knew it was against the rules. It is not User:Multiplyperfect's fault. Please don't block me for it, it was a mistake and I pledge not to do it again. Thanks! Divod (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblocked after I realized this guy was still incorrectly tagged as a sock of Multiplyperfect. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

FYI...

...I am not HalfShadow, although he seems to shadow me, at least half the time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Bugs, you're fine. Toddst1 (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood. So where do I pay that fine? I tried putting a dollar bill into this little slot in my PC, but it was rejected. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. You frequently think I'm upset with you or somesuch. Frankly, I sort of like you. We may disagree from time to time, but that's ok. Toddst1 (talk) 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I get it. Duh. A play on words: Your fine, vs you're fine. ... Toddst1 (talk) 17:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

On one page today, I asked a lazy question and HalfShadow posted a link that answered it and then pointed out that I hadn't bothered to look in the obvious place. I suppose a sock might post an entry that would make his puppetmaster look like an idiot, but probably not too often. :) I don't think you're upset with me, although today I'm working on fixing that. :) I made a reference a week or two ago about someone thinking I was a jerk. That wasn't you I was referring to, it was Tanthalas. But he and I have not had any cross words for months, which is puzzling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I see where HalfShadow thought I was your sockpuppet. I guess that explains why I ran for admin, while already having adminship under your account. One can't have too many adminships, eh? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

And speaking of being slow, I finally figured out that it's the two Hubbard activists that you were referring to. Life is so confusing when you're a narcissist. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? He's a dummy; I can't do a thing with him. Or me. Us? HalfShadow 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

You guys are having way too much fun. Toddst1 (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Case of sockpuppetry?

I saw the latest undid revision you did on Gretchen Carlson’s article. I absolutely agree with your reasoning on that. With that in mind, I do want to bring these to your attention.

These four edits were done by user GoodKingJohn (talk · contribs). A. [[75]] B. [[76]] C. [[77]] D. [[78]]

These three were done by user Paneranow (talk · contribs). E. [[79]] F. [[80]] G. [[81]]

There are more of these similar edits as well, but I didn’t want to list them all, and I’m sure by know you got the idea of what I’m trying to say. I have my own opinions about this situation. But considering you’re the administrator, it’s best you make the final judgment call on this. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Britt Allcroft Productions

Hello, Toddst1 … FYI, Britt Allcroft Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which you speedy deleted a few hours ago, has been recreated. <Sigh!> Happy Editing! — 141.156.175.125 (talk · contribs) _{18:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)}

Autosock?

How is User:Andyjoe7and8 a sock of User:Andyjoe7and8? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Better? Toddst1 (talk) 17:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Christopher Chadbourne & Associates

Would you mind deleting it again? Thanks Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 18:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Scientology socks

Turns out that it was DavidYork71 ... oh brother. Blueboy96 19:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

IP Blocking

Hi, just opened a new window and forgot to log in again. Discovered this when I tried to edit: "Editing from 85.12.64.148 (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Toddst1 for the following reason(s): Vandalism: persistent anti-norway POV disruption." Not sure what the procedure is so I thought I'd tell you that this is a public computer (specifically, in a library). Just thought I'd tell you in case this means something has to be done about this IP address. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Take a look at User talk:85.12.64.148 for details. If you can add better info to the {{sharedip}} template (like the name of the library), it would be helpful. Toddst1 (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Not exactly sure where to add the information, but the name of the library is Barton-le-Clay, part of Central Bedfordshire Libraries. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, what exactly did they do? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

You can see for yourself: Special:Contributions/85.12.64.148. Everyone's contributions here are public. Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I keep forgetting about that. Question: since it's a library, wouldn't Template:Schoolblock be a better block notice? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Done. I added information about "a library" since I don't know which one. Toddst1 (talk) 14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed (you started making edits before I logged on and I got the New Messages banner). And look up: "the name of the library is Barton-le-Clay, part of Central Bedfordshire Libraries." --Thejadefalcon (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 14:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Just a question, but how do you get what you typed into the edit summary? Do you just copy-paste it, or is there some special program that does it for you? --Thejadefalcon (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, two ways, depending on what I'm doing:

• Probably what you're referring to is literally just cut/pasteing for things like adding the fields for {{schoolip}} etc.
• I also use two packages called WP:TW and WP:Friendly which are really useful. Looking at your edits, I think you'd benefit from using them as well. Check them out.

On a separate note, in reading your user page it appears that you typically connect through public internet access and that your main source is the problematic library. You seem to be a very responsible editor who appears to be using rollback well. Given all that, I've amended your user rights so that you are now exempt from IP blocks. That means if someone puts an autoblock on an IP address you are using, you shouldn't run afoul of it. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 14:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh? I haven't had any problems logging in in... well, ever. Or is there a block that even blocks registers users at an IP address? Thanks anyway. As for my access, I'm hoping to get broadband of my own within a few weeks anyway. --Thejadefalcon (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

I've been warning the anon for weeks and reverting their persistent harmful edits along with User:Preslav. It's not like I'm not aware what 3RR is and I was the one asking for admin assistance in the first place :) Todor→Bozhinov 16:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with my first Wikipedia posting - Importance of posting issue

My attempt to post: "Tom's Diner, Hyco Corner, Mathews, Virginia" is about a person that prepared some of the best food that the people in the small county of Mathews could buy in the mid-1950 to 1962 time period. The food was prepared in his home kitchen and served and sold in his small diner. His home kitchen passed the local healty department inspection so that food cooked there could be sold in his diner.

I have just sent a request to www.gazettejournal.net (Gazette - Journal Newspaper) the local newspaper.

I just received their reply from: "Elsa Verbyla" <everbyla@gazettejournal.net>.

"Hi Jim

Please give me a couple of days. I believe there is a good photo which you may use, giving us credit.

Thanks Elsa"

If you must delete my current posting attempt, with the aid of your suggestions maybe I could submit a revised version when I receive information from the local newspaper.

Thanks for your help.

Jim0js (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Oh, a template! What a great way to smack me down! Essentially you're saying: "You are completely in the wrong, and everyone who's smacked you down is completely in the right." What a great message to send. Thank you. May I have another? Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Tanks a lot... :)

Thank you for helping protent my homepage from Hermanthegerman66's vamdalism - take care... Dinkytown (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Pokerdance's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Can you help me to revert the edit from recent vandal?

The page that I'm asking yourt help is located at Institut Teknologi Bandung, please revert all KuliahKilat contribution... FYI, I'm somehow can't revert it... sigh... Thanks in advance. Ivan Akira (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, never mind. I'm already reverted the edit manually... It's such tiring work for me. Another important request is can you delete Universitas Indonesia Online, because there the page is only copy-paste version from University of Indonesia and of course with his/her vandal too. Ivan Akira (talk) 03:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

User:65.103.28.57

Thank you for responding to my vandalism report concerning User:65.103.28.57. While I realize that IP addresses are sometimes shared, the tone and content of the edits to the Rod Blagojevich article and the two instances of harassing notes left on my UserPage lead me to believe that the same person was at fault, which is what prompted my report to AIV. --TommyBoy (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Entry: Wayne A. Cornelius

Hi Toddst1,

I'm the initial author of the entry for Wayne A. Cornelius, and you sent me a note to try to help me improve the article. There are some very helpful suggestions, so I'm very appreciative. However, there is also an incorrect presumption that my entry was autobiographical, which is not the case. As a fellow academic specializing in Mexican and immigration studies, I'm familiar with Dr. Cornelius' work; however, we are not one and the same. That said, the article does draw from the subject's web-based biographical information posted here:

http://polisci.ucsd.edu/faculty/cornelius.htm

This may have influenced the advertisement like tone of the entry. I will make some additional edits to correct this, but I wanted to especially clarify that I am not the subject. I'm not sure how to make that more clear?

Thanks!

TheActionMan (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greensprings School

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at RadioFan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• its back, and without much improvement. Still 1st person tone, still spammy.--RadioFan (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Tarix

It'd be nice to stop deleting Tarix I had added a template that was supposed to mean under construction. I'm disputing the deletion on the talk page. Here's the template I had put on it.

{{underconstruction}} Actually it's this. Tarix of Tajun (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why are you putting it on my page? Tarix of Tajun (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You'd do a lot better if you wrote the article in your private sandbox. As a courtesy, I've restored it there so you can get it to the point where it will be able to stand on its own in the article space. Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Complete Genomics‎

Thanks for cleaning this article up, rather than deleting it. Looking at the sources, it likely does meet notability requirements. I just get so annoyed when I see spam/copyright violations that my cursor goes right for the Twinkle "CSD" tab. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 19:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It doesn't help that the creator remove the CSD tag. It also appears to have been created by someone on their marketing staff. Toddst1 (talk) 19:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Second opinion

Could I persuade you to have a look at the multiple additions of external links to a music site performed by Bluejackal06? I (and other editor before me) have warned him about this, but now he has dropped me a note on my talk page, claiming that the links are in order. Personally, I think the links are in violation of WP:EL, but I would really like a second opinion. Regards, Favonian (talk) 20:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Pretty clearly a SPA to promote one website. It has been dealt with. Toddst1 (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

TODD... HELP!

This is Christopher X. Brodeur (who is pretty tech-ignorant) writing to beg someone anyone for help. An administrator (rich fife) has been vandalizing my page and is very evasive and dishonest when I ask him about his bizarre actions.

EX: he allows UNSOURCED smears about me (ex: 'the chronically-unemployed Brodeur"---I've held the same job for 10 years now!) (he let that one stay for months!) (EX: "All of his arrests were for graphic threats of violence"---totally false and NO SOURCES!!)

EX: he removes SOURCED material about me that makes the Republican machine look bad. (I'm on the record exposing crimes by both Democrats and Republicans, so no one can doubt my fairness.) (EX: my humiliation in May 2004 of the bogus 9/11 Commission and Giuliani couldn't be MORE sourced! All major news organizations wrote it up and there are photos and videos all over the web of it!!!)

HELP!!!!

It appears you Page Protected the page about me but left all of Rich and friend's smears and distortions! (Ex: I was on the BALLOT as mayor but he keeps the "write-in" to mislead the reader into thinking I wasn't a legit candidate!)

HELP!

Thanks for any consideration.

EmpireGoodness@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.34.126 (talk) 17:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1, thank you for your assistance. - Richfife (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with the edits and the result. One quick question on removal of the parts about jail time: Is the issue there lack of notability of the event, or reliability of Gothamist as a source? Thanks again! - Richfife (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It was a weak source by my observation. I'm glad for it to go back in if we can get something better. Toddst1 (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! If I find something, I'll run it by you first. - Richfife (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Talk:Maximilien Robespierre

Administrator Toddst1: I thank you for your note left on my talk page and, although I have no choice but abide by your decision, I would like to make a couple of remarks on this dispute:

1. 28 April 2009, a certain Laura wrote the following on Robespierre talk page:

"What date exactly was Maximilien Robespierre elected Estates General If anyone know the answer can you please reply o this post. Thank you. Laura"

unsigned comment added by 58.165.32.183 (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

2. 28 April 2009, I left the following answer for Laura:

Laura, you could read the article... at least the section *Early politics* & find your answer. As a gift, here is the exact answer found in French wikipedia. Hope you can read French!

Imprégné des idées idéalistes des philosophes du XVIIIe siècle, notamment de Rousseau, il participa à la vie politique dans sa province à la veille de la Révolution, faisant paraître un mémoire intitulé À la Nation artésienne, sur la nécessité de réformer les États d'Artois. Puis, appuyé par sa famille et ses amis, il se porta candidat à la représentation du Tiers état aux États généraux ; la corporation des savetiers mineurs, la plus pauvre mais la plus nombreuse, lui confia la rédaction de leur cahier de doléances le 25 mars 1789[24].

Élu le 26 avril 1789 parmi les huit députés du Tiers état de l’Artois, il se rendit à Versailles, où il s'installa avec trois collègues, cultivateurs, à l'hôtellerie du Renard, rue Sainte-Elisabeth.

Voilà! Frania W. (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please notice my answer to Laura in the (now added) bolded type, which was Laura, you could read the article... at least the section *Early politics* & find your answer.

a) It seems to me that this proves that I did not give the answer to Laura, but directed her to the part of the article related to her question.

b) Next, in jest, I offered a "gift" to Laura in French - a few lines out of the article in French Wikipedia. Now, if this can be construed as "encouraging laziness", I don't see it that way as if Laura really wanted/needed the information, she would have to first translate from the French, which in itself would not be an act of "laziness".

3. Below is the chronology of the edit war with two unidentified IPs users:

27 JUL 2009, an anonymous person who did not sign (IP 174.6.256.254) deleted the discussion with no explanation.

27 JUL 2009, discussion put back.

31 JUL 2009, IP 174.6.256.254 again without identifying him/herself deleted the discussion leaving the comment: *Why is there vague questions in the talk page? Unnecessary.*

31 JUL 2009, another reader put the discussion back with the comment: *rv; please don't delete discussion*

02 AUG 2009, IP 174.6.256.254 left an unsigned comment on talk page & deleted discussion with Laura.

02 AUG 2009, Frania W. put discussion back & left a msg to "Whoever keeps on removing the above *Question/Answer* & never signs his/her name" explaining why I believed my answer to Laura was not, or should not be considered against Wikipedia policy.

03 AUG 2009, new revert by IP 174.6.256.254 who deleted the entire discussion, except for his/her own unsigned comment.

03 AUG 2009, revert deletion by a reader.

04 AUG 2009, IP 142.58.252.240 deleted discussion, except for his/her own unsigned comment.

04 AUG 2009, Frania W. reverted previous revert

04 AUG 2009, IP 142.58.252.240 deleted discussion, leaving one of my comments + his/her own signed w/IP# comment.

05 AUG 2009, a reader put discussion back on page.

05 AUG 2009, I left the following on talk page, purposely in CAPS to make the demand obvious:

TO THOSE (174.6.26.254 & 142.58.252.240) WHO KEEP ON REVERTING THIS SECTION AND TO ANY OTHER WHO MAY DECIDE TO DO SO:

If you have a problem with the QUESTION asked and the ANSWER given, please STOP reverting and BRING YOU COMPLAINT TO AN ADMINISTRATOR. Frania W. (talk) 04:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

05 AUG 2009, a reader left a comment agreeing with what I had written.

05 AUG 2009, IP 142.58.252.240 deleted the whole Question/Answer section.

05 AUG 2009, a reader reverted put the section back.

05 AUG 2009, I left the following in Q/A section, again in CAPS in order to keep it obvious:

TO 174.6.26.254 & 142.58.252.240 : AFTER SUGGESTION IS GIVEN TO SUBMIT YOUR COMPLAINT TO A WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTRATOR, THAT IS THE NEXT STEP FOR YOU TO TAKE, NOT REVERTING. Frania W. (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

06 AUG 2009, IP 174.6.26.254 reverted whole Q/A section.

06 AUG 2009, a reader put it back.

09 AUG 2009, IP 174.6.26.254 deleted the whole Q/A section with explicative word *Spamming*

09 AUG 2009, Frania W. reverted previous (calling it VANDALISM).

09 AUG 2009, IP 174.6.26.254 deleted the whole Q/A section.

09 AUG 2009, a reader reverted previous revert, putting the whole Q/A section back.

10 AUG 2009, IP 174.6.26.254 deleted whole Q/A section with explicative note:

(This is a general question; general questions should go to the desk and not discussion pages. This encourages people to not read the articles, and instead just ask questions in the discussion page.)

10 AUG 2009, Frania W. reverted previous revert with note:

Do not delete sections of discussion/Discuss on discussion page/Take your complaint to a Wiki Administrator)

10 AUG 2009, IP 174.6.26.254 deleted whole Q/A section with explicative note:

(General questions should go to the help desk, not in the discussion section. The answer for the question was in the article, and answering this permits laziness. Author is emotional and not objective)

10 AUG 2009, a reader reverted previous revert, putting the whole Q/A section back.

11 AUG 2009, IP 142.58.252.240, deleted whole Q/A section with explicative note:

General questions are meant to be directed to the help desk, not the discussion page. This encouarges laziness and the person didnt even read the article.)

11 AUG 2009, a reader reverted previous revert (Vandalism), putting the whole Q/A section back.

11 AUG 2009, AdministratorToddst1 (talk) removed whole Q/A section with this explicative note:

(...administrator intervening: removing misplaced discussion causing edit war. Policy: Wikipedia:Forum#FORUM)

And this is where things stand now.

However, before signing off, I would like to share with you the unsigned message left on my talk page on 10 August by 174.6.26.254 (talk) and again reiterate the fact that I did not answer the student question, but directed her to the English Wikipedia article & added a paragraph in French, which I was pretty sure she probably could not read.

I also would like for you to note that in none of my comments have I ever been rude: my use of CAPS and BOLD letters were only to give my comments a sense of what should be done by the two anonymous IPs instead of reverting.

Regards, Frania W. (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

4. Below is IP 174.6.26.254 msg to me:

Emotional

Stop reverting the Robespierre discussion page.

Your actions are clearly demonstrating you are bias, and against the true nature of wikipedia. You are acting emotional and heating in an inappropriate manner. One does not have to be an admin to change items in an article or discussion page.

Wikipedia is a common encyclopedia, not your own ego-boosting private document.

General questions should go to the help desk as noted in the rules and front page. Your entertaining of a user asking general questions is doing nothing but go against the nature of wikipedia by allowing people to be lazy and not read articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.26.254 (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No Original Research

Come on ... you really thought that his entry of "he put over 80 kids in lockers and gave them all wedgies. One time his coach sat him so he peed on his coach." was original research? This is just vandalism, and he is playing with you when he says its just what he heard from his friends.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't go through all of them. Toddst1 (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Was hoping that was the answer.  ;) Really, though, two juvenile edits-followed by a warning--followed by three more ... with four of them to bios of living persons. And no block? Doesn't make sense.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked at 03:17. Toddst1 (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Whew. Tx! My faith restored.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm slow when I'm multi-tasking, and am likely to miss stuff as in this case. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 03:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Tx. BTW, do you have a view as to an editor deleting all birthplaces from text of bios, just because it is reflected in the infobox?--Epeefleche (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Please keep in mind, as I've told Epeefleche repeatedly, I'm only deleting instances of the birthplace when it's placed alongside the birthdate at the start of the article, in order to conform to the MOS. It's not "because it is reflected in the infobox." GreenLocust (talk) 07:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This is true -- Green is deleting the reference to place of birth there, and not re-inserting the reference later within the text of the article. Though I gather from what he is saying here that where reference to the place of birth appears twice -- once within the text of the article later than the reference to date of birth, and once in the infobox, he allows both of those reflections of place of birth remain.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

hey why do u delete Slim Saf

he is an underground rapper in egypt tell me what can i do to make his page exist ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samakmak (talk • contribs) 14:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

hello

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hate to take your time. I have to ask the specific actions that could get me into trouble. I'm having a problem with the user:DIREKTOR who seems to think that blogs are a good source for wikipedia.Rex Dominator (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I haven't taken a deep look at the situation you're involved in, but based on the conversation that was posted on ANI, I wanted you to be aware that you can be blocked and/or otherwise restricted based on ANY observed disruption. You're relatively new here and we have a long history of partisan activity (and disruption) around Balkan-related articles and we have adopted a policy to take quick and decisive action. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 16:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

One simple question: Why EdJohnston always attacks those who are in discussion or edit war with user:DIREKTOR? Why he never does the same with this Croat supporter of Tito & his communist regime, warning him? I have read the discussion page of user Direktor and I am astonished: it is full of edit wars with Serbians, Bosniaks, Italians, Montenegrins et al. Why he as been allowed to do all this for so long time? Direktor is one of the worst balkan editors, and if banned a lot of fighting inside en.wiki will disappear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.86.226.51 (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Rex Dominator reverted four times at Chetniks on August 12. He has formally broken the 3RR rule, and I left him a 3RR warning in case he is tempted to revert again. User:DIREKTOR reverted at most three times, and he is a long-time editor so is assumed to already know that rule. New editors on Balkan topics who jump right into reverting without getting consensus for their edits are always worthy of special attention, so I support Toddst1's warning in this case. That being said, it might be worthwhile for DIREKTOR to join the proposed mediation. If Rex Dominator's position on the Chetniks is so poorly-sourced as DIREKTOR claims, that should emerge in the course of discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The action of User Direktor are laughable, if, they were not so tragic. The user thinks that blogs are ok as sources, and keep attacking me by calling me a newbie. Also, he seems to think that having half a page devoted to "nazi collaboration" cited by blogs, doesnt place too much weight on the topic. Even tho, a referenced definition of Chetnik, is a Serbian guerrillas had fought against Germany in the two world wars. In all honesty, i think that the user should be banned for at least 24hours.Rex Dominator (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more! In fact, lets give him an indef block, for edit-warring and content blanking! :) Guys, on a bad week there are like a dozen nationalist IPs and/or new accounts doing exactly what Rex here is pushing for. Like I pointed out earlier on the talkpage, the problem is the profound bias towards the Chetniks found in a large percentage of Serbian population, brought on by the nationalist fervor of the past wars. The Chetniks, long known to be collaborators and denounced as such, have been recently (1990s on) rehabilitated by radical nationalist Serbian circles (SRS), much like the fascist Domobrani (and even Ustaše) of Croatia (preventing that kind of POV is within my shpere of interest as well). This creates a situation where many Serbs, often worshiping the Chetniks, are in a way "shocked" when they encounter them spelled out here on enWiki. The fact of the matter is, there can be little doubt that the Chetniks were indeed a collaborating force in the Yugoslav Front.

Wikipedia's "less important" articles are often swayed very far from WP:NPOV by popular opinion. Containing Balkan nationalism on the little visited articles of this sort is a "full-time job". Its mostly IPs vandalizing the article, but here and there we get a crusader like User:Rex Dominator or User:AP1929, users that arrive with a fixed agenda and unshakable opinions. Then there are problems like this...

Do we need mediation? On what? The removal of images from articles? The improper use of templates? Or are we going to debate whether or not the Chetniks collaborated? Its like talking about evolution to a creationist - its pointless. No amount of evidence is satisfactory in this kind of issue, and the whole matter is as obvious as evolution. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have a great idea: Take this someplace else. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Concerning DIREKTOR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

While I can’t express my opinion on the all of the disputes between DIREKTOR and the Wiki World, he is definitely pushing his POV. It seems to be very similar to that of the old Communist Party of Yugoslavia (as well as their tactics).

Info from Music and Media-18th October 2005 “Jimmy Wales has acknowledged there are real quality problems with the online work”. One of the quality problems is, if I may express myself, that an editor or a group of editors can learn to work the system and then push his/ hers or their POV. I’m afraid Mr Direktor has taken this to new levels with abuse, reports and inappropriate deletion.

On a positive note the check and balances on the Wiki English Site do help minimise POV. Some of those articles pertaining to the Balkans could be a lot worse.Sir Floyd (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

LoL... yeah... I should definitely be banned: my (thoroughly sourced) propaganda is not in-line with Serb/Croatian/Italian nationalist views. I'm actually an ex-KGB operative, and I like to abuse the system by adding too many university sources that contradict Balkans nationalist rhetoric (like the seven new sources on the Chetniks article) :P. I may be an idiot to get myself involved in this horrible part of Wikipedia, but what can I say, I'm involved and (alongside a large number of other editors) I'm doing my best to preserve what little veracity fringe Balkans articles still have. Because of this, I will probably never be admin materiel, but what the hell... ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Direktor, the little veracity you write about is your POV. Stop pushing diktator Tito and croatian nationalism inside en.wiki ! May be you need a girl (LOL...) and forget a bit wikipedia..., may be your medicine studies will improve....look for example to the massacres has done your communist diktator and calm down your support for him (read here [82])--Easy4all (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I actually have a girl, but either way its probably a good thing us guys with no girls in this electronic age can really exchange opinions in a friendly and impersonal manner. (Preferably by being sarcastic on other users' talkpages, sry Toddst1, last post from me.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question

Perhaps I'm missing something, but isn't it a bit unproductive to full-protect an article several days after the dispute ended? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

No I think I'm the one who's missing something - especially since I've blocked the meatpuppet who started it all. Thanks for pointing it out.Toddst1 (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The gradual clamp-down

Is it really that fun to keep clamping down on me like that? Whatever I do, you will be ready to give me some dire warning and explain that what I did was so wrong. You remind me of the time I got beat up by casino thugs. Ostensibly it was about the money, but the real reason was that I didn't show them the respect they thought they deserved. In that way, the wiki elite is exactly the same as casino thugs.

But come on, wouldn't it be more expedient to just defeat me right now? I'm sure you have far more important enemies to deal with. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Toodles. Toddst1 (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out

I was unsure what criteria to list that under. Would it have been G11? BrianY (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

G11 would have been fine. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Page Not Significant

Hi Todd, I am new to wikipedia. My page, Digital Dooodle, was recently deleted because the there was "web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." Politely asking, how do I indicate why the subject is important/significant? Coleslaw4dinner (talk) 20:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you got your answer. Toddst1 (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

About Wasp 16b

Thank you, I feel the updates of the extrasolar planets are to slow, so I will start any I feel that need to be added. I'm doing this for you guys to expand on it Matthurricane (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to check the talk page, I looked at the source and it didn't look very long. Thanks for pointing that out --Anhamirak 23:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not use delete templates until I become more familiar with them. --Anhamirak 12:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Chetniks pp

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi Toddst1, I wonder if you could review my proposed edit on Talk:Chetniks and insert it in the article (while we wait for User:Rex Dominator to get blocked for creating a new sock just yesterday [83]). Its sourced mainly from Jozo Tomasevich, The Chetniks (Stanford University Press, 1975), but also from Philip J. Cohen, David Riesman, Serbia's secret war: propaganda and the deceit of history (Texas A&M University Press, 1996). Regards, --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there consensus on the talk page? Toddst1 (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. :) There is no way User:Rex Dominator would ever admit to being wrong or even compromise on this issue. It would be like a hardcore creationist admitting to evolution ;). Toddst1, there is no real content "dispute" here. It started with a wild claim (that Chetniks were "not collaborators"), but now that there are seven new professional sources in the article blatantly contradicting that claim (in addition to those that were previously there), the "dispute" is only about the location of an image User:Rex Dominator would like to "hide" as much as possible (the one with Chetniks hugging Germans). He was moving it around with no consensus and I opposed that.
More to the point, it is fully and adequately sourced with scholarly, published, university sources, there is no foundation on which User:Rex Dominator can oppose this edit, and he will never agree on its implementation regardless of the sources. This is the kind of stuff I get every week... :P --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1, there will never ever be full consensus on these kind of articles, and there never was. There are always IPs and POV-pushers that will never agree against what they firmly believe in. That's the "Balkans nationalism" you likely heard about. If you're going to insert the two subsections ("Collaboration with the Italians", "Collaboration with the NDH") on the talkpage, please insert them under the "Axis collaboration" section. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a thorough endorsement of my protection of that page. As far as editing the page there is no rush to get that stuff in the article. Let the discussions unfold. Toddst1 (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your protection was probably a good idea (for the time being), but as far as the discussions are concerned - what is there to discuss? After the sources were introduced User:Rex Dominator became quiet, and now the dispute is only about the position of an image. There used to be a lead image in the article, it was there for a long time (years, I think) because it is the only good photo of WWII Chetniks. and now Rex Dominator moved it all the way down below because he does not like it (without discussion, consensus, etc.). He used to claim its WP:UNDUE WEIGHT but he's abandoned that in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. We already discussed the matter, but he simply repeats that I don't "own" the article and that he has the "right to make the article fair". Its silly. The main dispute is essentially over, and its only the image now. How are we supposed to "discuss" this? If a person will NOT agree, and there's no way to use sources to prove him wrong, how do I stop him from POV-pushing.

I was surprised myself with the abundance of good sources on this issue, and I set out to fix-up the article in-line with sources this morning (a few hours ago). I wasn't even going to move the image, now I can't complete my work... :(

Consensus doesn't mean you get User:Rex Dominator to agree with you. It means that a significant majority of the people agree and that there are enough people in the discussion to establish some type of quorum. Toddst1 (talk) 13:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, but what if there's only two of us and noone wants to get involved in the horrible Balkans mess? :) If I invite people he'll say I'm canvassing. He's obviously wrong in moving the years-long established lead image without any proper discussion or consensus... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The Balkans have been there a long time. There's no rush. Toddst1 (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes unfortunately... too long a time. Damn. I wanted to finish the job while I have the time... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 13:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Direktor, the finish the job you write about is your POV. Stop pushing diktator Tito and croatian nationalism inside en.wiki ! May be you need a girl (LOL...) and forget a bit wikipedia..., may be your medicine studies will improve....look for example to the massacres done by your communist diktator and calm down your support for him (read here [84])--Easy4all (talk) 20:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Toddst1, I'm probably being annoying here but I'm honestly at a loss :(, and I'm wondering if you can recommend a course of action? There are currently two issues in the damn Chetniks article:

• Images. I filed for a 3O and when the User essentially agreed with me, User:Rex Dominator started ignoring the discussion in the Images section of the talkpage. I can't see an end to this discussion.
• References. Having prepared no less than seven professional university publications, I am now confronted by User:Rex Dominator looking for every excuse not to acknowledge the situation and prolong the discussion. He affirms that the edits are an "extraordinary claim", based on one citation from some online encyclopaedia he Googled (which is completely contradicted by the seven publications). he is constantly raising the standards of evidence and demanding online books, even though ironically the four main publications I used are indeed online and I've provided links in the article. Next he'll claim Google Books is biased or the university authors have an agenda...

All throughout, the user is deliberately prolonging the discussion at every available point (whereas earlier it took him about a minute to start creating new sections with his opinions). I essentially want to complete my work and get the article unblocked, but I don't know how to end a dispute with a User who simply refuses to accept that the matter is settled (in the meantime, he and his buddies are trying to get me blocked by canvassing against me and reporting me for just about anything from "vandalism" to "bullying".). It would appear that no amount of sources will prevail against sheer stubbornness. Please review the situation in the Images and References sections of the talkpage, and please advise.
(The sources are the first six references in the References section of the article itself, and the text they support is in of course in the Further additions section of the talkpage.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 12:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but it's time to end this on my talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

undoing JS Portal addition

Dear Toddst1,

I noticed you undid a change I made to the Comparison of time tracking software page and removed the JS Portal page. Could you please let me know where I violated the guidlines as JS Portal has been listed for years in the resources mentioned on Comparison of time tracking software.

I am the owner of JS Portal and tried to be as informative as I could and not sell my company. I have just registered for wikipedia and have no intend of abusing it as a sales tool. I do however believe JS Portal is a valid addition to the list. While adding it, a link to more info seemed appropriate.

I look forward to your reply. And once again, I do hope I did not upset anyone or violated any guidlines.

Kind regards, Joost Schouten —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joostschouten (talk • contribs) 13:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. First, thanks for confirming what appeared to be a WP:COI. As JS Portal was deleted because it didn't assert any notability, we typically add only notable products/companies to "list of ..." articles. Now to be fair, I haven't gone through the Comparison of time tracking software article to ensure there were no other WP:NN companies there, rather I was following up on the deletion of JS Portal. Please review the WP:COI section and WP:Corp and if you still have questions, please let me know. Toddst1 (talk) 13:25, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response. I see how there always will be a WP:COI when writing about my own company. I will leave that for the community to decide. The WP:NN when deleting JS Portal from the list at Comparison of time tracking software seems arguable to me, as many online resources mentioning the listed products also mention JS Portal. Maybe this could be reconsidered.

My first interaction with wikipedia editing has been a good learning experiance and it is great to see how so many people actively maintain it. Best regards, and keep up the good work Joostschouten (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course it can be reconsidered. What you do is write the article here in your private sandbox and include WP:Citations from reliable sources. Then, when it's ready, you can copy it (or move it) into the article space at JS Portal. That's why we have sandboxes so you can get things into shape before putting them live. Think of it as a staging site or a test environment. Good luck and happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

SPI

Hello Toddst1, I've started an SPI here regarding a user that you blocked indefinitely and wanted to let you know in case you have any comments. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect pls

(This is my absolute last post about this, Toddst1, and I'll make it short.) The dispute is over since every single opposing editor turned out to be a sockpuppet (per my suspicions) [85]. Could you pls remove the full protection from the Chetniks article? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

P.S. The "damn Chetniks article" will most likely require semi-protection in the future. Once the protection is lifted and the new sources are introduced, IP socks of the indeffed users will quite probably march in. There's already some trouble on the talkpage. Can I notify you in the case of such a development (since you're apparently interested in protecting the article), or should I proceed through the proper channels (since you seem somewhat annoyed by this whole thing)? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Inuit18 is a sockpuppet of banned User:Anoshirawan

You've blocked Anoshirawan for non-stop disruptive activities[86] and he's back with a new sockpuppet doing the same disruptive, racist edits, edit-wars, vandalism, etc. According to this RFCU report, admin User:Thatcher explains that the banned User:Anoshirawan is in the United States. [87] The same banned person created this new name (User:Inuit18) to continue edit-wars and vandalizing articles Anoshirawan was vandalizing. He is also using annon IPs to remove suspected sockpuppet tags. [88], [89], [90], [91] If that's not enough proof then compare the decorations of banned User:Anoshirawan and his new sockpuppet. Anoshirawan in 2008 and Sockpuppet now I doesn't know how to file report can you helps me? I'm very certain about this and RFCU will confirm it.--119.73.3.103 (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

User:SOPHIAN‎

SOPHIAN‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please change the block settings to prevent them from editing their talk page, they keep removing their declined unblock requests.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

you got it. Toddst1 (talk) 02:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Chetniks

Um...what? The other guy was a sock troll. He got indef blocked (along with like 10 other socks). [92] You're not very likely to "see any agreement on the talkpage" with him, ever. The dispute was completely bogus anyway, his claims have been utterly defeated. There is simply no more dispute. Why exactly are you not going to remove the pp? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 07:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Toddst, I've left a note at Talk:Chetniks about the full protection. Thanks, Spellcast (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously Toddst, an eye on the Chetniks article? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:WIgopConservative

Hi Todd, I support the AfD as well as your edit to the article and your first two talk page messages. But this warning seems way out of line to me. After all the AfD notice template does say "you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns", which is what he was apparently trying to do here. Maybe you'd like to add a kind word? Melchoir (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The editor is an agent of Dave Westlake or Westlake himself, here only to promote the candidate. Toddst1 (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Is that enough of an excuse to block him for the crime of doing what we told him to do? Melchoir (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Block review 94.192.38.247

You may want to comment at WP:AN#IP user repeatedly removing WHOIS template from talk page. Hans Adler 12:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Your note

I appreciate your giving me a warning, but this is a sock of a banned editor who has stalked me for years. I know you don't mean to be, but this sort of thing contributes mightily to his fun. IronDuke 16:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Please identify the sock in your edit summaries if reverting such. The editor you reverted has no sockpuppet accusations pending. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI. IronDuke 15:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - things make sense now. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note -- I won't violate 3RR, and I have tried to explain the edit on U.S. Grant in the edit summaries and talk page, but User:IronDuke won't seem to listen -- all the material he keeps re-adding has simply been moved into the article on General Order 11. Now he is throwing wild accusations at me. What, if anything, can I do about this kind of retaliation? Iosefina (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The Domer block

Hi

I find this block sort of interesting and I might view it further but so far I see a certain flaw in it.

Seeing as the user has only once requested to be unblocked and has not since then re requested such action I don't think that it is anyones business than his own what is and what isn't on his talkpage.

If he were to remove the previous unblock request and request to be unblocked again then there would defiantly be a valid issue at hand but that is not the case. Therefor I think that it would be appropriate if you reinstate the users ability to comment on his own talkpage. If you disagree with me after reading this request of mine then I ask that you read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_restore_removed_comments and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HUSH#User_space_harassment .

Having reviewed the matter a bit further it all seems to be most unfortunate, perhaps reconsidering it from scratch might be a good idea.

Thanks for your time, --194x144x90x118 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI

You are mentioned here BigDunc 21:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked O Fenian

Per my comments at O Fenian's talkpage, I am about to provide my reasons at ANI. Regards, LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately as the victim of a similar bad block in the recent past I cannot be as sanguine about Admin abuse as LHUV. This is a problem that is becoming an epidemic. While I would not judge you as being as culpable as the other Admin in the Domer/OFenian blocks I think the least the community would expect would be a clear amd unambiguous apology to O Fenian and an assurance to all of us that you will never again beheave in this manner. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 01:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert

Hi, I'm helping out as a RCP here. There's currently a discussion at WP:WA on a user whom you had taken action previously. I think your comments and follow-up would be most helpful on this lingering matter. Thanks -- Kulikah (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Supportive Community

I have unblocked Supportive Community (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so he can change his name. Fred Talk 13:09, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Good call.Toddst1 (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

BLP related protection at Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Could you please take a look at the relevant discussion over at BLPN (re-posted to the article's talk page, per suggestion on BLPN: [93]) - according to comments from outside editors this isn't a BLP issue (since this isn't even a biography article) and even if it was there's plenty of sources now to substantiate the claim. As a result, could you please de-protect the article? Thanks.radek (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Re your comment. " I still see it differently as do the admins who actually fully researched this convoluted situation. I think some of the drive-by reviews and commentary of this situation are pathetic". That sounds frankly like a childish "ner, I was right". If you really think the discussion ended up in a wrong place, it's incumbent on you to explain that, with evidence. (In fact your participation in the discussion has been pretty low key.) The conclusion that the blocks weren't warranted for the immediate behavior at hand seems sound. If you think there are wider issues with the blocked user(s) that need addressing and which informed the block decision, then present the evidence at ANI (probably in a new section would be better at this point). Rd232 ^talk 11:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That ANI thread turned in to abject ochlocracy. When the unblocking admin didn't understand the fundamental fact that there had been a conversation going on between another admin and the disruptive editor when he effectively halted further investigation by unblocking, I realized where this was going. When someone takes such a bold action, they better fucking know what they were doing. In this case he clearly didn't. LHVU should never have declared himself judge and jury before the discussion unfolded and understood the situation - unblocking and changing the direction of the discussion. Do I want to bring this to arbcom or someplace? No - not worth it. LHVU is a generally solid admin. I don't seek wikidrama. Add to that the ethnic partisans who want me and NJA247 sharing a tree outside the courthouse because one of their gang members got blocked. That was really one fucked up situation.

Could I have done things differently? Sure. I probably should have handled Domer differently bringing him/her to ANI, but the block of O Fenian was solid. S/he was already being disruptive during the dispute resolution over at Talk:Provisional_Irish_Republican_Army when I wandered by, and in a classic passive-aggressive move withdrew from the discussion and declared himself harassed - accusing an admin trying to facilitate resolution of harassment. Then when warned about lashing out at a clearly well meaning admin like that, the editor (who had already been blocked a number times for disruption around the Irish and warned plenty about NPA) told me to stick it up my ass. Sure - bad block. Right.

Toddst1 (talk) 14:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, but with respect, the wider picture may be one thing, but the templated warning you posted [94] apparently because he removed a user comment from his own talk page with the edit summary "revert. harassment" [95] was clearly unhelpfully escalatory. And I have to ask how carefully you read the comment which O Fenian removed: it includes this "I've reworded everything as neutrally as possible and broke the sections up to accommodate your whinging. Your continued disruption to the dispute resolution process will not be tolerated." Strong words, and it's also not immediately obvious why that's on the user talk page rather than article talk. Not enough to justify a "harassment" remark, perhaps, but certainly to merit a gentle response rather than a templated warning. Templates need to be used with caution, and here I'm convinced that a non-templated reply would not have produced O Fenian's pissed off response, which whilst inappropriate, is in itself hardly blockworthy. General thought: it's surprising the number of ANI incidents where I think "if only they'd written a personal statement instead of using a template (adapted or not)"... Rd232 ^talk 14:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Telling an admin to stick it up their ass (after multiple warnings for civility issues) is not blockable. My mistake. Toddst1 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

But he didn't, Todd. He used the expression "Stick your warning where the sun doesn't shine!" The meaning is the same, but isn't uncivil in the way the expression is that you've repeatedly translated it into. And as I've tried to argue (which you've not responded to), your warning was at best unhelpful and at worst inappropriate. Again, if your block is informed by other issues, explain them. For example, "multiple warnings for civility issues" haven't figured in the discussion to date. Rd232 ^talk 15:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

readability - please let this discussion proceed

:::::Umm... I vote win for Toddst1? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC) ?? WP:VOTE, WP:BATTLEGROUND. Rd232 talk 15:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Yeah, sorry about that. I came to ask something, got distracted and forgot what I was going to ask and I felt obligated to say something given that I came here. I'm odd like that. Ignore my comment entirely. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 15:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your response - frankly this is the most intelligent discourse I've had on this.

Regarding the warnings: Anyone with an opinion on this issue should have looked for warnings before declaring any judgment of impropriety without me having to mention them. However, I clearly mentioned the warnings on ANI when I spoke up to clarify things. How they haven't figured in the discussion is a big part of why I stated that several of the admins (and hecklers) commenting on ANI hadn't "fully researched this convoluted situation." Just for the record I issued one of the warnings and the earlier yesterday another was issued.

Like I said, big chunks of reality got missed on ANI - first that NJA was attempting a discussion (I'm not going to argue that point further) - the second is that O Fenian had multiple warnings for civility.

Regarding the understanding of the wording, the message is the same and I don't really appreciate the difference. Perhaps mea culpa, perhaps it's a cultural difference.

Toddst1 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, so you mentioned the warnings on ANI; I guess I missed that. This illustrates perhaps another general point: unsummarised diffs are a lot less helpful and less likely to be used than summarised ones, especially when they start piling up. Anyway, more to the point, none of the previous blocks was for incivility (all 3RR), which makes that length of block for incivility quite wrong. In addition the recent warning (19 Aug) related to O Fenian saying "I could not give a flying fuck which you do."[96] That is coarse and unnecessary, but not really a violation of either WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. The other warning cited above relates to an edit summary of "idiocy" a month ago [97] directed at your templated warning here. That doesn't seem enough for a long civility block, and even a short one is debatable. Finally, there is a difference of a language, and the coarseness of "shove it up your ass" is clearly more offensive than the euphemism O Fenian used. (Too me anyway. Maybe it is cultural - which would suggest caution over blocking, no?) Rd232 ^talk 16:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You know what, this is in the past now, let's leave it there and hope it doesn't come back. I'm going to have a go at moderating the disputed page (Talk:Provisional Irish Republican Army) instead. Rd232 ^talk 16:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping up to the plate on that. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Graham Waterhouse

Article Graham Waterhouse, deleted August 2, back to life August 14, is on DYK right now, dyk? more to come, I like it!--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice job! We need folks like you. Keep up the great work! Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Supportive Community

I have unblocked Supportive Community (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so he can change his user name. He has been counseled regarding Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations. Fred Talk 12:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 12:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Telcontar Ancestry

Hi. I noticed you put my article up for deletion. Go ahead and delete, but first, delete my other article House of Telcontar, which goes along with it. Thanks. --Hidden Secret (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hi again. This page is blank now, so please delete immediately. No harm will come to my other article, promise! --Hidden Secret (talk) 21:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Re:Fartnuggets

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I was unsure about whether or not the name was allowed. The username policy says this: "Offensive usernames are those that offend other contributors, making harmonious editing difficult or impossible." I don't believe this username would offend anyone, and although it may look odd on sight, "harmonious editing" isn't difficult. Mm40 (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I've re-added the bit about profanity in the username policy. Somehow it slipped out. Toddst1 (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider "fart" profane. Mm40 (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

This segment of the conversation copied to User talk:Mm40 where it started so that it may be viewed in its entirety and continued there. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Belated thanks

for the barnstar the other day. I wasn't sure what the etiquette was about responding but finally decided on authenticity. I much appreciated your letting me know you liked the article: Samuel Wilbert Tucker. Oh, and thanks for the copy editing. Abby Kelleyite (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Authenticity is always good. That's how the barnstar was delivered. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not happy

Hello -- I have to say I'm not happy about the hard time you're giving me. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladnav you changed your reasons for deletion from "defunct" to "Created by a SPA editor with inherent COI." Wading through the alphabet soup I think you're saying you're saying that I edit "a single article, a group of related articles" which seems hardly surprising if I've only just got going and quite irrelevant to whether the article is worth a place -- and that "advancing outside interests is more important to [me] than advancing the aims of Wikipedia", which sounds serious, and is just plain false.

I also find that you've labelled me on my own user page as "a sock puppet of Fachette.expert", which also sounds pretty serious, particularly since at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fachette you say that "a suspected sock of the author objected", and I suppose that means me. Since I didn't object but went out to find some sources that's just plain wrong too. To be perfectly clear, I am not Fachette.expert and have no connection with them. I would be a lot happier if you had raised these issues with me before rushing in with false allegations. Isn't there some kind of process you're supposed to follow before you make these accusations? Ladnavfan (talk) 03:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is. I've been pretty up-front with my reasons for believing that Landnav didn't deserve an article. As far as the sockpuppet report, I think you're failing the WP:Duck test. I could check your IP address and see if it matches those used by the other editor, but that seems a bit unnecessary as coincidences like that just don' t happen too often.

On the other issue, you're welcome to fix the article up enough so that it passes WP:NN, but PR pieces that announce its creation just don't cut it. I'd love for you to prove my belief wrong, but I don't think it's possible. Toddst1 (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is not the article, it's that you've made personal allegations against me, posted a (false) warning notice on my user page and apparently can't even be bothered to follow procedure to check to see whether you're right or not (which you aren't). Please do that check. Ladnavfan (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Be careful what you ask for. Toddst1 (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:PCE

The user has added the userbox back in more or less.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it got Nuked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Take a look here

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMount_Hermon_ski_resort&diff=310513943&oldid=310427525 --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The Fall of the House of Usher

What is wrong with a link from Madeline Usher to the article on the story The Fall of the House of Usher in which she's a main character? There's an equivalent link at Roderick Usher which no-one complained about. Is it usual to just nuke entries like that without discussion? Madeline Usher (talk) 10:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, that appears to have been an appropriate redirect. Thanks for bringing that error to my attention. Toddst1 (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pokerdance

Since you are the one who banned the above user for a fortnight, I have a feeling that their is socking taking place. Would you kindly take a look at the contributions of User:D.C. Blake? Im very much sure that this is Pokerdance after seeing the continuous reverting and monopolizing at the Lady Gaga articles. We can ask for Checkuser too. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

My suspicions are confirmed now, after seeing this edit and the start of the editing for D. C. blake. Also, Blake just nominated the Lady Gaga article for GA, something that Pokerdance was trying to do for a long time against consensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legolas2186 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pokerdance—Kww(talk) 04:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's confirmed. Please see my comments there about what I think the appropriate action is.—Kww(talk) 18:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Glad you guys are on top of this. Thanks for letting me know. Toddst1 (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at SchuminWeb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Jonhan

The user used personal attack again. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearcher^talk 06:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Andy Dingley

I think your action against this user ill-advised. In my experience he is a hard-working, sensible and mature contributor, and you are likely to discourage a good editor. Your second case against him is completely preposterous. Please rethink. Fast. Globbet (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Hard working, sensible and mature does not address misuse of rollback in several instances. Nor did he address them when I enquired. Edit warring using rollback should never happen. Toddst1 (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Andy_Dingley#Reversion

Hi, was asked to look at this by another admin. I think your points are well taken. But I also think that perhaps Andy will be more careful going forward and regranting rollback would be low risk. I'm inclined to regrant but wanted to touch base with you first to see if you strongly object. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Andy has also re-requested the user right at WP:RFP/R. decltype (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Closing the thread, I restored rollback and closed the WP:RFP/R. Toddst1 (talk) 13:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV

Please don't wander through and block just one person and wander off...there are many vandals needing blocks. Blocking only one and leaving the others is not a good way to use your tools and allows those others to continue to vandalize while the reporters wait...sometimes being let off the hook when the AIV reports become "stale" from sitting there too long. Please block the others not just one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

At first I thought you were kidding, but upon re-reading, it looks like you weren't.

You might have noticed the block above saying I'm on semi-wikibreak. My time in Wikipedia is pretty limited these days. If I have a minute or two, sometimes I'll pop over to AIV to see if I can whittle away on any backlog. It's not an obligation. Making a block or two is better than making none when there's 6 or 8 on the AIV list. Do you really have a problem with that? Toddst1 (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, every bit helps, especially considering our current admin situation. Regards, decltype (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, being berated for not acting on all reports at AIV on this voluntary website takes the biscuit. Considering no-one here is under any obligation to do anything.... Often I might have a moment to look at CSD or AIV - but not every case is clear cut - indeed most are not - and if I don't have time to do the due dilligence one would expect from admins before acting, well then I take no action. What a very disappointing comment from Neutralhomer. Pedro :  Chat  14:44, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion question

Hi Toddst1. I am trying to post and article for The Titan Agency and keep getting a "speedy deletion" message and have made several edits to follow the guidelines but can't seem to get approval. Any suggestions as to why this is? I don't want to be blocked from editing so I am scared to post my revisions. --Blong728 (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)blong728

I've pointed this user to WP:AKON. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexander City Millers

As far as I know, minor leagues are considered to be notable. I'm not totally sure, since there seems to be constant debate about it. But I think leagues and clubs, if not necessarily players, are considered notable. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Either way, I think it needs a baseball expert such as yourself. (Damn Giants!) Toddst1 (talk) 05:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Jints are out, and the Cubs soon will be. Researching this obscure minor league club might be a challenge. I'm curious what particular interest you have in this club (without giving away too much personal info). →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No specific interest at all.

But in my opinion this is exactly the type of article that makes Wikipedia a fantastic resource. It's obscure but may be very interesting to some - especially local folks. Where else would someone go to find info like that?

Look at some of the obscure articles I've written: Jimmie Lee Jackson is a great example. Almost nobody has ever heard of Jimmie Lee Jackson. However his death triggered a chain of events that directly led to the Selma to Montgomery marches which directly led to the creation and passage Voting Rights Act - probably the single most significant piece of legislation of the 20th century. (Just to put this in context, I'm not a member of any minority nor have I ever lived in Alabama.) But Jimmie Lee Jackson is an obscure name, largely lost to history. To me, that's what Wikipedia is about. Screw all the Wikidrama many of us tend to get caught up in.

As a solid wikipedian, I thought you might be able to sink your teeth in to this. If not, no biggy. Toddst1 (talk) 14:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if there's anything I can find. At the very least, there needs to be something about the league itself, which is a redlink. And as far as the larger argument, I go to wikipedia first to try to find information. If it's not there, I go somewhere else. That's as simple a response as I can give to the more fanatical deletionists. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You mean the Georgia-Alabama League? Toddst1 (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that was fast. And just how did you need my help? :) →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping you might have some minor league books on your shelf you might be able to mine. All I did was plagiarize another GFDL site's content. Toddst1 (talk) 03:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Might not be tonight, though. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

?!

WHY DID YOU BAN ME?! I wrote explanation on talk page (Jewish emigration from Arab lands) but those pathetic Israeli fascist (and Zionist political activist) called ShamWow removed page so my explanation was lost. Hopefully, I manage to save it and paste it there. READ IT and then consider blocking! --93.142.157.143 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Unsourced information

Adding unsourced information to articles isn't vandalism? I have tried to discuss this on Kogsquinge's talk page here. Rocksey (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Read WP:Vandalism Toddst1 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

So we're allowed to add any unverified information we want to any article without there being a problem? Rocksey (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that wasn't disruptive. However, it's not WP:Vandalism unless it's a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

But it is vandalism if the user is "reinserting it despite multiple warnings" like Kogsquinge was. I warned her about this here and twice here. I even tried discussing this with Kogsquinge. I really don't see how this isn't vandalism. Rocksey (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The user has attempted to explain that s/he saw the info in the closing credits. Instead of explaining WP:RS and WP:V you slapped him/her with warnings. Perhaps you should review WP:AGF and try to engage the user more constructively. It's clear they are trying to contribute constructively, but are somewhat misinformed. Toddst1 (talk) 04:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to assume bad faith here, like I said in my attempt at a discussion with Kogsquinge. But also like I said on this users talkpage, I watched the credits provided and it didn't say what he/she said it did. I did link Kogsquinge to WP:V and other source related articles. Those were ignored. Rocksey (talk) 04:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Orijentolog's block evasion

Hi, I noticed you blocked Orijentolog (talk · contribs · logs · block log) for two week for block evasion. He appears to still be evading your two week block, and edit-warring. The edit summaries are also as nasty as ever. See 93.142.156.45 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) and 161.53.35.105 (talk · contribs · logs · block log). Jayjg ^(talk) 03:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Another definite case: 94.253.243.58 (talk · contribs · logs · block log) (same type of edit, same geographical region). Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

And also 93.142.157.143 (talk · contribs · logs · block log). Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Never mind, already blocked. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi

It is very likely that User:Paradoxic is also the sockpuppet of user:Orijentolog--WIMYV? (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Please help me out by filing a WP:SPI with a request for Checkuser. Be sure to include these users in the report. Let me know if you need help. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Done.-WIMYV? (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hateful attacks from banned User:Orijentolog

Please see : [98] I imagine that it is another sockpuppet of Orijentolog (talk · contribs · logs · block log). What can be done about this? ShamWow (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Two comments:

1. Please don't re-post hateful crap like that. A simple diff would have been fine.
2. I've issued a rangeblock on 93.142.144.0/20 that seems to be the IP range used by Orijentolog . Please let me know if this nonsense continues from other addresses.

Toddst1 (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Understood. Much appreciated.ShamWow (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

user: Hotel4500

Sorry about the lack of proper user name formatting, but this person has has about 6 different names, and now is redirecting a bunch of pages to his user page about math (?!?). One of the redirects is Michael Jackson's Children for you to check out. Weird stuff - thought you might want to check this one out. Thank you, Todd! Triste Tierra (cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Todd - You are super fast and super good. Thank you very much. Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

And you are kind. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hotel4500 is at it again. If you have time, you may want to check his edits from late yesterday and today to see what he has vandalised now. Thanks again! Trista 24.176.191.234 (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Banhammered. Toddst1 (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Question

I just have to ask because I can't figure it out: what did you mean by "over-rotation" here?

That you were a bit too suspicious of a newby that seemed too knowledgable. Big difference from WP:Bite. Feel free to change the wording if you find it objectionable. Toddst1 (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea if I find it objectionable. I guess now I need to know what it's a reference to; I'm unfamiliar with the phrase. DKqwerty (talk) 04:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, sorry for not signing my last post; BIG faux pas.

You could do a heck of a lot worse. I knew what it was referring to and who you were. (intentionally unsigned)

Sorry, if you could just tell me the origin of the phrase, I'll leave you alone. Thanks. DKqwerty (talk) 04:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

¿Seriously? I just want an answer please. Pretty please? DKqwerty (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at the top of the page. He's on a semi-Wikibreak. He probably hasn't seen your post yet. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That's it - work is busy these days - not much wikitime. I'm not sure where the term comes from, but it's a rather common term in my circles. I'm guessing it originates from a sports reference regarding making some type of rotational movement that is too exaggerated (skiing?), but is frequently used to describe a bit too much reaction. Hope that helps. Toddst1 (talk) 20:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Amberwhite/Jonaslover78: BLP violations at Drake Bell

I wasn't sure if your warning to Jonaslover78 was based on my ANI report or not. In case it wasn't, you might want to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Amberwhite.2FJonaslover78:_BLP_violations_at_Drake_Bell .—Kww(talk) 04:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I read the ANI bit and thought a warning might suffice. While the info is a bit personal, it's not defamatory as I read it. Am I missing something? Toddst1 (talk) 04:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Claiming to be someone's real-life girlfriend without a source is about as BLP violating as it gets. I can only imagine the flak I would get from my wife should an "Amber White" proclaim herself as my girlfriend all over the internet. The repeat of the BLP violation by Amberwhite after the final warning on her talk page deserves a response as well.—Kww(talk) 04:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Mine would probably have a few things to say too. Toddst1 (talk) 04:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

How about Amberwhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I can just edit the user page if you think deletion is too extreme, but I can't do much about a block.—Kww(talk) 04:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Boffo aces! Your tenacity is remarkable. I'd really like to have you watching after me! You need to be an admin. Toddst1 (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I contemplate it now and then, but WP:Requests for adminship/Kww was pretty painful, and in some ways, WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 2 was worse.—Kww(talk) 04:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd hate to go through the process now. See WP:NOTNAS Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

For your protection. Seem to have drawn fire from agressive vandals. Thanks again! Jusdafax 04:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Since you added the ANI discussion notice in a separate section, I did want to let you know that I had already left it in the comment thread above: [99]. Are we generally supposed to make a separate section for these? I was under the assumption that a notice was a notice. I just want to do this correctly, so thanks for any clarification! --13² 13:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you had it covered already. Toddst1 (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks! --13² 13:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

RAMEL CARTER

I hope all is well with you.

My name is Chantal Borgella of C. Borgella Public Relations. I represent Jay-Z's nephew Ramel Carter.

You deleted my page because you said it was plagiarized from his Myspace page. You have threatened to block me. This is becoming VERY VERY frustrating. If you Google Ramel's name, you would see that he has a MAJOR buzz right now due to his release of his album this past Tuesday.

How do I get it approved?

Chantal9186 (talk) 08:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC) October 3, 2009

See WP:Advert. We have no place for your promotion here on Wikipedia. Please find another website to promote your client. Toddst1 (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The Admin's Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		Awarded to Toddst1 for help with a nasty situation that only an alert admin could fix. Many Thanks! Jusdafax 16:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Admin's advice sought

In regard to recent disagreements as to the nature of vandalism, I'd appreciate your comments on this:

Some recent vandalism to J. A. Chatwin (a Victorian architect).

The editor (Special:contributions/82.36.89.155 / talk) has a track record of recent vandalism, but it's an anon so hard to tell for sure that it's the same person.

Their recent edit looks broadly good (can't think why he was described as using the gothic style rather than classical in the first place), but the claim that Julius Alfred also went by the name "Timmy" rang a few alarm bells. I suspect that it's a more subtle vandal than usual, hiding a hoax wrapped up in a contribution. Would you happen to know whether they did use this name? The editor has now cited a book ref that surely describes the subject, but it's not a book I have on the shelf, so it's impractical to check that the ref supports the cite.

Any comment welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on ANI and User talk:82.36.89.155. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that 8-) Andy Dingley (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

97.106.41.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) Block Evasion

Has reappeared under 72.186.97.162 (talk · contribs) and 70.126.138.177 (talk · contribs) same edit comments for Michael Scofield and avoiding discussion page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.218.41 (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, that block was for 55 hours in June - long since expired, so it's not block evasion. However, there are some troubling edits there. Toddst1 (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, as a normal user, I am not privy to the ban length and mistakenly believed it was still in force by the notification remaining on the talk page. His IP address has changed again today and now appears purely dynamic. 149.254.218.41 (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Smallville pages

Could you protect Smallville (season 1), Smallville (season 2), Smallville (season 3), and Smallville (season 5) as well? Those pages were involved as well. The IP in question just thought the links were dumb, but a different user (I assume a different one) claims the links are spam simply because they appear on five pages. I have tried to explain that WP:SPAM does not restrict the use of relevant links to specific pages, even of it's the same link that covers multiple topics but they don't seem to want to believe me.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The user in question, which is the one below, apparently doesn't believing in actually discussing and is just blindly reverting me. You can look at the link yourself. Here is the page. I found it on my university search engine, and it was written by an assistant professor Dr. Jes Battis, who apparently writes a lot of these types of peer journals and books. The journal talks about season 1 - 5, so I put it in the EL section of those pages because there currently isn't a "Themes" section in those articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User Bignole, you have been spamming external links to wikipedia pages, you have been edit warring to keep those spam links in e.g. [100] where you have made four reverts in less than one hour, and now you have gotten an IP blocked to keep your spam in. Martin451 (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How is it not a reliable source? It's a scholarly source, that has been around for some 35 years. Everything that is submitted to them is reviewed by their editors and board members. I'm lost as to what criteria is fails to make it an unreliable source.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You've returned to redact your warning on my talk page, but could you please answer the question I posed to you last night?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so that brings back my point to my original argument and why I kept putting the link back. I'm not justifying my edit warring, but you agreed to remove a link that appears to meet WP:RS--at least you haven't told me a specific criteria that it fails--and is clearly not WP:SPAM (which you agreed to originally). So, why again am I in the wrong for keeping the link?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of IP User talk:66.14.104.80

User talk:66.14.104.80 has been removing spam inserted by user User:Bignole, Bignole has given the IP 2 warnings for removing his spam, before reporting the IP to WP:AIV for vandalism, when the IP is just removing external links that should not be there. Could you please take another look at this matter. Martin451 (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Upon further investigation it seems to be a bilateral, unambiguous edit war. While I wouldn't quite characterize that EL as spam, it certainly fails WP:RS. Thanks for pointing that out to me. Toddst1 (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

About the ANON IP you've blocked

Hi~! Refer to User talk:76.31.109.45, he just blanked his page after you BLOCKED him, suggest reblock again with disability to edit own talk page. --Dave1185 (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

S/He is allowed to do that. Toddst1 (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Along with the "Blocked" template? --Dave1185 (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup. As long as there wasn't a declined {{unblock}} template in the mix. Toddst1 (talk) 02:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I see, what about the whois template? Is he allowed to blanked that too? Pardon me for being nosy, I just wanna clarify things or I might get into trouble the next time when I do revert such blankings in future. --Dave1185 (talk) 02:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your persistence. I missed that. I've restored those templates. Toddst1 (talk) 02:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• No problem since you've sent my fingers going on a head-scratching mission, thought I might as well find out more. =) --Dave1185 (talk) 02:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/74.220.224.226

You should probably change the block reasoning to {{schoolblock}}.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure I follow why. Look at the edit summaries. Toddst1 (talk) 04:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an IP that belongs to a school. This is more or less a juvenile prank.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Could be. Regardless, the legal threats couldn't be clearer. I'm fine with how it is. Feel free to change it if you feel strongly. Toddst1 (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right. I've changed it. Thanks for your persistence. Toddst1 (talk) 04:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Blanked again

Hi~! Please take a look at User talk:136.160.248.5, the temp-block, whois and warning template was intentionally blanked again. Think should set to cannot edit own talk page in oreder to solve this persistent problem. --Dave1185 (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The ipinfo must stay. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

70.181.39.248

Thanks for your help in dealing with this IP vandal. By the by, I fixed the repeat vandal template you added to the IP's talk page, as what appeared was just "Template:repeatvanal" ... so I added the "d" and it looks fine now. Thanks again. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

A strange thing happened today

This edit got me confused, please take a look and tell me what you think. --Dave1185 (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for my own blocking

Hi Toddst1,

I'm ready to make a new account and have a fresh start. However, as several editors have mentioned on my talkpage, that would be hard to do considering my 1RR restriction. As you probably remember, I consented to 1RR under the condition that you would unblock me, when I had less than 24 hours left on my original block. So what I am asking is that you block me for 24 hours, and the 1RR disregarded. That way my restriction will not be an issue, because I do genuinely wish to start over. Thank you. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 20:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Better yet, how about you promise to never edit war and we lift the 1RR all together? I'd record that it was lifted in the block log. Any current blocks are not up for discussion. Deal? Toddst1 (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Deal. No edit wars. That's a better solution. Farewell I guess, at least under this name. POKERdance ^talk/contribs 01:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Done! Please say hi when you're back with a fresh start. Don't hesitate to ask for help and best of luck with the fresh start! Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

A strange thing happened today

This edit got me confused, please take a look and tell me what you think. --Dave1185 (talk) 17:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Todd, why you should care what I do to my Talk page is quite beyond me. There are Wikipedians who even wipe messages right out.

As for what language I use to communicate with other users, I'll use whichever one I jolly well like. That's between me and the intended reader. It has nothing to do with you. Learn a little tolerance, please.Kelisi (talk) 01:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That was a threat, Todd. I don't appreciate that.Kelisi (talk) 06:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The page you pointed me at says:

• On your own user talk page, you may remove others' comments, although archiving is generally preferred.

So be it. Kelisi (talk) 23:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Language

The guideline says, under the heading Good Practices:

• Use English: No matter to whom you address a comment, it is preferred that you use English on English Wikipedia talk pages. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, try to also provide a translation of the comments. If you are requested to do so and cannot, you should either find a third party to translate or to contact a translator through the Wikipedia:Embassy.

"Preferred", it says, not "mandatory". If it's the messages at the top of my Talk page that have annoyed you, these are unavoidable. Those are there to welcome users from other projects who may speak little or no English, and to instruct them on how to make a link to their Talk page on their "home" Wikipedia. I welcome constructive, civil comments from anyone, even if they're in French, German or Spanish. As for translations, the three messages at the top are essentially translated by the message in that fourth box. If you are requesting a translation of something that I've written, I can do that for you, or you can save time and use a translation website (although you should be warned that these are sometimes notoriously inaccurate).

As I have now removed the offending entry from my Talk page (and I noticed that you edited it, too, first reverting it and then reverting your own reversion), and explained my unavoidable use of other languages, I hope the matter is resolved to your satisfaction.

If it is not, and you really believe that WP has a serious problem with me, would you please hand my case off to another administrator? It seems a bit excessive that I get threatened with blocking after all the contributions that I've made, especially in the area of German translations and maps, when my only peccadillo over the last three years or so has been to corrupt a message on my own Talk page, a message that was pointless anyway since the impending speedy deletion that it warned of had already happened by the time I read it. Kelisi (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Kelisi, It's clear that you're a solid contributor and I don't want to see you blocked. I don't have a problem with you and it looks like we've solved the issue about changing the other users' comments, so as far as I'm concerned as long as that doesn't happen again (and I doubt it will) there is no danger of being blocked.

You are exactly right that we prefer English and it's not mandatory. I don't know of anyone being blocked for using non-english language (and I'm not going to be the first to do it) but it is strongly encouraged to have conversations in English and if not, provide translations. The stuff at the top of your page is no big deal. I did notice a couple of conversations in German and Spanish which is what I was referring to. Para mi, no es una problema, porque Ich sprech ein bis. However I'm frequently asked to assist in disputes where part of the problem has occurred in other languages. For some reason this seems to happen most in articles having to do with the Balkans and it's really difficult to figure out. That's why I do ask people to comment in English.

It's not my practice to mess with established, solid contributors such as yourself but as you can see above, I was asked to look in to the matter. I think we're done. Let me know if I can be of assistance. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

?

Hey, as I see you didn't answer me on my talk page, so I will ask you here. Quote:

"You didn't blocked that other account, even though his account is just created to revert edits, which his reverts was reverted by 3 other people. Consensus was reached, as he deleted Montenegrin language, while some deleted Serbian Cyrillic, I added both, while he deletes Montenegrin one. It was ok for me, Hxseek and few other wikipedians that it was a South Slavic state. What's the point of reaching consensus when he doesn't want to talk. If he do, he would answer to my warnings. Bye. Rave92(talk) 19:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC) . It looks like I am not the only one that reverts his edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Bodin but no, ban the one that actually works on improving wikipedia. Rave92(talk) 22:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)"

Rave92^(talk) 18:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Replied on User_talk:Rave92#Balkan-related_sanction_imposed Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hiperbarrio

Just a friendly heads up on Hiperbarrio. I declined the speedy because after you placed the tag the creator made claims of importance on the talk page. I've advised the creator to fix the advert and notability issues; as always, feel free to prod or take to AfD. Cheers! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Keysvolume

Hi, Thanks for addressing my concern. I rewrote the report as the links were disfunctional and realized that by the time I submitted them again, the issue has been addressed. Sorry about that - I am relatively new so slightly messy!

Thanks again! Oftenhurry (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For jumping on the AIV report so quickly. I hate to shout online, but I figured the situation was warranted. Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was one of the more despicable events I've seen. I'd have shouted too. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Public computer account

I just want to confirm that you are also using User:Public computer account as a legitimate second account, so I can unblock you.  :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolution status

Thank you for your message telling me such.

This seems very strange. One person, like you, can dictate when to call something resolved, even if it is really not resolved. In AFD's, I've seen people complain when someone decides to close it right away. But if that is the way things are, so it is. Thank you again for letting me know about this. If there is a written policy about this, please let me know. If it is just unwritten custom, also let me know. Thank you.PresChicago (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As an administrator, I've been given a fair amount of discretion on certain matters, subject to peer review. If there was any agreement with your position whatsoever from any of the other editors that commented on your ANI post, I would have left the discussion open. As it is, it appears to be frivolous. Toddst1 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You may be an administrator, but you lack tact. Calling someone else frivolous is very rude. But that is ok as society is less polite than in our grandparents' days.

But as we speak, this other editor, Tvoz, is extremely aggressive and disruptive. Tvoz is the one that followed me to Jeter's article. Now Tvoz is plotting to attack me more, planning schemes with this other Achiles person as described on Tvoz' talk page. This is really wikihounding and trying some sort of personal attack. You should try to make Wikipedia a place where people edit freely and nicely and not let these bad things happen. This Tvoz person seems to hint that I am somebody that Tvoz hates. If I were stalking Tvoz, that may be plausible. But look at the history and you'll see that Tvoz followed me and found me. Then Tvoz is scheming against me. A normal person or good editor would not do that. I hope that you are an honorable person and good administrator and tell Tvoz to mind her (I know now) own business. Please help put a stop to Tvoz' attacking. PresChicago (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assume good faith Toddst1 (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1, tell that to Tvoz who writes: "More and more with every edit. Thank you - I was hoping someone else would notice. Thought we had moved on from the good old days, but I should have known better. Next step? Tvoz/talk 03:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tvoz" > Next step means that Tvoz is contemplating doing something next. Assuming good faith is irrelevant. The person admits planning to hurt me. This is a veiled personal attack. Why will you not help? When people attack, the Wikipedia project fails because all someone's attention is then focused on the attack, not on writing articles. PresChicago (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you had a previous account here? Toddst1 (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but I no longer use it because some other editor (not Tvoz) was making life miserable. That's the problem with Wikipedia, too many attacks. I shouldn't say for fear of that other person finding out and then I'd have two groups of people attacking but a clue is that the 2nd letter of the name is "C". How can we stop attacking people from winning and bullying others from editing? I am going to take a break now so please don't ask questions until you come up with a resolution plan to stop bullying. Thank you. PresChicago (talk) 05:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Please email me the details. I'll look in to it. You can email me by clicking on the link at left. Toddst1 (talk) 05:14, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am very perplexed because here you look like a helping hand. On ANI, however, you just wrote something very critical. You implied that the "C" account hounded them (Tvoz). This is not the case at all--I never heard of Tvoz then. You also accuse me of hounding them. This is fabricated and made up history that somebody else may have told you. If you look, Tvoz followed me from the Obama family article to the Jeter article and started undo-ing my edits. That is hounding. Then Tvoz makes veiled threats to me and to others about me. I would have thought that an administrator is suppose to be the most upright citizen of Wikipedia and a helping hand. I am perplexed by your helping hand here but stabbing hand on your ANI comment of a few minutes ago. Very confusing. PresChicago (talk) 05:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Chad Dukes

I gave an anon user stating he was Chad Dukes the number and name to Mike Godwin and told him to call him after 9am PST. I have also strongly warned both users never to contact me at my personal Facebook page again or I will go to their bosses at CBS Radio owned WJFK-FM, which I don't feel is asking much. As I typed this, Mr. Merhoff contacted me again via my Facebook page. Going to lock that thing down in a moment. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Via some Google searches I have confirmed that Mr. Merhoff does in fact work for Mr. Dukes. So, I am willing to consider this a misunderstanding on the legal threat and work with him to be unblocked. I have also said that I think we need to contact Mike Godwin on this, because I am unsure how to proceed. To remove the name from the page would require deleting the entire page, oversighting it and starting over....and to be honest I don't think we can do that. I think even if it is oversighted, the admins can still see it. So that is why I think Mike Godwin needs called in on this one. As for the unblock, I am willing to overlook the legal threat and willing to work with the editor. Still don't like that I am that easy to find on Facebook though (but he apologized for that). - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Death554

How did you find this person to block? Somebody complain? PresChicago (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:PresChicago

Hi Toddst1, my suspicion is that User:PresChicago is User:Dereks1x AKA User:Archtransit AKA lots of other socks. Basically whenever anyone shows up who's interested in Obama and makes bizarre accusations against Tvoz, you have to think of this guy, and the writing style seems pretty similar to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 11:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Close enough to quack. Thanks for cluing me in. Blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Go Yankees. Tvoz/talk 18:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As long as the Dodgers lose I'm ok. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 18:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift and decisive action! --Akhilleus (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You know there's a possibility we're wrong, but that's what appeals are for. As far as I can tell, this editor has been causing enough mess in their short career that even if we are wrong it probably isn't a bad move. Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

User sock ppupetry

Hello. User:CEBR is a sockppupet of User:Brasileiro1500 which is a sockppupet of IP 189.6.32.88. This user seems to keep with their biased posts, and removes sourced informations from articles[101]. Opinoso (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RFA spam

Thank you for participating in WP:Requests for adminship/Kww 3
Sometimes, being turned back at the door isn't such a bad thing

—Kww(talk) 18:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

block notice

Oops, sorry for stepping on your toes at User:Bbnator1. I thought the "best editor ever!!!" text came after your block, so I reblocked and put on the block notice. I hadn't done it to step on you, just because I saw that vandal-editor via RFPP. tedder (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Warning a user?

Why did you insert a general note notice on User talk:Jason Rees here? Would this fall on WP:DTTR? Darren23^Edits|Mail 23:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

And reading the comment, in WP:WPTC, we usually don't cite in infoboxes like that. Darren23^Edits|Mail 01:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there: There is a reliable source for my information - its the Running Best track which i cited it in the edit summuary because i didnt have time to work on Parma just then. As the primary author of the season article and a main editor of WPTC i do generally expect a bit of respect. Jason Rees (talk) 10:35, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize your full edit history. With such a sophomoric attempt at citing a source, I assumed you were a relative newby. I've revised my uw-1 on your page. Toddst1 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain - You did not block an editor for editwarring on the windspeeds of TY Parma, You blocked him for editwarring on the windspeeds of TY Lupit my reaction to which can be found on his talkpage. As for the template lets just forget about it and call it a mistake on your part. As for that edit i cited my reference in the edit summuary as i am planning on rewriting the MH for Parma in its article and then reworking it for the PTS and offcourse referencing both up as i go along but couldnt at that moment due to some pressing issues away from wikipedia.Jason Rees (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dont worry about it, Lets just forget about it now :) Jason Rees (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Grundle2600: continued problems

This is to let you know of the above ANI - it is directly relevant (and refers) to this discussion where you participated. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bug you again. Could you explicitly clarify if your support for the ban includes, or excludes, talk pages? Just want to cover that base in case of any appeals. :) Thanks, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ANON IP trying to circumvent a block for trying to circumvent a block?

If you get a chance to take a look at this. This is the third IP editing from Australia as "Sutter Cane" after the first two have been blocked (one by another admin and the second by you). QueenofBattle (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

167.102.157.65

I have modified your schoolblock of 167.102.157.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to permit account creation, as there is an English teacher there using Wikipedia to teach composition. I will monitor the IP and occasionally run checkuser on it to ensure that things are not getting out of hand. Fred Talk 18:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

All good. Thanks for the heads up. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia e-mail

What is your problem with me?? Why do you keep blocking me because of Duklja article? What have I done wrong,please tell me. This e-mail was sent by user "Bersus" on the English Wikipedia to user "Toddst1" Sun 10/25/2009 15:11 UTC

No specific problem. You've an edit warred and later violated your 1RR sanction. What don't you understand? Toddst1 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Imposter?

Dear Toddst1,

This message should have gone to admin Fastily, but I found that he is on a break and apparently someone is trying to take advantage of that by imposing as him.

Please check my talk page, you'd see a message apparently from administrator Fastily, saying I have been blocked indefinitely for use of multiple id's. This was really surprising to me, I followed the page and I saw that someone,- Keysvolume (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Keysvolume) who has been vandalizing certain pages, that has been restored by me and others had bought a sockpuppet charge against me. I was cleared, as it showed no connection. This made me even more surprised at that block - I checked the edit history of my talk page and found an user with ip address (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:59.92.243.49&action=edit&redlink=1) have left that message. I think this same user has been vandalising exactly those pages that the above mentioned user was doing earlier, till he was blocked temporarily. Please take a look at my talk page, and it would be clear to you. Keysvolume was blocked temporarily by you, some time back.

Also, a previously blocked page - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salwa_Judum&action=history, was edited by someone after a detailed point by point and in-depth discussion in the talk page. These unregistered users are vandalising and reverting without any discussion in the talk page. Could this page be put back to a sem-protect status?

Thank you very much, Vinter-light (talk) 15:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Keysvolume banned, ip blocked. They appear to be the same person. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for such prompt action! Enjoy your break :-) (I just noticed you're on semi-break too!) Vinter-light (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm here this morning, so I might as well do something 8-). Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Please unblock

Hi,

This is the second time I found message:

---

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia.

You can still read pages, but you cannot edit, change, or create them.

Editing from 93.142.144.0/20 has been disabled by Toddst1 for the following reason(s): Block evasion: hateful WP:NPA from banned user:Orijentolog

This block has been set to expire: 13:51, 30 October 2009.

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and contact other editors and administrators by e-mail.

Note: Please use the [show] links across from each header to show more information.

---

I already left some messages regarding this IP range block, so I will repeat: You blocked considerable part of Croatia. Could You please unblock this range? --Rotanev (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is the first I've heard about it. As far as I can tell, it's only 4096 ip addresses, so I'm skeptical about your claims about this being a considerable part of Croatia, but I'll have a CU take a look. Toddst1 (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've asked User talk:Thatcher to take a look as the most likely active CU I've found, but if there's another CU who has this page watchlisted, I could use some help. Toddst1 (talk) 11:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are a number of editors on that range, it's also not effective at blocking user:Orijentolog as more than half of his contribs come from a different (non-contiguous) range. Thatcher 12:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Thatcher. I appreciate the help. I've unblocked the range. Toddst1 (talk) 12:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Keeping Jon Corzine semi-protected until Nov 3

Just an intuition here, but I suspect the moment your semi-protect on Corzine expires this afternoon we will start seeing more anonymous vandalism. Any chance of extending the semi-protect until November 4th (the day after the election)? --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the article. If you see shenanigans going on before I do there, please bring it to my attention ASAP or bring it to ANI if I'm not active. Toddst1 (talk) 16:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Canvass

I am sorry for violating WP:Canvass, feel free to revert any of my changes that you perceive as canvassing. As far as racial abuse is concerned, this is what I felt, calling a group of people illiterates and what they say as f* joke is not right Those who have visited a country like India know how strong a association with a party can be, as equivalent to a nation. ( May be you don't agree, but this is my opinion and also now I feel that I overreacted. ) Thanks for pointing this out. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. I think we're ok at this point. Good luck working out the dispute on the article's talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have self-reverted [102], [103] ; Hope its fine now. Rgrds, Spdiffy (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Re User talk:Lucysim

While the removal of the content may be questionable, I agree with your request not to treat these changes as actionable. The editor does appear to have been acting out of good faith (and a good bit of unfamiliarity with our rules). Please feel free to remove any warning messages I may have left there, and thank you for taking the bull by the horns on this issue and attempting to resolve it rather than throw tags and messages as I have done here. Thanks for your note. Alansohn (talk) 17:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Christina Billotte Fan

I hope you don't delete the Christina Billotte page. I am a huge fan of her guitar playing. She is a very influential musician and contributed greatly to the early Riot Grrrl movement. I don't understand why her page would get deleted. Please let me know if anything happens. RiotGrrl91 (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Unactionable?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Regarding this "unactionable report" on AIV, what does it need to be actionable? The IP is making the same edits to the same pages as the two IPs who have already been blocked. I'm spending a significant portion of the time I have for WP undoing the disruptive edits of this person. Other Admins have blocked the previous 2 IPs he/she was using. What's different this time? I need help dealing with this situation. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a shared IP and the editor had stopped vandalizing. The last several edits seemed decent. Being that the editor wasn't active there's no need to block. Are you referring to the edits on Seventh Sojourn? I don't see any WP:Vandalism there. Am I missing something? Toddst1 (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response to your question on User talk:Alexf‎. — John Cardinal (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Consolidating conversation to User_talk:Alexf#Block_of_76.91.152.248 Toddst1 (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Wendy_Doniger#Blatant_POV:_The_disappearance_of_Criticism

Please take a look. Added my view on the pages. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks.2C_copy_vio.2C_removal_of_scholarly_material_at_Wendy_Doniger]--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 11:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I could not understand why the UNDUE, POV quote farm is retained in the article, when ONLY the criticism is removed, either both should be included or both should be removed till the dispute is resolved and some neutral "Critical analysis" is formed. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

76.91.152.248 again

You marked the AIV entry as resolved without blocking 76.91.152.248 (talk · contribs). Later, the troublesome editor reappeared at that IP address and I updated my entry. I now realize, however, that because the entry is marked resolved the update may not be noticed.

I appreciate your help on this matter, but bluntly, if the editor returns in force (which I expect given past experience), I am not sure that anything I did today has helped at all, and that's disheartening. I spent a fair amount of time figuring out what AIV required (never added anything there before) and documenting the troublesome edits. Yes, the the current IP was blocked, but the too-short block on IP #2 that I complained about to Alexf (talk · contribs) has expired and so what happens? The vandal reappears there. So far, I've spent more time on this matter than on prior reports and the outcome is less effective. Any IP used by this person should get a good long block. I understand that admin's have to watch out for collateral damage, but that's theoretical. Meanwhile, the editor wastes my time and disrupts articles. I feel that the time and effort of a productive editor--me--is less important than some theoretical benefit from unknown editors who might chance by the IP that's also used by a vandal.

Please put a two or three month block on 76.91.152.248, and/or tell me what I have to do to get a better solution to this issue. Do we need to protect the articles s/he visits? (That's a minimum of 20 articles and probably more.) Is there some other solution, or is WP just prone to this BS as long as it allows anonymous edits and edits from un-validated addresses? — John Cardinal (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Good job catching that and with the ANI discussion in general. I've replied on ANI. Let me know if he/she appears as another ip or named editor. I'd rather not protect the articles but will if this continues. Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me on this, and for the barn star. Regarding the star, I was quite surprised as I let a little of my frustration with the IP editor spill over into my comments above and you didn't deserve that. It was nice of you to ignore that and focus on the effort it took to build a case. I suspect the editor will be back on some other IP, but I'll cross that bridge when I come to it... Thanks again. — John Cardinal (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. It's clear you're here to contribute constructively and were just a little frustrated with my administrative answer, which is understandable. As I wrote in What you won't learn in new admin school, admins need thick skins. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Did I forget to thank you? ..

Toddst1 ,Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- Tinu Cherian - 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

All good. Toddst1 (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

cookie!!

Logomaniac has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

P.S. is it ok if I say on my userpage that you ... were involved in the whole sockpuppet deal? L☺g☺maniac chat? 18:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course anyone who looks at the links will know, but anyway. Thanks for taking the time to explain why I was a sock puppeteer all of a sudden. :) L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine. You could say something like "please see this" or if you want me to leave a note as an admin, I'll be glad to do so. Toddst1 (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Logomaniac#I'm a sockpuppeteer!! feel free to make any changes you wish. ;) L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Unprotect

Hopefully the kid will be gone to bed, so you can unprotect my page, maybe as NawlinWiki it might catch a few more socks if it continues. In anyway thanks for the PP it was getting tiresome. BigDunc 22:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

SPI thing from ANI

Hey. Thanks for taking care of the SPI enforcement on ANI. I left another note there - should I leave a message on the SPI case about the enforcement? And where should it go? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't hurt noting that the editor has been blocked on the SPI. I think you could put it anywhere. Thanks for your follow-up. Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Greetings.

Hi.

Since you are one of the people who voted in favor of my recent topic ban, I invite you to participate in this discussion on my talk page. I am especially concerned that the people who supported my topic ban did not answer these particular questions that I repeatedly asked during the discussion of my proposed topic ban. I am very much interested in hearing your answers to these questions.

If you do not wish to participate in this discussion, you don't have to. If you wish to erase this comment from your talk page, you may do so. I will not post this message on your talk page a second time. This comment is meant as a request, and not a demand. Thank you.

Grundle2600 (talk) 13:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I read your questions and I'm afraid you're focusing on the details too much. The answer is that I observed a pattern of repeated, unresolved conflict around US politics. In any of the long standing conflicts waged documented on Wikipedia, I feel that repeated partisan editing by anyone is not in the interest of Wikipedia. This is not to say that some of your edits weren't well-placed or proper. Rather, it was addressing the macro issue. I hope this helps.

Good luck going forward. Respectfully, Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I did not focus "too much" on the details. The details are the only thing that matters. All of my questions are legitimate. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

OK then. You have my answer. Toddst1 (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Ptrartwhhh

I'm glad I'm not he only one keeping an eye on him. I have no idea what to think of this guy: some of his edits actually are helpful, but most are either trivia-heavy messes, unhelpful or bordering on vandalism. and did you see his first edit? HalfShadow (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Quite a mess. Toddst1 (talk) 20:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure what the link on the left is. I can't find anything in particular nor can I find an email address.```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucysim (talk • contribs) 00:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI discussion closure

I'm not sure if you were aware, but it's actually Ottava that started the discussion on Jimbo's page, it was not J (who raised the concern at ANI). He's also been acting pretty disruptively in several other areas. I think there are some issues that may need to be addressed there, would you mind unclosing the discussion? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Let the drama begin. ... I'm outta here for a while. Toddst1 (talk) 06:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Seraphimblade was one of Ottava's targets today. There are others; it's not just Chillum. It's been a day-long drama festival with Ottava the perpetrator. I really don't understand the thread close. Antandrus (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on this Seraphim and Antandrus. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for this edit. Regards. dissolve^talk 23:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Me

Thanks for unblocking :) Do you have some mediator in mind for the color of that map of [104] ? On most maps different colors represent different nations. However this could be an exception because Laz uploaded few maps with this new colors. As the maps are under the GNU license I can made copies with standard color scheme, but I'm not sure it is worth the trouble. Any suggestions ? --Čeha (razgovor) 21:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I don't consider myself much of a mediator. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me tell you what happened, Toddst1. The original standard color scheme was that the serbs are represented as blue. Ceha then changed that and supposedly out of nowhere there is a new standard scheme. It won't do. He can't keep on changing images that other people have created. That is what led to the edit war, that and his refusal to discuss the matter. (LAz17 (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)).

As Roseanne Roseannadanna used to say, Discuss amongst yourselves. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Paradoxic is back

You blocked User:Paradoxic while ago. He is back again. Check 76.191.230.178 contributions [105]--WIMYV? (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Whack. Toddst1 (talk) 03:06, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war on Lady Deathstrike

I'm sorry about that - I will leave it alone. Note that I was engaged with an anon at first, who was subsequently blocked for rudeness, and then this person created a sockpuppet to continue edit warring with me. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You seem like a solid contributor. Can we get you to sign up for an account? No spam - nothing, just all the credits for your contributions. Toddst1 (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome - I'll think about it. :) Sorry about the edit warring - this person was insisting on making claims without a source and got very rude with me when I would not accept his assertions. But, instead of reverting over and over I should have sought more input, which I will do if they (now blocked) return again. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. Nobody likes to be insulted. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. :) I started a thread at SPI (since I can't start my own case) because it looks like this person is building a sockfarm just to continue the edit war that you have already warned one of his accounts to stop. Not sure what you can do, but geez... WTF? :) 24.148.0.83 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi, you left a comment on my talk page - and I'd like to respond personally.

Firstly, I am of the opinion that DagErlingSmørgrav is abusing his Twinkle priveliges - because his roll-back on ETKA constituted vandalism - check the edit history. I use ETKA on a daily basis, and the changes that DagErlingSmørgrav made to the article completely changed some of the fundament aspects of what ETKA is. And furthermore, when DagErlingSmørgrav changed the red links, particularly the LexCom link, he changed it so that it did NOT comply with two separate points of the MoS (a) naming conventions, and (b) abbreviations/acronyms.

Secondly, on the 'Pumpe Düse' issue (in the {{Volkswagen Group brands}} template, and also in the Unit Injector article), DagErlingSmørgrav again made edits which constituted vandalism - because there are TWO actual citations which prove that my edits were correct and that the edits of DagErlingSmørgrav were wrong (his justification was that 'Pumpe Düse' is from a German augmentive - and whilst I fully agree with him in the general terms, when we are specifically addressing what Volkswagen themselves use - then surely we must respect that)

Kind regards 78.32.143.113 (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

78.32.143.113 (talk · contribs) is simply incorrect about Pumpe-Düse. I provided a link to a Google search showing that VAG themselves use the hyphenated form almost exclusively. Try performing the same search without the hyphen...

He is also incorrect about LexCom, which is not a “specialist automotive industry software publisher”. They specialize in what they call “professional information management″ in general, for many sectors, not just the automotive industry. They started out making microfiche archival systems for Deutsche Post.

I addedd a citation needed tag to the ETKA article because I could not find any references to a 7.2 version online, only 7.1.

VAG is not an abbreviation of “Volkswagen Audi Group”, as the VAG disambiguation page claims, but an abbreviation of “Volkswagen AG”, where “AG” means “Aktiengesellschaft”, which is the German word for “limited company”.

Finally, instead of dismissing it out of hand, please explain why my AIV request is “unactionable”, as you call it—and if you can't, please restore it and let someone else evaluate it.

DES (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

You saw the explanation on AIV. It's a content dispute - not WP:Vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 14:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

DagErlingSmørgrav - have you actually read the quoted English language citations for Pumpe Düse in the Unit Injector article. There are two separate citations (one an official Volkswagen technical manual, and the other from an independent expert college tutor) - and these do not support your point of view! And perhaps you'd like to read this article VAG Rounded which supports the VAG intials for the original 'Volkswagen Audi Group'. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 14:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can this be taken to Talk: ETKA where it belongs? Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please help - urgent specific Administrator request

Someone has a vendetta against me! A user has initiated an request for arbitration, yet the originating user has completely failed to follow the correct due process of dispute resolution. Furthermore, because I am not a registered user, I can NOT make any formal responses to the arbitration! Finally, user DES has taken to resort to both personal attacks against me (on both my talk page, and on various other places), and wrongly quote me in the arbitration request. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 14:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I urge you to respond to the RFAR with specifics including WP:Diffs. I'll try to keep an eye on the progress. Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I can NOT respond to the RFAR. The Wikipedia:requests for arbitration main page has a padlock in the top right corner of the article, meaning that as an "IP editor", I personally can not edit, hence I can not submit my responce. Though I now see that User:Wizardman has now declined the matter - so does that mean that it has now been thrown out, or is there more to this than meets the eye? 78.32.143.113 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and as an attempt to reach some kind of concencus on one issue, I raised a valid discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard - Automotive genuine parts - RS or not? - to hopefully seek a way forward. Thanks for you help, very much appreciated. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Could you repeat the block

Of this anon. Long term, since he is not giving up... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

you bet. Toddst1 (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for the revert and other things regarding User:Charkle. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Looks like a persistent problem there. Glad someone protected G-Unit too. I was in process of doing that. Toddst1 (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering, as you're an admin, could you take a look at the topic I've created on the records page and see if I am correct or if it should stay as is? Thank you very much. --HELLØ ŦHERE 19:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You may want to up the block from 72 hrs, as it took 6 minutes for Charkle to protest his block. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Toddst1 (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

So, seeing as the user was blocked, can the G-Unit Records page be changed since it contains false information? --HELLØ ŦHERE 16:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

About International club competition records and Football records in Spain

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hello.

• According to General provisions: Definitions - 13.Official competition (pag.5) from FIFA statutes, FIFA ONLY recognise as "official competition" at international level any tournament organizated by FIFA itself (e.g. FIFA Club World Cup) or any Confederation (UEFA, CONMEBOL, CONCACAF, CAF, AFC and/or OFC).
• FIFA have NEVER organizated regional or continental competitions in history. In 105 years FIFA only have organizated international competitions at world-wide level (Senior and Youth) and the FIFA Confederations Cup (at intercontinental level). The only club competition organizated by FIFA is the FIFA Club World Cup.
• FC Barcelona has won only 10 official international competitions. UEFA only recognize 10 international titles.
• "Classic football" section from fifa.com not represent the official position of FIFA, read:

"The list of clubs or the opinions expressed in the articles do not necessarily represent the views of FIFA, unless expressly stated otherwise. If your favourite club is not yet listed, please be patient as FIFA.com will be publishing more profiles in the coming weeks."

• Fairs Cup is not recognized by UEFA, read that:

UEFA Cup: All-time finals - UEFA.com

Fairs Cup: "The UEFA Cup replaced the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in the 1971/72 season. The list of finals from that competition are listed below, but please note that the Fairs Cup is not considered a UEFA competition, and hence clubs' records in the Fairs Cup are not considered part of their European record. [...]
NOTE: The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup also took place from 1955 to 1971 but not as an official UEFA competition."

Legend: All-time statistics - UEFA.com

Quote|"UEFA club competitions: These are the official statistics considered valid for communicating official records in UEFA club competitions defined as the European Champion Clubs' Cup, the UEFA Champions League, the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, the UEFA Europa League, the UEFA Cup, the UEFA Super Cup (from the 1973 competition), the UEFA Intertoto Cup and the European/South American Cup. Matches in the Inter-Cities’ Fairs Cup and the 1972 Super Cup are included only for information purposes as these competitions were not held under UEFA auspices."

• According to Tit. VI, chapter. II, section 1, art. 29 bis, paragraph 1, pag.19 from RFEF statutes, RFEF, the governing body of football in Spain ONLY recognise as "official football tournaments" at national level:
  

1. Los Campeonatos Nacionales de Liga de Primera, Segunda, Segunda B y Tercera División (Spanish Football Championships from First to Third Divition).
2. El Campeonato de España/Copa de S.M. el Rey (Spanish Cup).
3. La Supercopa (Spanish Super Cup).
4. La Copa RFEF (Spanish League Cup).

Also, the entity (RFEF) recognise official UEFA and FIFA competitions as equivalent to "statal championships". Fairs Cup is not included because it is not an UEFA competition. According this IP which, curiously, has the same points of view of the IPs who have organized this edit-war, "Fairs Cup was a FIFA competition" but this argument is clearly wrong.--

Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:TLDR What does all this have to do with anything? Toddst1 (talk) 06:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Summarizing:

1. About International club competition records:

In history FIFA have organizated only 12 international competitions, all at world-wide or intercontinental level (only 1 for clubs). If Fairs Cup was a non-UEFA affiliated competition, it was held only in Europe beetween representatives of some continental cities (after clubs), and it was launched 10 months after the birth of UEFA, so UEFA (not FIFA) is the only responsible to recognize Fairs Cup as "uefa competition" or not.
UEFA not recognize Fairs Cup as UEFA competition (For this FC Barcelona have only 10 official international titles, not 13)
In Association football each government body is sovereign. FIFA is the only responsible of organize/recognize world-wide and/or intercontinental tournaments, just like any Confederation is responsible of organize/recognize continental competitions and any Association of organize/recognize tournaments at national (or domestic) level without encroaching on the rights of the organizations already cited and viceversa.

"Classic Football" not represent the point of view of FIFA (read the note below the map).

FIFA can not recognize Fairs Cup because it was an European competition and in that continent the governing body for football is UEFA.

2. About Football records in Spain:

According RFEF statutes (page 19), RFEF recognize only UEFA and FIFA competitions at international level and Fairs Cup is not and UEFA/FIFA competition.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you have a point somewhere that I'm supposed to get, but it isn't clear. What is it that you want to do? Toddst1 (talk) 16:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Simply, he wants diminish FC Barcelona's honours, using his original researches. Instead of annoying us with his long, seemingly random information, he must simply give us a clear and explicit official source that says that Fairs Cup was a friendly competition. He wasn't able to find this (supposed) source, until now.
User Dantetheperuvian also breaks the rule of good faith that must be follow in wikipedia: if "Classic Football not represent the point of view of FIFA", why he used Classic Football as source for honours of other clubs?--79.54.145.117 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is this point being attempted on my talk page instead of FC Barcelona's talk page? Toddst1 (talk) 21:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@ IP:

These sources can be replaced by more reliable links :) but it's hard with your edit-war.

@ Toddst1:

FIFA cannot organise Continental tournaments in Europe –as suggested by the IP– because in that continent (at international level) the only football's authority is UEFA as well as in each country affiliated to FIFA the authority is an Association. I never said the Fairs Cup was "a friendly", it was a official tournament like Mitropa Cup and Latin Cup, but is a fact that UEFA not recognise these competitions.

Curiously A.C. Milan have won 21 international titles including 2 Latin Cups (1951 and 1956) and 1 Mitropa Cup (1982), but if UEFA UEFA recognize only 18 –or 17 in UEFA competitions and 2007 FIFA World Cup– (uefadirect, UEFA's monthly full-colour 24-page official magazine, 08/02 pag.15)...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bierbaum

HI, Todd. I submitted the permissions request as requested to allow the Bierbaum post to go up online. Thank you, Kevin Merrill, director of communications U-M School of Natural Resources and Environment 440 Church St. | Ann Arbor, MI 48109 O: 734.936.2447 | C: 734.417.7392 snre.umich.edu | merrillk@umich.edu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrillkevin (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 November 2009

Rob McNealy

Im new to editing in wiki, Rob McNealy is a Canidate for Colorado 6th Congressional / US Congress. He has been in numerious national publications. What do I need to provide to have a Page on his information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarvada (talk • contribs) 15:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help so that I can get this posted correctly. Rob is a canidate for the Colorado Congressional House District 6, do I need to include more external links?(Wikiarvada :(talk) 16:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)9:05 MT)

Yes, per WP:BIO. As the article was written, the person is not WP:Notable per WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Todd, thank you for the direction and guidelines.. I'll work on clarifying the language so that I can meet your/wiki guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiarvada (talk • contribs) 23:39, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Zinstall XP7 deletion

Hi Toddst1, the article you have deleted was originally flagged by andy when he noticed my intermediate edit which was basically just an infobox. Since the infobox contains an external link, andy rightly assumed this is link spam, and flagged the article as such. I have since added content to the article in question, and was in the process of adding more. I have recently gave a talk on the subject of virtualization and migration at my uni, and am editing the relevant articles where I see things missing. Zinstall was missing altogether, that's why I had to start it. Please forgive me for lack of experience in editing the articles - I would be very glad if you could verify my other edits are up to par.

Would you be able to undelete the article in question, so that I can continue contributing to it and others? (andy explained that, unfortunately, he can't do it, since he's not an admin) Many thanks, Sam. Samfranker (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

You can find it in User:Samfranker/Zinstall XP7. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I have added content and references to the article. I have also added stub template and there are some citations needed.

Please tell me if I'm on the right track. Should I add the product logo/screenshots, or is it deemed spam as well?

If the article is bearable now and can be placed in wiki (at least as work in progress), I will be able to move on to editing other stuff in the virtualization/migration area. Thanks again for your help!Samfranker (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I would lose the "Features", "System Requirements", and "Known Issues" sections completely. It sounds like marketing material. I would add third-party references where the product is reviewed and any awards the product has won. That will allow it to pass WP:Notability. As it stands now, it doesn't. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

DBpedia User

I created that user User:DBpedia, but now I see that it was a mistake. How do I delete it? Sorry for the mess SebastianHellmann (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

G-Unit records.

Once again, we are having problems on the page. Could you please settle the problem? --HELLØ ŦHERE 00:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't have much time, but hopefully semi-protection will help. Toddst1 (talk) 06:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

User:67.60.203.231 and User:TyVulpine

Hi Toddst1, Thanks for blocking User:67.60.203.231 and User:TyVulpine. In fairness, I probably should be blocked, too, since I was also engaged in the revert war, and certainly went well-past three-reverts. But, anyway, just a quick note on this. The issue here is really that User:67.60.203.231 has already been blocked (and then unblocked) for disruptive editing. That IP address seems to be WP:SPA, and has so far done little more than attempt to repeatedly add information about what would have happened if NASCAR's Chase had not been implemented (see his reference [106], and notice the "What-if" in the link title, and the "Unofficial" part). By contrast, Ty and I were reverting back to data that is supported by the official statistics (see [107] and note the word "official" there and [108]). This is *not* a matter of a particular point of view but rather a matter of factually verifiable information versus speculation about what might have happened, *if* the current system had not been implemented a few years ago. As such, I don't think this is a standard content dispute... but it's also not standard potty mouth vandalism. I don't know what this adds to the discussion, but it does provide some background on Ty's motivations. I think his edit comment was unnecessary, but I share his frustration. When IPs who seem intent on merely disrupting wikipedia can cause good editors to get blocked, something needs to be re-evaluated. Although the IP did claim to recognize that he was in the wrong after many repeated attempts to change the content of that page and related pages (see [109]) I'm not sure I quite believe it, since his talk page history reveals a pattern of this sort (I'll leave it to you to go there). It's also interesting that, after this all started, two new user accounts appeared, User:BASHAMA and User:Goodmanman, who immediately jumped right into this edit-war, apparently siding with the IP, but also appearing confused. If this is a WP:Sock, it's a pretty sophisticated one, but it might be. Can you look into this? (Oh, and BTW, if you have to block me, too, I guess that's fair). Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The point of the blocks are to prevent further disruption. I suspect the edit war is over so no need to block you although if you really want me to, I'd be happy to oblige 8-) I don't have time right now to look into the sock stuff. I'll see what I can find tomorrow. Toddst1 (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I can control myself without the block; thanks for the offer though. :-) It would be great if you could look into the sock stuff, and the rest of it when you get a chance. I'll be watching that IP, and when the block wears off, we'll see if he goes back to his old habits. Perhaps a stern defense has shown that wikipedia can't be edited willy-nilly... also, what about semi-protect on some of those pages? I could have sworn that the Jeff Gordon page (a kind of indirect causality of this war) had been semi-protected until recently. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 04:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been chasing this vandal for a few days - s/he keeps adding non-official race wins to drivers and articles. I've undone and reverted many edits from this person. Ed, reverting vandalism like misinformation is excluded from 3RR violations. Keep up the great work and thanks to both of you for doing the clean up. If this flares up again, I'll have to semi-protect the articles to prevent this vandalism. Royalbroil 04:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi guys, I see that User:TyVulpine has requested an unblock, based on the fact that he was reverting to retain factually accurate information, while the IP was reverting to non-factually accurate information. As I noted above, both Ty and I were working to maintain the pages so that the information corresponded to the verifiable, reliable sources that were already in place. So, for what it's worth, I think that his unblock request is valid. RoyalBroil also says in his post above that reverting this kind of misinformation is not included under the 3RR rule, so that would further support Ty's request (BTW, since I raised the sock question above, you can check our respective histories, I'm sure no one would mistake either one of us for a sock of the other). Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well my comment wasn't exactly correct, their might be an interpretation of Ty's action as being more than reverting obvious vandalism. It's Todd's call as the blocking admin. I would consider unblocking if I were Todd, but that depends on if Todd is pursuing a sockpuppet investigation. This may be a sockpuppet farm, it does smell funny to me. Not Ed, of course, I know seen you around here for a long time. Royalbroil 05:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

Please show me where I did three reverts within the last 24 hours. Dumaka (talk) 01:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you should re-read my comment. Toddst1 (talk) 01:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have went to the talk page and told them to meet me there; however, the people who keep changing my edits have not. Where are their warnings? Dumaka (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Hoax?

Ok you tagged my article that i was just starting as being a hoax, it isn't look at the citations.Iminrainbows (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I quickly realized my error and reversed both the tagging and the notice on your talk page two minutes before you left this note. Toddst1 (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you attacking me?

Tonight, someone tried to out personal information about my username. When turning to wikipedia admins for assistance because this is considered harassment you then decided to delete two pages I put up that meet all notability requirements to be on wikipedia, I have worked with admin's on to improve content and be sure they met all the required guidelines for a wikipedia article. They are not advertising or anything of the sort. They are information about two people who are notable and active in the computer security world. I do not understand why you have decided to not only tag for speedy deletion but to go ahead and delete without discussion as well as threaten my ability to edit anything on wikipedia in the future. I have done nothing wrong and have worked with other admins to be sure the information that I add to wikipedia has appropriate referencing as well as third party sources and meets required notability. I would appreciate an explanation as to why you feel both these articles need to be deleted and why the harassment I am experiencing is merely being furthered by an administrator.

Thanks Rpelton (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Be careful about accusations of harassment. The articles were deleted as promotional. Toddst1 (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The person put a personal name and title of a job attached to my username. This is most CLEARLY harassment by this user. The only way you would remove those as promotional after other admins had looked at them and passed them as notable and no other argument had been put up about them at all-- would be if you believed the personal information that was put up about my username. I believe that is very unfair as a basis for deletion. Put the speedy delete tag on it and let some other people weigh in on it before removing it is all I ask. It's a consensus that should be reached, not the assumption of any one person based on information that is uninformed. Rpelton (talk) 08:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Look, the personal info was deleted along with the information about your bosses. You're confusing WP:BIO with WP:Advert. Read the part about "public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual." Toddst1 (talk) 08:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your response obviously shows that you believe the information that was posted about my username. Interesting because the harassment page says:

"If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information."

Which I have followed and you have apparently assumed the accuracy of the information by the use of the term 'your bosses'. As an admin, shouldn't you be assuming the information is false, or at least discounting it somewhat and not allowing it to weigh into your decisions for deletion? It would not be hard to allow a week for comments on these pages by people other than ourselves before deleting them. That's all I'm asking you to do. Rpelton (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

No matter what happened to draw my attention to those articles, in my opinion they read like PR pieces with footnotes. If I had looked at your edits without any outing, I would almost certainly come to the conclusion you were being paid by the company even if you had a completely cryptic name. We see this all the time. If you disagree with my deletion of the articles, take them to Wikipedia:Deletion review. Toddst1 (talk) 09:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I will most certainly take them to deletion review, however I still believe that review should be handled on a tagged page rather than my fighting to have the entire page retrieved. There was no need for that excessive deletion without further review from outside opinions. Rpelton (talk) 09:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion is just that - speedy without discussion. That doesn't mean they can't be appealed and overturned. You really need to stop making accusations. Toddst1 (talk) 09:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Template:GenderChristianity

Hi. Can you remove the protection from this template? Issues with it seem to have been resolved just fine on the talk page. I don't know what made you protect it for a month anyway, seems like overkill to me.--Atlan (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. In the case of WP:EWs on the numerous ethnic conflicts or religious differences waged documented on Wikipedia, protecting for a long period of time sometimes preferred to prevent further flare ups. These conflicts have been going on for hundreds if not thousands of years and a month of protection is not going to hurt, but it may save a few folks from blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Rpelton

Hello! Thanks a lot, I wasn't aware of the policy, WP:OUTING. Nevertheless, quite obvious, Rpelton's username already "outs" them. Cheers,  Barocci  16:21, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliefappearance

Greetings and thank you for looking into the issue with Reliefappearance. I will of course be more careful about signing my warnings. Reliefappearance seems to have a history of problems. At what point does a user like this get blocked? Regards, Pdcook (talk) 16:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point s/he has been given what I consider a final warning and an ip sockpuppet identified. Report to AIV upon the next instance of vandalism. If you find WP:TE, you'll need to go back to ANI and reference the previous (probably archived by then) discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)r

I did notice this discussion on ANI from before. Hopefully s/he will be constructive in the future. Thanks again for all your help. Pdcook (talk) 17:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like Tan has taken a more WP:BOLD approach than I have. I like it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

User:AlfonseLaw_LLP

Would you mind looking at this again? The user in question, while unblocked to change his/her name, is back to deleting materiel from articles, claiming copyright. Thanks, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm 3 minutes ahead of you: [110] Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, in fact, were it not for the edit conflict, I would have left you a note saying just that - and thank you! --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

66.244.98.91

Hi Can I ask you to take a look again at the block of this IP? I realize that some of the insertions of material were quite inappropriate, but then so was the tone and content of aspect (e.g "notorious incidents" and threats of violence) of the article when the editor started making changes.[111] I realize that you gave some useful advice about better ways to go about things, and that it didn't have immediate effect, but per BLP, and assuming the IP editor is Lee (which seems likely) then maybe we should try a bit more to help educate? --Slp1 (talk) 17:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've unblocked 66.244.98.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Geolocate shows this ip registered to INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Not likely the subject of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Well she lives in Indiana, so I don't think is so very unlikely, myself. Given the details the editor (very problematic though they were) added, and what was removed, I'd be inclined to think that it is her and that we might want to give the IP the benefit of the doubt for now. But I leave it up to you.--Slp1 (talk) 18:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

129.35.81.19

Just a note: Your talk page comment indicates a one year block, while the block log indicates a one month block. Not sure which you intended, but you might want to sync them up. --ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Fixed. Toddst1 (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Todd. Thank you for your message, but I am really not interested in entering this kind of debate. I am happy to provide interesting material regarding instances of cultural interaction through the ages, but it is clear that some people will never appreciate that kind of stuff, whatever the argument. Let it be. Best regards PHG ^{Per Honor et Gloria} 19:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

BizRate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hey Todd,

Was just reading through your comments, and you are correct, we are not in the top 3%, and our math is definitely the same.

"Congratulations to our 2009 Platinum Circle of Excellence Winners! Platinum winners received outstanding ratings across all 7 metrics and represent the top 4% of all merchants in the BizRate network."

I'd like you advice on how to best word this. While we are not in the top 4%, we are definitely noted here. Also, any assistance you can provide at making our entry correct would be appreciated.Just let me know what kind of sources you would recommend. Since we are public company, most of the information is in our SEC filings. Thanks again and appreciate your comments. Lalitd (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)Lalitd

Moving this discussion to User talk:Lalitd as important information will be posted. there

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ha!

Somebody doesn't like you, you must be doing something right! =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have my fans. Toddst1 (talk) 06:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Kedco

Firstly I’d like to apologise for getting dragged into an edit war recently on the Kedco page. My tactics, while the result of frustration, were totally inappropriate and your ban was completely justified.

Not trying to justify my tactics, I would ask you to consider banning Hiberniae for the following reasons:

1. The user account was set up solely for the purposes of abusing Wikipedia to discredit this company. (All user activity is on this one topic)

2. He persists in quoting his own personal blog as the reference for one of his biased points of view

3. One of his first edits was vandalism, personally attacking the CEO of the company

4. He more or less admitted here that this is a personal agenda: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kedco#My_agenda.3F_The_truth ...This is also the tone of his blog which contains numerous negative references to Kedco.

You might ask if I also have an agenda? I have no connection to Kedco, but I do know 2 people who work for the company and have been watching the page since the vandalism last year. I have no problem with the points being made if made using neutral language and appropriately referenced. However, my attempts to neutralise the language and remove inappropriate references, and to discuss these, have not been successful. When he engaged in rapid reverts on Tuesday last of my edits, I was drawn into the edit war out of frustration. I should have taken a different approach and not engaged him. If you will not ban him, can you advise on the best approach? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus72 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your impartial intervention on this topic. I should have asked an administrator for an independent viewpoint from the beginning rather than engaging someone determined to use wikipedia for their own personal agenda. I've learned my lesson, thanks Seamus72 (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re The Balkans issues

I really have no idea how an article on phonology could be related to the current imbroglios on the Balkan peninsula. But then, why don't you correct the mistakes or find someone else to do so? After all, what are editors for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan val (talk • contribs) 23:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to say this is very ironic given that you blanked the page yesterday and then accuse others of vandalism. I haven't seen anything explaining this rather odd contradiction. Care to explain? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I only tried to write the page anew and that's why deleted it. But was of course prevented by your editor or administrator or whatever you guys are. Just one thing more: Wikipedia proclaimed itself to be an "open encyclopedia" but it's firmly going in the oposite direction. Maybe to be just merged with the "Britannica" someday... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan val (talk • contribs) 23:26, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1's the admin, I'm just a nosy n00b. If you're going to rewrite the article, rewrite it. Don't blank it as that is always considered vandalism (with the only exception being if the original author is the only one to have edited it and they want it to be deleted). Simply rewrite it in a single edit or bit by bit if you don't have time. Failing that, make a subpage in your userspace, work on the article there (or on the page's talk page to discuss any changes) and then copy-paste it over into the true article. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:31, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Laz17

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Toddst1, I have something to ask you. You've given me a rule of 1 week revert over the anything in connection with balkans. I'm accepted that (hell, discussion pages should mean something:). But I have an felling that user Laz follows my edits and intentionally reverts them. This has happened only once for now (I'm unfortunally not very acctive editor, I made just one edit in the previous week) he even asked another user to help him in bloking me? This has happened on [112] pages, onto which user Laz did not have any previously edits. I've would like that this guy stops stocking me. Do you have any advice what to do? I usually do accept everything on wikipedia in good faith, but this is a bit too much. I do not ask that user Laz17 is blocked or something like that. But I would be most than happy if he would stop his current behaviour or at least be warned against it. Any advices are also welcomed. Thanks in advance. --Čeha (razgovor) 00:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Before you make a conclusion, read what I have to say. In the article that Ceha feels that I followed him, what can be seen is that Ceha has made some bad editing. You can see his edit here, [113] and thank god that I undid that awful thing. He changed the number of Croats from 131744 to 135,623. Naturally as this was not sourced, I had to undo it. Thank god I did. This guy is a confirmed frauder. In fact, he made a map of bosnia and herzeogvina, by settlements in which he grossly over-represented the croat population to the detriment of serbs and croats. I you are interested in that nasty discussion let me know. But, thanks to me following him, and then arguing with him on the talk page of the canton page, he decided to calculate stuff and got that there were 131791 croats. Whoops, where did his 135 thousand fraud go? Several thousand is a difference, and his materials which regularily have no source are not acceptable for wikipedia standards. This guy is simply angry because I fix his fraud. Why should he overrepresent the croats? Just because he is a croat? No, that is no excuse for his unsourced data. Thanks for understanding. (LAz17 (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

I putted the first numbers onto those pages and also putted the second numbers. My excel at home is not functioning and that explains the error. Laz it would not be a problem that you revoked something that is wrong, but it is a problem when you stalk somebody trying to cause edit wars, or when you ask other users to support you in the intention off banning that awful wikipedian just because of your POV. If you made cooperative edits, I would not mind, I wrongly added figures, but you stood there on discussion pages, inventing the reasons just to undo my contribution and start another edit war. This is unwikipedian. And your fraud theories are just in your nationalistic mind. Admin Ricky81682 [114] warned you against that. Again I do not ask for user Laz to blocked, but it would be good that someone explains to him that stalking and provoking edit wars is not right. Btw I think that 1 Balkan revert rule would do him also good :)

Toddst1, sorry for this argue on your pages, but can you please help ? --Čeha (razgovor) 01:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

My fraud theories are based on the fact that it took you a year er so to deal with a very problematic map in which croats were grosely overrepresented. You showed no will to cooperate with me and only cooperated in slightly improving an unsourced bullshit map after a third party, Direktor, came to mediate. And what you fixed was not much, as there are still many issues with the map. Your refusal to cooperate and to ignore my criticism of the map - which you did not when Direktor was mediating - is my conclusion that you are about fraud. You do not cooperate in the map problem if I am left alone with you. Hence the conclusion to the fraud. As Direktor himself said, "That sounds like heavy POV when you omit Serbian and/or Muslim villages and settlements. I hope you can see how people can perceive that simplification as "biased"?" That is Direktor's quote. Map is incredibly biased, so fraud is an appropriate word. Cheers.

It does not matter if you added data first. The point is that you changed data from about 131 thousand croats up to 135 thousand croats. You again tried to over-represent them. It's a slippery slope, if you get away with it once you might do it again. I simply reverted that problematic edit. You then removed all data and after some arguing on the talk page put back a number close to the initial number, of 131 thousand croats. So you are complaining because I reverted your fraud on the page. I do not know if your intention was fraud. I suspect it was. Maybe it was not. In any case, I did the correct thing, to remove your 135 thousand number. (LAz17 (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

Well this is the root of all the problems. User Laz concluded that I'm a nationalistic warior and tries to inflame me into his edit wars. His swearing words and uncivil behavior are a grave problem. As for CB canton changes, I gave the sources to the guy and than he started staling and basically to bable. Can something to be done onto this user? Something like restriction notice? :) I would like that the guy leaves me alone or at least start behaving like a normal wikipedian. --Čeha (razgovor) 13:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of filling up DIREKTOR's talk page, my talk page, ANI, WQA, and other WP:CANVASSING, you two should go to the map's talk page and discuss this there and avoid the ad-hominem arguments please. Toddst1 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

[115] some suggestions? This is an unilatory action. --Čeha (razgovor) 19:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Discuss with him and leave my talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Attack other users? huh?

What are you talking a bout? Your link doesn't work bud... --Львівське (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Picturefilms

You blocked Picturefilms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently for spam and related violations. They appear to be at it again. Just wanted to give you a heads up in case you wanted to escalate. --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 19:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Belay my last - they're still blocked. Sorry! --SquidSK ^(1MC•log) 19:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow

That's incredibly brilliant. Just saying. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if that's sarcasm or genuine. Either way, use it for what it's worth. I haven't moved it into the main space because I figured it would piss people off. Comments/suggestions/additions welcome. Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I try to avoid sarcasm; it's genuine. :) It probably will piss people off, but social commentary frequently does. After all, generally its purpose is to be provocative to get people to question established thought patterns and behaviors. Even when social commentary overstates its case (as some satirists are wont to do), it does its job when it achieves that goal.

I think this is particularly astute: "Through our culture, we encourage folks to make such accusations." I have seen a number of admins hampered from action because they feared being perceived as involved when an outside review suggested to me that their only involvement was being attacked for enforcing policies. And I believe you're very right that we have a double standard about addressing established contributors...not only in matters of civility. To some extent, I have to guard against this myself in working the copyright problems that I do. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

It will piss people off. Thanks for the validation. Toddst1 (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Block of Door34

Hi Toddst1! I just wanted to let you know that your block of Door34 (talk · contribs) has been raised in a thread at WP:ANI. Singularity42 (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In case you miss it at at ANI, I realized I was only looking at the contribution list, without taking into account deleted edits. I apologize. Singularity42 (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Zymo Research

The part of the article you deleted was actually edited by someone else. It shows on the talk page that I have contested the first deletion. You can look through the history that the admin that edited that part of the article was making it neutral. I was trying to put the science magazine as the source for the first area, but currently need to get another copy of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.7.73.26 (talk) 19:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Harrison Slater page

Hi Todd,

I'm trying to create a new page for writer, Harrison Slater. I'm copying a list of his works from his personal website, harrisonslater.com, with his permission. However, the list of works is simply bibliographic data, it is not copyrighted, and is in the public domain. It should not be a candidate for auto-deletion.

How can I prevent auto-deletion?

Thanks, --Matthewpierce (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not being truthful. That article was a verbatim copyright of http://www.harrisonslater.com/pages/biography.html. I suggest you try being more honest in both your communication with other editors and theft of material. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Protection of Algeria

Hi Toddst1, it was indeed necessary to protect Algeria. This page is heavily vandalized because of the football/soccer game and surrounding circumstances, but maybe semi-protection is sufficient, as there is no content dispute, just vandalism. Regards Antipastor (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems even worse today! Can you maybe take a look and re-protect? Antipastor (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of "fixing" the talk page, I guess someone had copy-pasted the toc and a couple of threads which were duplicated. Cheers Antipastor (talk) 00:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Let me know if it's still a problem after the current protection expires. Toddst1 (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

block pages from IPs edits

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

hi Toddst1, I want to tell you about these pages (International club competition records and Football records in Spain), where still someone is using IPs trying to make the pages consensus views, and defying do not listen to the other discussion, although his argument is not compelling and clear as one who cherished straw. Can you block these pages from IPs edits or tell me how to do it.--KSA^connect 07:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

let pages free and block KSA

Hi Toddst, I suggest you a better idea: blocking KSA, who continues to not understand the meaning of the guideline Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. KSA is a Real Madrid supporter, and its sole goal is to diminish Barça's honours. Unfortunately for him, FIFA (the supreme body of football) recognizes Barça honours (FIFA official website), as Spanish Football Association RFEF recognizes them (Spanish Football League official website). And also UEFA says Fairs was an official competition (Look at point 5, please use an online translator if you have problems with Spanish language).
KSA was unable to give us a sole clear source saying what he says, that Fairs Cup would be a friendly competition, and continues to annoy us with its original researches instead.--95.236.155.239 (talk) 15:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1, International club competition records and Football records in Spain are currently wrong. UEFA not recognise Fairs Cup as "UEFA competition" and FIFA have never organised "continental" tournaments. all primary sources that say this are here, here and here. FC Barcelona have ONLY 10 international titles, not 13.

@IP: In LFP.es everyone can read "Copa de la UEFA". FC Barcelona have NEVER won UEFA Cup.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 00:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Wrong Version, eh? Toddst1 (talk) 08:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Dantetheperuvian means that when you protected these pages the last edits was by IP, which is wrong and just undo them.KSA^connect 12:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You would have to thank Toddst who did not ban you from wikipedia, after you vandalized wiki for weeks. Better use your time to find at least one single source (not your dozens of original researches) explicitly confirming what you are saying. In more than a month, you were not be able to do it.--79.54.153.220 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
@Dantetheperuvian: you are a professional liar. None of the sources you linked, confirm what you are saying; they only say Fairs was not a Uefa competition, a fact we all know. Who is this man: [116]? Big surprise, he is FIFA President Mr Stanley Rous, rewarding Leeds captain Billy Bremner after the 1968 Final in Budapest.--79.54.153.220 (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said m:The Wrong Version. Go to the talk pages and learn how to use the {{editprotected}} template. Goodbye. Toddst1 (talk) 16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harrison Slater page

Hi Todd,

I'm trying to create a new page for writer, Harrison Slater. I'm copying a list of his works from his personal website, harrisonslater.com, with his permission. However, the list of works is simply bibliographic data, it is not copyrighted, and is in the public domain. It should not be a candidate for auto-deletion.

How can I prevent auto-deletion?

Thanks, --Matthewpierce (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Jiffy Bags & PH Flexible Packaging

I appreciate your obvious enthusiasm, but I did not appreciate your nominating a page that I only just created (PH Flexible Packaging) minutes earlier for Speedy Deletion. You did not provide any rationale for doing this and you did not give me any opportunity to expand the page. You also reverted the correction I made to the re-direct of the Jiffy bag page on the dubious pretext that you had nominated PH Flexible Packaging for Speedy Deletion.

The reason I created this page is that, previously, Jiffy bag (should be Jiffy Bag) was a re-direct to a competitor of the actual manufacturer of Jiffy Bags ... which is both misleading and deceptive.

Since there was no Wiki page for PH Flexible Packaging, I created one. Also, you will see that the format used for PH Flexible Packaging is the same as for Sealed Air, a competitor of PH Flexible Packaging.

I do not understand why PH Flexible Packaging is nominated for Speedy Deletion when its competitor Sealed Air is obviously not. Either they both stand or they both fall. Regardless, there is no excuse for making a redirect of Jiffy Bag to a competitor of the actual manufacturer. This is just plain misleading and wrong. Either Jiffy Bag is a redirect to the manufacturers of the Jiffy Bag (PH Flexible Packaging), or it is expanded into its own page, where it would be reasonable to not only identify PH Flexible Packaging as the original manufacturer, but also list its competitors.

What is not acceptable on Wikipedia is to obliterate the actual manufacturer and then redirect pages that relate to its products to a competitor. (Do you work or have shares in Sealed Air?)

Wikipedia should be a source of unbiased information and should not include misleading or deceptive information.

Enquire (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Question

Todd, you putted me on the one revert rule over the balkan pages over the conflict about the color of the map on bih demographic changes. I think you did not do the same to the other user in that conflict(if you did than he broke that ban). If you can not help (or do not want to) do you at least have some link or some idea were I could found someone to mediate? This thing is going to long and I would like to end it as soon as possible. I do understand that you do not like to have nothing to do with this messy conflict but couldn't you at least help in any way? Is there some page where I could ask for help, where no discussion is possible? Unfortunately I think I'll have a few questions of my behaviour due to that ban, and possible problems wich I might have, do you now someone (or some place on wikipedia) where could I get some answers? Because it seems that I'm bugging you, and that is not my intention. Thanks in advance, --Čeha (razgovor) 00:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

RFC or ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried them, did not work (at least on ANI, I'll see what can be done on RFC). I'd like to ask you just one more question. And that would be my apeal about balkan prohibition. I was the only one with that prohibition, and I'd like to be on equal ground with other users. --Čeha (razgovor) 09:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The 1RR will remain in effect. You've been involved too many edit wars. Toddst1 (talk) 13:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, how long will it last ? :) In the most of those conflicts I was the reasnoble side, and I was (ultimately) been able to fix those things out. This last conflict is an exception as discussion is impossible and I'm having trouble finding a mediator.--Čeha (razgovor) 14:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

It is indefinite. It will remain in effect until you have demonstrated to one or more administrators that edit warring is not likely to recur. Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok --Čeha (razgovor) 15:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit war?

Don't threaten me!! The other user is clearly violating wiki policy, if you bother to check your facts you would know this! magnius (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The editor may be violating policy, but not in any way that grants you an exception to WP:3RR. Please see WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Albion

I have quoted the reference used by me and (probably) previous contributors Adresia (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Sock

Go to the website and check his email address. Also diff]. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Pages up for deletion

I just wanted to inform you of my relation to the proposed pages for deletion, specifically the Petersons. This semester at St. Lawrence University I have been required to do a research project on a family of New York state starting at least back to 1900 to the present day. As I have many friends from the Buffalo area I found out about the Peterson family by suggestion of the great-grand-daughter of someone that knew of them. I had decided to contribute to Wikipedia by means of expanding the public knowledge base on this family. I apologize if this has broken regulations and I will work to improve the quality of my articles.

Sincerely, Lnglkcpx (talk) 15:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also to add, I have been in direct contact with the current members of the family, hence my extensive knowledge, though I have have done my best to only include sourced data. In regard to other Hybricon employees and their website I got on a role when writing about the company and what they do in my own research paper and thus why I expanded the wiki page and added other key employees.

Sincerely, Lnglkcpx (talk) 15:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Watch out for that WP:COI though.

BTW, you appear to be the same user as Thefirechild (talk · contribs). If this is true, to avoid any inference of impropriety, you should probably put a note on both user pages saying that Thefirechild was your old account that you don't use any longer. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I will be sure to watch out for WP:COI and following this message I will be re-reading through the article. Further, I have updated both users pages to make sure there is no assumption about this being a WP:SPA as my contributions over time have been very broad reaching. If you have any other suggestions please feel free to make them. Lnglkcpx (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Collectonian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm perfectly cool there dude... I just have an issue with people like Collectonian who claim the Wikipedia MoS of Wikipedia policy says something needs to be done a certain way yet absolutely refuses to show where. Then when I persist that they give me a source they go run their mouth to discredit me or cry that I'm harassing and threatening them. She is full of shit. And you guys probably don't even know what the deal is because you just catch bits and pieces of stuff. Cyberia23 (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to ignore Cyberia23's rantings, but this is seriously getting ridiculous[117]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Speaking from the point of view of the "uninvolved mediator" (although I am becoming involved, it seems), I think it would be fair to say that Cyberia23's statements were provoked by statements made by User:Collectonian, at least to some extent. Collectonian seems to have a knack for commenting in such a way as to appear to be an authority. Cyberia23 overreacted, but it was not entirely a one-sided engagement. You may wish to shorten the block you applied to Cyberia23 on this basis (perhaps to time served). -- Scjessey (talk) 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it. Done. Toddst1 (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that. I will continue to monitor the situation at that article for the immediate future, and hopefully it won't get to this point again. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Please look into this

I would appreciate if you would take a more closer look at this matter. I don't know how to talk about this without the opposing party thinking I'm attacking them again, but as Scjessey has stated, there is more to this disagreement between Collectonian and I than what appears face value.

The conflict has moved from the argument over the width of a table to one where I have exposed an individual obviously pushing a personal agenda backed up, not with the rules and standards of Wikipedia, but with their so called "personal expertise" in webpage design and coding.

I request that you carefully review the conversation between Scjessey and Collectonian on Talk:How_the_Earth_Was_Made#Episode table width dispute and hopefully you will pick up on this. Please note how Collectonian has brushed off Scjessey's opinions because it looks like he is siding with me. This is a clear indication that she thinks she's in authority here.

I can see how harassing conduct isn't tolerated here, but I would not expect someone engaged in making unauthorized policy and standards would be tolerated either by the higher echelon of this project.

If you don't want to deal with this issue anymore, I understand. If so, then I ask that you direct me, or at least forward this to someone who will take action. I'm really tired of the "block and ignore" method of problem solving around here. I may have overreacted and not dealt with the matter through proper channels, by the time I did it got thrown out of proprotion which put me in this situation, and I apologize for that, but I don't know what else I can do as a meager editor in dealing with this individual. Hopefully if I can get enough users to informed of the situation a proper concusses will be conducted and an outcome decided on this matter. Thank you for your time. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this has become something of an ownership problem, actually. This is typical on articles that have very few editors. I'm not sure it is worth your investigation until it has done the rounds of WP:3O, WP:RFC et al. If it gets messy again, I might look for advice at WP:RFC/U. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously my daring to disagree is apparently an "authoritative" tone, so fine, do what you like. Its obvious both of you have some warped perception that I'm somehow claiming authority or ownership issues of the article because I dare to express both my views and offer my knowledge from my experiences in dealing with television articles and particular episode lists and dealing with embedded tables in articles. Its not like that article will ever be much more than it is now, and I have better things to do with my time than continue such a ridiculous argument over where the white space will be. It will be ugly no matter what, so I'll let you two fight over which of your versions it will be. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to follow Scjessey's lead here. Good look at the fori and please keep it civil. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it as an "ownership" problem. I didn't start How the Earth Was Made so I'm not sentimentally attached to it. I don't think Collectonian is either since she originally put up for deletion. I just took a look at the article, saw it was a mess and tried to fix up the appearance. My insistence of this issue is because of my concern of other articles like it. If Collectonian gets her way, then other pages might be affected and it doesn't make any sense to be restricted by the preferences of a single user and not the community at large. Cyberia23 (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Good look at the fori and please keep it civil. Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:BASHAMA and User:Goodmanman as socks of IP:67.60.203.23

Hi Toddst1, About a week and a half ago, I mentioned my suspicion that User:BASHAMA (and perhaps User:Goodmanman). A look at the page histories since you blocked the IP and RoyalBroil semi-protected the List of NASCAR champions page suggests that these accounts were, indeed, socks and that the IP is using them to get around the block and the semi-protection that was put on the NASCAR champions page. Compare BASHAMA's edit history [118] with the IP's edit history [119] and Goodmanman's history [120]. Additionally, if we compare the content of the IP edits from a week or so ago [121] and BASHAMA's edit from tonight [122] and Goodmanman's edit from a couple of days ago [123] we can also see that the content of the edits is the same in all three cases. Is this enough evidence to get a couple of check users, and perhaps check to see if these accounts are using the same IP address as the IP account? Happy Thanksgiving, Edhubbard (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't have those privileges, but I suspect you make a good case. You should file this at WP:SPI. Happy Thanksgiving to you as well. Toddst1 (talk) 06:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Need advice

Datheisen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Wiki stalking. Datheisen try to stalking my edits. and keep revert it without any justificated reason. Can you give warning to him? This user try to stalking me and harassment all my edits. How can protect me from his harassment? I'm a begineer. I need some advice. --660gd4qo (talk) 04:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop WP:Canvassing and focus on editing. WP:AGF applies too. Toddst1 (talk) 06:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

i hope so. But, Datheisen will harassment all my edits by unjustificated reason. I think admin need take action to him. --660gd4qo (talk) 06:32, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I see it a little differently looking at your behavior. You need to stop focusing on Datheisen and trying to get him or her blocked. You may end up blocked yourself! Toddst1 (talk) 06:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. i'm a almost beginner of wikipedia, sorry my cross-posting. I didn't know it was bad thing. I will stop. However, Datheisen will keep removing my edits by unjustificated reason. He stalking me certainly. How can solve this stalker problem? --660gd4qo (talk) 06:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

• 66, I concur with Todd on this, you have to stop thinking about it and concentrate on constructive contribution/editing on Wikipedia instead. Imperfections will fall away when the perfect emerges. Also, learn to disengage when you don't feel comfortable, Wikipedia is not the real world out there, although both has rules to abide by. Let others be the judge of things instead, yeah? --Dave ¹¹⁸⁵ 06:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any wikihounding. I recommend you ignore that editor for a while. Toddst1 (talk) 06:41, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

hmm. OK. I want know something. archived talk page was bad thing ? I can't find such a thing from Wikipedia:Archive--660gd4qo (talk) 06:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In some cases you never archived it - you just deleted it which Datheisen rightly objected to. In other cases you archived current discussions which you shouldn't do. Only archive old discussions. You might want to apologize to Datheisen . Toddst1 (talk)

Oh, That is your mistake. I archived it at here[124], and linking it at here.[125] its archeving process was wrong? --660gd4qo (talk) 06:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

And you said "you just deleted it which Datheisen rightly objected to". But, If you check old archieve,[126] Datheisen NEVER discuss/dispute at talk page. He just keep reverting without consensus. --660gd4qo (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Zinstall XP7 undelete

Hi Todd, I've implemented your suggestions on the page in question: removed features and system requirements as possible spam, and added more references and external reviews. Please tell me what more should be done to reinstate the article (it's my first one on wiki and I'm determined :)) Samfranker (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sam, this looks pretty good. The only suggestion (only a suggestion) would be to change the references from naked references to use WP:Citation templates. Nice work. Toddst1 (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the tip, it looks much better this way! Thank you for your guidance.

How does one go about reinstating the article? Is there a request page somewhere, or is it something you'll just be able to do? Samfranker (talk) 10:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should have privileges that allow you to move the article (there should be a tab above the frame that says "move" like it says "edit") into the article space. I've taken the liberty of moving it for you. Good luck and happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 16:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

My rollback privilege went away after you blocked me. Can you please restore it? Thanks. Cyberia23 (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No. While you didn't use your rollback privs in the edit war at How the Earth Was Made, it was a particularly tenacious and nasty edit war you were engaged in (not to mention in my opinion, silly). We typically do not let edit warriors have the privilege. After a while of editing without engaging in further edit wars I recommend you re-request it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a look at my track record before this latest incident. I've only even been blocked once and that was way back when I was a newbie here and even then the block was unwarranted. It was the result of an already on-going editwar over an article between multiple editors. An admin stepped in and blindly mass-blocked everyone who had made edits while the conflict was going on and my edit wasn't even involved. Ultimately that admin lost his admin-privileges as a result of their action and my ban was removed because it was unwarranted although it's still on my record. I've been a editor here for years, and yeah I had my angry bouts with people but none have ever resulted in a block before. So why don't you cut me some slack? Cyberia23 (talk) 22:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, you didn't lose rollback because you were blocked. I removed your rollback because you were in the middle of a WP:Pointy edit war. I did this about 4 hours before I blocked you. Neither action was influenced by your previous block which is IMHO ancient history. However, your activity on Ghost Hunters Academy is not encouraging as a budding edit war and I think I'll decline the appeal to restore rollback. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Staley article

Please see User_talk:4wajzkd02#Stephen_Staley - User:Philipharrison created Stephen_Staley and it was speedy deleted.

• I offered to help him try to get the article in shape, and encourage him to put it in his user space while I helped him edit it (I documented the list of things to do on the talk page of that article).
• As I noted at User_talk:Tnxman307#Stephen_Staley_3, the intention was to move the article into the article space, after it was improved (and assuming it would meet notability requirements, which I noted to both the User:Philipharrison and User:Tnxman307 I was unsure it would).
• If I followed the wrong process here, I apologize (but I myself have created articles in my userspace, and in fact have one there I'm slowly working on, so I thought it was the right approach here).

Let me know your thoughts, if you don't mind. Thank you, and Happy Day after Thanksgiving. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I've restored it to User:Philipharrison/Stephen Staley. It was actually in article space previously at Philipharrison/Stephen Staley. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 01:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

See this note on my talk page ([127]), I noticed that the article was placed in the wrong place after you moved it. My bad - I didn't look at the URL the editor provided - I just clicked it. Thanks for moving the article (it needs a lot of work, but I'm committed to doing my best to help). Thanks again, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Sierra Railroad Dinner Train

Hi Todd, I'm on the board of directors for the Sierra Railroad Company, and I'm also president of three different tourist railroads in California. I'm trying to sort out and update the information on the railroads, but noticed that you removed the listing for the "Sierra Railroad Dinner Train" I created in 2008 because is wasn't a notable company, I believe. I didn't know if you felt this based on your concern about the company's uniqueness, or because of other similar listings.

On the former, the Sierra Railroad Dinner Train (SRDT) is one of 80 dinner trains in North America, one of the five best dinner trains in the West (I know that is subjective!) and is one of the most highly attended tourist attractions in the CA Central Valley. It has been featured on the Food Network and numerous other television shows. I see numerous other railroad attractions that are listed and I think the SRDT would be an appropriate listing. For example, our Skunk Train has its own very appropriate listing that is not tucked within the SRC listing.

The latter issue of similar listings and I understand the concern. There is already the Sierra Railroad Company (SRC) and Sierra Railway (SR). The SRC is a railroad that operates numerous freight divisions, has a subsidiary (Mendocino Railway) that runs passenger trains (including SRDT) and has a energy company. It seemed tucking the SRDT within the SRC could be done but type of information is very different. I tried to do so but felt the content very disjointed.

The Sierra Railway has a similar name since it was originally part of the SRC but was seperated to create a state park, Railtown 1897. SR / Railtown 1897 operate a tourist train. SR / Railtown 1897 is now a completely different entity than the SRDT and SRC.

So while I understand your reluctance to have three listings with similar names, they are very different and distinct and I hope that you'll agree to bring back what I submitted in 2008, or allow me to create something new. Best regards, Chris —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChristopherGHart (talk • contribs) 16:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Autoconfirmed flag removed from my account

I do not know why, but the autoconfirmed flag might have been removed from my account when I checked my preferences (Members of groups), and I cannot do stuff that autoconfirmed users do, not even using Twinkle. May I know why?  Merlion  444  14:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Merlion444's talk page.
Message added 15:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

 Merlion  444  15:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Jed Robbins

Why is Jed Robbins being deleted? He is a Huge artist and Musician. If you type in all the website addresses you will see...

http://thedjlist.com/djs/JED_ROBBINS/ http://www.myspace.com/jedrobbins http://www.last.fm/music/Jed+Robbins http://www.reverbnation.com/jedrobbins

I don't understand??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicdraft (talk • contribs) 19:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Highspeedrailusa

You blocked this user for edit warring and personal attacks, not for adding spam. Would that mean that I was edit warring too, rather than reverting spam? --NE2 02:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see a broader problem with you. Toddst1 (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Broader than this? So my edit warring here was a problem? --NE2 06:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you looking for trouble? Move on. Toddst1 (talk) 12:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I'm looking for advice, specifically whether it's OK to edit war to keep arguably spam links out. --NE2 12:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically the answer is no which I'm trying to overlook. Toddst1 (talk) 13:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Thenovabus

Please check at the user's history page to see that this user has been attacking me by posting comments on my discussion page and on the article pages. -- BWCNY (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Not an excuse for name calling.
2. Show me diffs and I'll take action if appropriate.

Toddst1 (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

• This user made several nasty comments against me...

1. He posted on my talk page which it has been taken off by another user as seen here [128]

He also post three edits on the MTA Regional Bus Operations bus fleet article page, did not even edit the article at all. Only add additional insulting comments to me.

1. Nov. 29 #1
2. Nov. 29 #2
3. Nov. 29 #3

Yes I was wrong. Again take a look into those incidents. -- BWCNY (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

They're pretty obvious and blatant. I should have found that problem myself. Thanks for the help. I think I took care of it. Let me know if it continues. Toddst1 (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Thank you very much. --- BWCNY (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Rosina Bierbaum

Thanks for noting the copyright assertion on the talk page; it missed me entirely. I was working at the month-old end of unpatrolled pages sorting them -- somehow the copyright issue got resolved without anyone marking the page as patrolled. Anyway, thanks for your attentiveness; I'll have to sort more carefully. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. We're all volunteers here. Keep up the otherwise good work. Toddst1 (talk) 19:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Macedonians and plenty of painful things

Hello--

Since you looked it over first, I wanted to say that I'd looked a little deeper in what looked like a harmless content dispute. I'm not sure what content exactly, but it did look harmless. I have substantial concerns of an ethnic bias on the part of the incoming editor from today. The first edit was this odd bit. For one, I'm not entirely sure how that counts as a revert, since the word was new and it looked like just a completely honest syntax/grammar mistake. There would have been no reason for that to be "reverted" in the sense that is disruptive, though in hindsight it was an accident that it was a grammar fix. Only after the fact do I see it was deliberately done that way. All the subsequent edits involved the terms "Macedonians" as an ethnicity in one way or another. Rather, that they weren't one. The "region" change was to disassociate the people with a place and redefine them as persons who happened to all live in a certain place in Greece and had no other special bond. Later on, odd changed in the lead, such. I'm not sure how "are a regional population group" needs a fact flag. After reading edit summaries, and this added today on the talk page, it would seem to me that the user is attempting to ask for data regarding the physical existence of these persons. The talk is strangely similar to that of an indef.blocked user who did similar things in similar articles about 8 months ago. ...I put "unresolved" onto the ANI, but I think it's worth checking. If I hadn't seen the talk page note I'd have brushed past it without note. I'm not doubting anything, so I'm sorry if it looks like I'm throwing myself around too much by going back in to the topic.. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Highspeedrailusa sock

• 98.111.181.133 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

It looks like he has an IP sock going around to all of the article and reinserting the links that he was spreading. Just check out the IP's contributions and you'll see that he's mirroring the edits that you reverted when blocking the account. ThemFromSpace 02:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you there, spaceman! Mole whacked. Toddst1 (talk) 03:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia_talk:Spam#How_to_deal_with_spam.3F, I did a range block on the 98.111.... IP's. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Bataan Page

As you probably know, Bataan 09-10 and I have been blocked from editing because him and I were trying to delete the page to prevent vandalism from other accounts. We were deleting sections one at a time so we could leave some of the page up to draw people to our website so we can continue to bring information to the public who might be interested in finding information about our school. I would like to have the page kept up but shortened to only include the starting paragraphs and our schools url address. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joerecon (talk • contribs) 17:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Diabolic rapper

Why is the article for Diabolic (rapper/emcee) is always flagged and removed? Diabolic is an established well known rapper in the underground community of Hip Hop. If Immortal Technique is allowed to have an article, so does Diabolic. The Wiki article had sufficient reliable sources. Please republish the article. This is not a form of blatant advertising for the artists. Many fans do ask about accessing to information about Diabolic and Wikipedia provides the most immediate way to channel information. Thank you. (Tbirrueta (talk) 18:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC))

Here's a clue: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diabolic (rapper). Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

COI

Your sneaky little move did not go unnoticed. I will be setting up a review of your administrator position at the correct venue, as you obviously aren't fit for the duties. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but I welcome an examination of my actions. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. It looks like you're referring to removing your Rollback privileges. Nothing sneaky there. As I stated, you don't know what WP:Vandalism is. I'm sure you're aware that an administrator can grant (or revoke) rollback using their own judgment. Given the edit war - let's focus on System of a Down for the moment - and your lack of understanding of what WP:Vandalism is, that was appropriate. I apologize for having not alerted you to that explicitly. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I am aware that perhaps my idea of vandalism is not the same as your interpretation of WP:Vandalism, however, I am happy to admit when I am pushing for a viewpoint, and to admit when I am tackling destructive editing (the latter of which I am doing), which I bunch together as "vandalism". It irks me that rather than dealing with the issue (an ignorant unconstructive IP), we are arguing the technical definition of vandalism. It should not be a challenge to get rid of an editor that is only causing problems, and it shouldn't be a problem even to edit war when you are countering an editor that you even admit is in the wrong (Ed Unitsky). I do know an admin can remove rollback rights, but I was under the impression that it is a COI for an admin to do that to an editor they are in a discussion with. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 20:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_Toddst1 a link as promised. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI. –xeno^talk 21:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Professor M A Gosney

The General Medical Council is currently attempting to edit a page that appears to have been deleted from the user. We appreciate that a large block of text was used from another website, yet the webmaster was using it as a model, and inadvertantly clicked 'save' rather than 'preview' when bringing the file in. The reason the page may have flagged as having large blocks from another site is because of a substantial list of papers and research material on the page, which must remain in the same format when placed on any page. Thus, it may appear to be a copy of text yet all it is is an identical list from another site; there is no other way of writing the text. If the page could be returned in its state, and advice given regarding the aforementioned, it would be much appreciated.

Thank you in advance for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmedicalcouncil (talk • contribs) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

If you are a General Medical Council, you'll know a bit more about IP Law and know exactly why I won't restore it. If not, then see your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 02:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't quite understand how this is classified as IP law; all medical texts must be written in an identical format. Thus, anywhere where a book list of a council, body, or doctor is placed, it will be the same. Thus, we don't see how it can be written any other way. There is no need for you to be rude in your text; we respect why you've done it, but would like you to give us some advice on how we can get around an issue which we see as outside of our control. Then, if we can perhaps format the text in another way, it will not violate your "IP law"

Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmedicalcouncil (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as rude. We get a lot of phonies here.

We need you to verify with the Wikimedia Foundation that you are the real copyright holder and understand the legal implications of putting your copyrighted work on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation has established specific licensing guidelines that we need to follow.

If you still wish to grant Wikipedia the rights to this material, follow the instructions here. It has all the info you need. Be sure you understand the rights to the text that you will be giving up. Then, you'll be granted what's called "an OTRS ticket" that shows Wikipedia has been granted the rights to the text and then you can post the material verbatim (provided the subject meets the other qualifications for articles on Wikipedia such as notability).

We don't accept copyrighted work outside of that process in order to protect the holders of copyright, both from others posting their words on Wikipedia, and from unknowingly signing away their rights.

I hope you understand that refusing all copyrighted work until we have real evidence that it's been released into the GDFL is the best way to make sure we aren't violating anyone's rights.

Either way, please do not recreate this page with that material until this issue is resolved.

I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 16:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for helping, and thank you for apologising if you appeared rude (which, to us, you did a little). Essentially, the issue here is not the main body of text, but just one area we want to put at the bottom of this person's page, which states that she has contributed to a certain list of books, papers, articles, etc. Now, unfortunately the website that we got the original list from in the first place put the list on its page before we did! Thus, there were two things we could have done; firstly, we could have typed out each material contribution by this individual on the page, or secondly we could have copied it from a second source, saving us hours in doing so. We did the latter, and it has been flagged as copied from another source, but our problem is that even if we re-type the information by hand from a hand-written list (which we could make in a few hours) it will still be written in the EXACT same format as it would be were we to copy it from the website, because that is the format with which we are ultimately forced to write the information. Sorry if I'm not too good at explaining, but that is essentially the issue. I don't see how it is copyrighted information, when essentially it is a list of books, papers, etc.

To look at it another way, assume that I said 'Toddst1, tell me your ten favourite books, in a format such as (for example): author surname, author first name, book name, publishing house, publishing date, ISBN'

You would give me a list of ten books, and then I would think, 'well, I rather like his choice of books, I think I'll put them on my blog/webpage/wiki page, etc'. I would be entitled to copy your list onto my page if I so wished; after all, the works are not yours, it is merely you who has assembled the list.

Does it make sense now? I'm sorry if I come across a little confusing! But it is rather tricky to try and explain what I mean. If you look at the information above, I don't see how it is copyright infringement in any way? Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Generalmedicalcouncil (talk • contribs) 16:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think so. We're just volunteers here and have some pretty specific policies we're supposed to follow. I'm sure there are several dozen other admins who would and will come to the same conclusion as I did. That being said, if you explain this to the OTRS people (who actually have paid legal council at their disposal), I'm sure the could sort it out. We mortal admins are not equipped to deal with these levels of nuance. You can point them to this discussion if it would be helpful. Best regards, Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your kudos! It's always nice to log on and see something like that, as opposed to a random editor lambasting me for deleting his article about that new religion he and his three friends made up last weekend....GJC 19:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Rob Levin

The info I removed from his talk page was comprised of nothing but condolences and one of the rules of discussion pages is that they are not to be used as a forum to express condolences, etc. for the subject of the discussion page. PCE (talk) 23:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

150.135.161.148

Since 150.135.161.148 is presently Personperson1234567, who is indefinitely blocked, I don't believe that the block notice at User talk:150.135.161.148 should declare “You have been temporarily blocked from editing for block evasion. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions.” He or she is welcome to make contributions only upon the lifting of the indefinite block.

I do acknowledge that the block applied to the IP number should not be indefinite, as it may be reässigned or otherwise become available to some innocent editor. —SlamDiego_←T 01:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure. Toddst1 (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: User:Christodoulidesd

I noticed that you blocked this user as a sockpuppet due to the report left on WP:ANI by User:OutlawSpark. I'm not so sure that Christodoulidesd is a sockpuppet of User:Moviescore. The Moviescore account has been around since 2006. While their interests cross paths since MovieScore Media links to International Film Music Critics Association, I'm not so sure that they are sockpuppets. Moviescore is user name issue, though the account is relatively dormant. I'm actually more suspicious about the OutlawSpark account than either Christodoulidesd or Moviescore. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whose sock it is, but it's a sock of someone. People don't start with their first dozen edits on AFd if they're not socks. I'll take a look at OutlawSpark (talk · contribs)Toddst1 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think so. I think this is a case of some off-wiki thing driving people to an AfD (meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry). New editors show up on AfD all of the time. And Christodoulidesd is the same name as one of the members of the International Film Music Critics Association. My guess is that somebody pointed it out to him and he arrived in a huff (subsequently toned down at my request). Now OutlawSpark, on the other hand has all of the hallmarks of somebody's sockpuppet: first few edits on WP:ANI with a wild claim, SPI filing, WP:VP activity. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not a sock. These people are both members of the International Film Music Critics Association, but if you check your ip logs, Moviescore is in Sweden and Christodoulidesd is in Greece. Both these people are prominent members of the online film music journalism community, and have been so for many, many years. I will personally vouch 100% for both these individials, and stake my entire Wikipedia reputation (which, if you check my user page and history is not insignificant) on the fact that these people are two different people. I know them personally. FYI, I asked some of my fellow IFMCA members to join the discussion, to help me find some reliable sources that would make a persuasive case for keeping the articles. I was making a concious effort to be mindful of WP:COI and contribute to the discussion in a non-emotional manner, but unfortunately Christodoulidesd got a little 'heated'. I apologize for that. But he's 100% NOT a sock, and I would be grayeful if you could un-ban him. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that would make them WP:Meatpuppets. Toddst1 (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I admit I completely forgot about that policy, and would not have asked for help had I rembmered it. I apologize for that. However, I absolutely assure you it was done in WP:GOODFAITH to help me find some additional sources, and not to sway the argument by padding 'votes'. --JonBroxton (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry. I'll try to do better.

User:Waltermelon —Preceding undated comment added 03:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC).

User:Brianwazere

Just come across this guy; do you think it was a little excessive to block after two reverts and then extend to five days for some relatively mild incivility? I would ask that you consider shortening the block. Stifle (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you get two: [129],[130],[131],[132]. I got a lovely email in addition to the talk page rant which included a threat. That was the reason I extended the block and removed talk and email privileges. Toddst1 (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to be sure, I've raised it here on ANI. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I've no idea how I managed to find only two. It might be worth cutting a day or two off it, perhaps, but I'll leave that up to you. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

I noticed you blocked 99.144.192.74 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 1 month for block evasion. The original IP used by this editor, which is currently blocked for 24 hours, is 99.151.166.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Do you suppose you could lengthen the block on that IP to match? The editor has been nothing but disruptive and unresponsive throughout and this post indicates that he has no intention of following community standards. -- ChrisO (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The 99.151.xxx IP caught my eye as I was reading the noticeboards. You may wish to review Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Troubles/Archive. The ISP, geolocation and disruptive editing style all appear to be similar. If it is the same editor, then you are in for prolonged frustrating battles to which there is no easy blocking solution. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good to know. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

New Paulmch sock

I see that ten days a year ago you blocked Paulmch (talk · contribs), and since then we've had Paulmchisback (talk · contribs). There has now appeared Paulmchisbackagain (talk · contribs). I have blocked indef and put {{sockpuppet|Paulmch|blocked}} on his user page - do I need to do anything else? Is there any point opening an SPI case for such a quacking case? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Ordinarily, you would file a Wp:SPI but it looks like John was on top of it already. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hounding?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Toddst1, may I ask you why you think I'm hounding him? Because I made one edit to one page that I noticed in his edit history? The other three on which we have engaged in the last few days are all related to each other and I got the first in a manner wholly unrelated to Cirt -- New England Institute of Religious Research. The other two pages are linked to that one ... or I should say the one directly Twisted Scriptures and the third Midwest Book Review linked to that page. He followed me to this third page and the the RS/N. Of course I think nothing of that since its all part of a related dispute stemming from the first page. But then again I'm no accusing him of stalking me either. Have you reviewed the entire situation carefully? I'm just wondering. I don't want to hound anyone, and this is all in my general area of interest to begin with. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

See ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Still wondering about hounding

Toddst1, above you told me to "see ANI" in regards to my question about hounding, but there, like here, the question has gone unanswered. I take warnings like this seriously because if they have merit I need to re-evaluate my behavior, but if they are based on a mistaken interpretation these types of warnings have unfortunate and unfair consequences down the road if not cleared up. You may say "it's just a warning", but we both know that in disputes people tend to drag these warnings up to gain advantage (e.g. "you've been warned about hounding Cirt before"). I have a clean block log and I've never been warned by an uninvolved admin before for anything remotely more serious than approaching 3RR. I don't blame you for looking at this on the face, seeing several talk page disputes between Cirt and myself going on simultaneously, possibly coming across Cirt's or KC's accusations of stalking and then coming to this conclusion. However, I'm asking you to please re-evaluate the situation. Here's a relevant timeline (and I am going to leave out interactions with KC since it is Cirt you've warned me about hounding):

1. I notice the entry for New England Institute for Religious Research in the "cults" info box, which is placed on several entries and which I look over now and then because it is in one of my areas of interest (which is also one of Cirt's and our opposed views have clashed in this area several times in the past). Being unfamiliar with this organization I went to the entry where I found an ongoing dispute between two editors on the talk page.
2. Reading over the entry, particularly in light of the dispute, it was my opinion that notability was not established for this organization so I posted this. Now it is simply a fact that Cirt created this entry, and that he was one of the two editors in the already ongoing dispute, but so what? Like I said this is an overlapping area of interest for both of us and we don't agree. I'd be happy to flesh that out for you if you so desire. Needless to say a discussion started on that entry.
3. Rereading the NEIRR entry made me link to Twisted Scriptures since it is the only blue linked book entry in a handful of books used in the NEIRR entry because they list NEIRR as a resource within them.
4. I determined that the notability of this book was dubious as well and posted this and then I removed what looked pretty much like a positive publishers blurb highlighted unconventionally in the reception section of the entry. Cirt had not been active on this page since September, but quickly appeared on the talk page to look into the matter and then argue notability with me. Cirt created this entry around the time he created the other one, and I find it completely logical that he would defend its notability.
5. Discussion of the quotebox that I removed led to a discussion of the use of a review article attributed to Midwest Book Review vis-a-vis a blurb posted on Amazon.com at the book's listing. It is important to note here that my worries were over the nature and use of this source and never about the authenticity of the blurb's contents as authored by the Midwest Book Review.
6. In the meantime I brought that issue up along with two other source issues at the RS/N, but that discussion didn't go anywhere (and that is not the RS/N discussion leading to this situation).
7. Days later an OTRS response from the MBR came in stating that the review on Amazon was indeed authored by them and was accurate. They supplied a citation directly to the organization as well.
8. This fact, along with the fact that no one on the RS/N had responded regarding the MBR prompted me to evaluate our entry on them and place a notability tag on it since it appeared to fail WP:ORG.
9. I also started a second discussion at the RS/N about this source specifically since the last attempt to get input failed. I posted a notice about this new discussion on Talk:Twisted Scriptures.
10. Cirt followed me to the Midwest Book Review entry and started editing/improving the entry. Again I find this entirely logical given the overarching dispute and chain of events (and would never call this stalking or harassment), but as a point of fact he had never edited this entry or its talk page in the past.
11. Discussions on the talk page began during his editing regarding whether or not the entry fails WP:ORG along with some other sourcing issues.
12. At one point during the second RS/N discussion Cirt took it upon himself to restructure one of my contributions calling it "linkspam". When I reverted his change, KC decided to collapse these comments and warn me as detailed at AN/I.

In the midst of this timeline a related event occurred. As I usually do when I'm engaged in a content dispute with an editor, particularly when it spans more than one related entry and venue already, I checked Cirt's contribution history more than once during this time. It is the easiest way to see if additional forums are being engaged on the topic being debated and admittedly it is also a matter of curiosity if thinks the other editor is making generally questionable content contributions in the area of interest. I believe this is all completely common practice, even the latter part (see for instance open communications at various content related noticeboards when particular editors are editing multiple related pages in ways other editors find troubling). So I noticed an edit he made to an entry within the general topic of our overlapping interests, NRMs and opposition to them, and I had a look at the entry. Cirt's edit there removed a PROD notice, but at the same time it also removed a notability tag which had been in place for years without anyone adding any reliable sources to establish notability in the meanitime. I restored the tag. When Cirt discovered this he came to my talk page to insinuate that I was stalking him, based upon this one edit. My initial response was complete annoyance because he had been commenting on my behavior in our earlier dispute and acted in a generally aggressive manner towards me then, something he apologized for to some extent or another on my talk page prior to this. My second response was also written in a rather aggravated state, but nevertheless I openly admitted to him that I found this entry in his contribution history and suggested he take it to AN/I if he really thought I was stalking him.

I fail to see how any of this falls under WP:HOUND which is most generally described as -- ... the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Do I have a history of following Cirt around to various pages? Do I have a history of ever doing this to anyone? I certainly did not follow him anywhere in this instance, save a single edit to fix a mistake he made within our overlapping area of interest. This is simply a large content dispute with interrelated entries falling within a general area that two editors have a history of interest and opposing views in. There is also an immense irony in User:KillerChihuahua suggesting that I'm stalking anyone since she showed up after me in both of the venues we engaged in -- at the initial entry, NEIRR, and at the RS/N. She had never before edited NEIRR or its talk page, and according to her contribution history the last time she edited the RS/N prior to responding to my question there was on August 12th as part of a now long archived discussion. It is also notable that the RS/N discussion is not linked to on the NEIRR page, since it involved Twisted Scriptures and not NEIRR. I'm not going to suggest that I know anything about KC's motivations, but at least appreciate these facts when you consider her accusations or insinuations about my behavior towards Cirt or her.PelleSmith (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. Toddst1 (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I've linked to this post at AN/I since it at least one editor is not happy with CoM's marking the discussion as resolved. I figured I should notify you of that fact. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

User Talk:194.176.105.56

Hi, Your ban may have been too short. User is still vandalising on a daily basis.--Kudpung (talk) 22:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You better not be talking about me Kudpung i dont vandalise i contribute unlike you and some other people on this that i dont need to mention.Brianwazere 18:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Orijentolog being discussed

Hello Toddst1. Please see WP:ANI#Rangeblock for socks of Orijentolog. EdJohnston (talk) 17:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Not sure I have anything to add, but thanks for the heads up. Toddst1 (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

You know i would say thanks for unblocking me but i couldnt be bothered!!i shouldn't have to anyway.dont block people for no reason again u will only get yourself into trouble!! Brianwazere 23:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you were trying to say, but blocking you was not a mistake and has been endorsed by the community after a discussion on ANI. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive585#Block_review_please. Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well ehat i was saying was the truth Lauren Branning has moved out of 5 Albert Sqaure!!,oh by the way i reported you!! and i dont care about what everyone else says! u made a mistake now accept it!! Brianwazere 21:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Cheney has something to say to you. Toddst1 (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user returns

Please note that an anonymous IP whom you blocked for edit-warring has returned and is doing exactly the same thing again - see WP:AN/I#Block evasion by long-term disruptive IP editor. Your input would be appreciated. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Croatian POV pushers

Hello Toddst1. I reported this about User:Silverije on WP:ANI. I would like to inform you, that a lot of Croatian POV pushers is editing and faking the wikipedia articles about hungarian history. If you see 1102, you can realise that two similar Croatian POV pushers, User:Joy and User:No such user are always falsifying this article. If you see the page history of 1102, you will see that they deleted 13 reliable refs, for example books from Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, and added again this nonsense Croatian POV. User:Hammer of Habsburg does the same. They are all nationalists. Toroko (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, User:Aradic-es, who is blocked, still edits with several IP numbers. Once the Checkuser confirmed that he made block evasions. Now he is still editing. See geolocate at these three links: [133] [134] [135]. The Checkuser confirmed that the first is a sockpuppet of Aradic-es, the two others are the same. User:Aradic-es is a typical Croatian nationalist like User:Joy and the others. Toroko (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

response to Satori

Hi - sorry to say such a thing - but did you post your warning to the wrong place? You claim CIVIL and removal of references issues, but it was actually this edit (not mine) that had removals of references (was even tagged that way) and personal attacks (on me), as well as removal of basically all info other than track listing (i.e. secondary sources, reviews, and album credits):[136]. Even though I undid this (this user has been a problem on this, an other, articles before, and has been blocked for doing this in the past:[137], and I tried to report this to WQA but barely got any interest. I had hoped the user would just stop)... The user re-removed all of the material after my undo: [138], but at this point, I really don't want to get involved any more on this site, considering that I am trying to retire due to attempted outing by someone else on this site. So, I don't know... I guess if you could take a clean look at what's going on there, and mediate, I would appreciate that, because at this point it's not worth it to me to restore everyone else's material (NOT my contributions, but basically everyone's were removed by this user). Luminifer (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad I wasn't completely seeing things the wrong way here... If you could retract your comment on my WQA too (I just noticed that), I'd appreciate it. Oh and also, on and on it goes:[139].... but like I said I really DO want to retire so I'm going to let it sit and hope someone else gets involved on these low-visibility pages...

Matthew Ashcroft

Please may you restore the Matthew Ashcroft page as I was in the middle of editing it. also, as I am new here, please may you give advice on how to add categories.

EDIT: Right read your passage on why the page was deleted. on my talk. Sorry about the misunderstanding. Mattoash (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

... of my user talk page. Has it worn off? Because an IP (the same person, but a different address) just posted on it. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 16:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I only semi-protected your user page, not your user talk page. It's kind of important to be able to open a dialogue with someone, so talk pages are not often protected. See Wikipedia:Semi#User_pages You'll usually know if your talk page has been screwed with, but user pages are a bit more stealthy. If it gets to be a real problem we can do a short term semi on the talk though. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right, my mistake. Clearly wasn't reading properly. Thanks. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 19:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Rocky Mount, North Carolina motto reversion

Toddst1, I live in Rocky Mount, North Carolina and happen to know that the term "Represent 252", 252 being the local area code, is indeed used as a motto for many hailing from the Rocky Mount area. The motto represent the down-trodden masses of this economically suffering city who all wish but one thing: To ultimately leave Rocky Mount, go out into the world, make a difference, while always remembering your roots and representing them, thus "Represent 252". I respect your decision to revert when you were not informed of this, however you are now and I ask that you undo your decision by replacing the term "Represent 252" back in the motto section in the Rocky Mount, North Carolina page. Thank you and good day sir. Sincerely, Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.117.136 (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment on blocked user's appeal

Hi. Where would I go to comment on (oppose) a blocked user's appeal of the block? Thanks! 71.71.211.18 (talk) 19:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

leave a note on the user's talk page below the {{unblock}} request. Toddst1 (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Done: User talk:WikiLubber 71.71.211.18 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

He removed my comments seconds later. Please check the history of his talk page. 71.71.211.18 (talk) 23:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Dunno if you're into this sort of thing, but I'd like to thank you heartily for all the work you've done at UAA/AIV/everywhere! I always see you striving to keep blocks just and I think you should receive more credit for it. Thanks for all the awesome work, ceranthor 14:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Muchas gracias! Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Crotchety_Old_Man

Why have you blocked him? Theresa Knott | token threats 16:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit summary [140] after final. Toddst1 (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes that is blatant request for blocking after your warning todd. Off2riorob (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Theresa Knott | token threats 16:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Check out this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Barack_Obama&diff=prev&oldid=329258563 201.95.48.144 (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've extended the block. Admins can check the deleted edit on his talk page to see the vicious personal attack that led to it.  Frank  |  talk  14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think an indef block for legal threats is warranted. That was a stupid comment from a throwaway sockpuppet account, not a genuine legal threat: Crotchety Old Man is not Jim Leavitt's attorney, so isn't going to be doing any suing on his behalf. Could you please change it to a two-week block, per the SPI? Fences&Windows 01:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. It was a direct attempt at intimidation, using an explicit legal threat, and the reason the COM chose that name. I don't see anything in WP:NLT that would support that this is not an appropriate block.

" ... Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing while legal threats are outstanding. ...

— Wikipedia:No legal threats

I can't fathom how pretending to be someone's attorney and making legal threats isn't grounds for blocking under a number of policies. Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with an indef block for a legal threat. If Crotchety were to regain his senses, acknowledge the sock, and agree not to sue us, then there would be a valid question of what to do next. EdJohnston (talk) 08:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I was also thinking that under the circumstances of the feebleness of the legal issues that there is little or nothing in this case to gain by indef block of COM aand that a block extension and allowing the editor to return to editing under a known account may serve the wiki better. Off2riorob (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I've taken this to ANI to get more eyes on it. Thanks folks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It's easy to point to a WPspace rule, like NLT, and block the guy. Then, to cover yourself, just mention it on ANI. A morally good approach is to also reach out to the guy and try to defuse anger. This is not always possible, but it is always good to try. This isn't to say that you didn't do it or that you are wrong in any way. Jimbo Wales wrote an editorial in a newspaper about rudeness on the internet and Wikipedia. Let's all try to work together. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)