User talk:Toddst1

edit count | edit summary usage

Videomaker Magazine

Hi, I wanted to take a crack at writing an acceptable stub for Videomaker Magazine. Could you restore the deleted text to my sandbox so I can work on it? Thanks. Philly jawn (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a stub article at User:Philly_jawn/sandbox. Could you please restore the article? You may take what i have written and paste it in. Many thanks. Philly jawn (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at what you have and I'm sure it would be speedily deleted if you moved it to mainspace. It needs some more work. I've added a few tags to help you get it in shape. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've updated it. I think it's enought to be published as a stub, and I think the references and g-hits establish norietey. Philly jawn (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks much improved. I removed a link to amazon (you don't want spamlinks in your article). What I would do if I were you is :

• Follow this link to Videomaker Magazine and create the page by:

• opening User:Philly_jawn/sandbox for editing in another window or tab,
• copying all the text from User:Philly_jawn/sandbox in the edit window (ctrl-c or edit->copy)
• pasting all the text in the newly opened Videomaker Magazine article (ctrl-v or edit->paste).

• Save [[Videomaker Magazine,
• Create Talk: Videomaker Magazine and say that you have rewritten the article and think it should be ok now.

Hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• It does, thanks! Philly jawn (talk) 19:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Ogle family

I was surprised that you reverted my cosmetic change to this article. Don't you agree that to have minor headings in a heavier bolder format than the main subheadings creates an inbalance in the presentation of the article?Ordyg (talk) 12:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just following WP:MOS. Doing so allows linking to individual people (from other articles) who don't have their own articles. Toddst1 (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, that is my point really - that big chunky characters in the centre of the piece do nothing whatever for the style. It has nothing to do with your content; merely with presentation. The present teatment looks clumsy and is clearly not in accordance with MOS. It is hardly a big issue and that is why I was surprised at your reaction Ordyg (talk) 07:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right that it's not a big deal but wrong about WP:MOS. I think what is there now is in compliance with WP:MOS, speicifically, Wikipedia:MOSHEAD#Section_headings. I can't understand why you think using italics for section headings is within WP:MOS. Using italics in to delineate sections about individuals, as you did is disjoint from both Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Main_uses and Wikipedia:MOSHEAD#Section_headings. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I quite accept your point about italics, but with respect you have totally ignored the point that I am actually making. Please have a look at my new effort and see whether you can accept that presentationally it looks much neaterOrdyg (talk) 11:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I usually try to avoid discussions about my opinion vs. your opinon, but it appears you want an answer: My opinion is that it doesn't look better with bullets or italics. Perhaps if you kept the discussion on the same line as the bullet and the person's name it might look better, but as it is now, I don't think it does.

My further opinion is that my opinion shouldn't carry much weight on stylistic issues. 8-) That's why we have MOS. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Nickymark21 (talk · contribs) vandal

Hi, Todd. Another admin clobbered his IP with a short block and I'm of the opinion that the main account is deserving of a permanent block. Just my $.02. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

what's the ip? Toddst1 (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

98.217.7.158 (talk · contribs). --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

looks like Spellcast (talk · contribs) beat me to it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked User

The editor User talk:BanditoLoco who you just indef blocked is asking to be unblocked I suspect it is this other blocked editor notice the same mistake with the unblock template using the round bracket and not the curly ones thanks. BigDunc^Talk 19:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

James Woodward disambiguation

Greetings. You removed my addition to the James Woodward disambiguation page, but I don't really understand why you did so. Would you be willing to explain this to me? Victor Gijsbers (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See my edit summary and the note on Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_pages about blue links (vs redlinks). Toddst1 (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

I tell you, doing NPP used to get me in trouble with users with attitudes, which is why I quit for a long time and gave back the admin tools while I was at it. Lots of new templates since then and I thank you for bringing them to my attention. This is such a useful resource that it just burns me to see idiots abuse it. The nice part is, we win in the end. Thanks for the compliment. Much obliged.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The Real Life Barnstar

Thanks! I just did what needed to be done. :) – ClockworkSoul 21:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:142.25.110.50

You last blocked for 1 month, so this time I put 3 months... Is that reasonable? xenocidic (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I would think so. Frankly, it would have to be pretty egregious for me to question another admin's blocking period. I might have gone for 6 mos, but I tend to be a bit heavy handed for repeat vandals. Toddst1 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Chadwell O'Connor entry

Hi,

Thanks for your edits on the page I created for Chadwell O'Connnor. This was my first wikipedia entry so it was a little rough. I have added in-line citations for most of the content although there are still a couple of sections where I'm still looking for references. I'd like your assessment that it is now well-enough documented to remove the caution label at the top of the article.

Regards, Jim Jlg1953 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Jlg1953. Toddst1 (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your swift response to the vandalism by the editor with the handle Dogface1234. I was afraid he would be something of a nuisance. Be well Ecoleetage (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That one was pretty obvious. Thanks for reporting it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well, for your participation in my recent RFA. i've left some thank spam for you below! if you enjoy reading overly detailed analyses of RFAs, feel free to check out mine here (comments welcome). cheers, xenocidic (talk) 23:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

templated rfa thank-spam

RFA

Standards

My RFA standards are still being refined, but I rarely base my support on arbitrary cut-offs like number of edits, or length of time editing. More often I will attempt to determine the clue level of a candidate. If high levels of clue are present, they will earn my support, regardless of whether or not they have 5000 non-huggle edits and 6 months of regular activity. This is based on a fairly brief review of their contributions, moreso on their answers to the questions. I have an optional question that I often pose to candidates that helps with this.

Self-noms and the acceptance line

• Neglecting to follow the bolded instruction #6 to delete the acceptance line in the self-nomination instructions will cause me to register a neutral unless a preponderance of clue has already been detected.
• I do this because it is a fairly simple and easy instruction to follow. Not following it is (in my opinion) indicative of a deeper tendency to not thoroughly read and follow instructions generally. Adminship is no big deal, but applying for adminship is. The fact that a candidate hasn't fully versed themselves in the process of RFA prior to jumping in doesn't build confidence that they will accurately follow guidelines and policies in applying administrative actions.
• An example of how this could apply to a real-world admin situation: When blocking for an inappropriate username, it is customary to uncheck the "Prevent account creation" and "Autoblock any IP addresses used" boxes. However, an admin who doesn't thoroughly follow instructions might not do this and as such Wikipedia could lose an otherwise constructive contributor.
• One user has mentioned that leaving this line in could be justified by ignore all rules. Quite frankly, I disagree. There is no good reason to ignore this rule, and following it is painless. Attention to detail is a quality I value in an administrator.
• As I mentioned, leaving this line in isn't always a deal breaker and if the candidate's actions indicate to me that this oversight is an anomaly, I may change to, or otherwise support. Furthermore, if they remove the line using only a herring, I will most certainly lend my support, though I may ask that they first bring me a shrubbery.

Participation

1. Thingg - nom, support (69/32/4)
2. WBOSITG 2 - support (114/10/4)
3. Zginder - neutral became moral support in the neutral column and then oppose (8/34/9)
4. Ro098 - oppose (0/3/0)
5. Jbmurray - support (161/1/2)
6. Vivio Testarossa - oppose (8/25/7)
7. Bluegoblin7 - neutral (6/13/10)
8. Guest9999 - support (48/31/4)
9. Paulyb - oppose (0/4/0)
10. Strennman - oppose (0/6/0)
11. Tyw7 - oppose (with moral support) (0/1/0)

    Tyw7 2 - oppose, switched to strong oppose (3/14/1)

12. Xenocidic - candidate (72/13/2)
13. InDeBiz1 - moral support (5/15/2)
14. Useight (RFB) - support (28/16/6)
15. Tinkleheimer - moral support (15/16/8)
16. Ironholds - oppose (12/24/10)
17. Kevin - neutral, switched to support (54/2/0)
18. Pinkville - support (54/0/1)
19. Ali'i - weak support (70/55/14)
20. Cenarium - support (42/2/2)
21. Soxred93 3 - neutral, switched to support (87/7/3)
22. Avruch - support (104/35/10)
23. Cedarvale1965-08 - oppose (0/2/0)
24. Karanacs - support (119/4/3)
25. Plyhmrp - oppose (0/4/0)
26. SarekOfVulcan - support (76/11/2)
27. Golich17 - support (19/36/11)
28. Headbomb - support (17/38/11)
29. oren0 - support (67/21/13)
30. Ryan - support (17/36/2)
31. EricV89 - support (13/43/9)
32. Frank - support (59/11/4)
33. Masterpiece2000 - neutral (10/19/3)
34. JeanLatore - neutral (0/12/1)

    JeanLatore 2 - oppose (0/6/0)

35. RyanLupin 2 - support (32/28/4)
36. Blakegripling ph - support (9/30/9)
37. Lomn - support (54/1/1)
38. Shoessss 2 - support (23/26/7)
39. Tanner-Christopher 2 - support (64/3/4)
40. the demonhog 2 - support (100/1/1)
41. TomStar 81 3 - support (80/18/2)
42. Cailil - support (66/8/5)
43. Lady Aleena 2 - neutral, switched to oppose (28/31/10)
44. Red Phoenix - support (13/7/2)
45. No longer updating, see my RFA participation report

Optional question

Main page: User:Xenocidic/RFAQ

Thanks

Thank you for your support

So...how do I use these things? ;>

I would like to thank the community for placing their trust in me during my recent request for adminship, which passed 72 13 2 . Rest assured, I have read each comment thoroughly and will be addressing the various concerns raised as I step cautiously into my new role as janitor. In particular, I would like to thank Balloonman for putting so much time into reviewing my contributions and writing such a thoughtful nomination statement after knowing me for only a brief period of time (and for convincing me that I was ready to take up the mop now, rather than go through admin coaching).

To my fellow admins - please let me know right away if I ever take any mis-steps with my new tools. Should I make a mistake, and you reverse the action, I will not consider it to be wheel-warring (but please tell me so I can understand what I did wrong).

To everyone - please feel free to slap me around a bit if I ever lose sight of the core philosophy of Wikipedia as I understand it - the advancement of knowledge through the processes of mutual understanding and respect. As always, feel free to drop by my talk page if I can be of any assistance. =)

Sincerely,

~xenocidic, 01:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Analysis of my RFA

Main page: User talk:Xenocidic/RFA

Why deleted?

umm you just deleted my information on North Allegheny. 1. You did not go to the school and have no idea what your talking about. 2. I was quoting myself, because I am the webmaster, so I was providing information about myself. 3. You just made the North Allegheny page less informative -- oh well, I could care less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironj221 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I am creating a post about a notable person and you deleted it, despite its explanation of context. Why? RealEstateGuru (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See WP:Bio Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. "

There are at least 12 regional and local (and 1 national) articles written about Mr. Nelson's contribution to real estate brokerage. He is doing now what Charles Schwab did to stock brokering. RealEstateGuru (talk) 00:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting omission in the (now deleted) article. Toddst1 (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not intend that comment as an "attack". If links/scans of the articles in question are added to TCN's page, will that keep it from being "swiftly deleted?". RealEstateGuru (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's how it works: If the article asserts WP:Notability then it won't be speedily deleted. It may however be deleted after discussion if it doesn't demonstrate WP:Notability. You demonstrate notability by adding WP:Reliable sources to ensure verifiability. Sorry for the gobbldygook but to keep wikipedia from being filled with high school students' rumors and such we have to have rules. Hope this helps. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 00:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will gather my sources together and try again soon, when time permits. I appreciate your dedication to this great site and I share your distaste for high school students' rumors. RealEstateGuru (talk) 01:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Bruce C. Kone

What do you know about the facts of Bruce Kones termination. The only vandalism occurring is you deleting the truth about the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micah2020 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Never pretended to know anything about the matter. I do know about WP:V as you should too. Toddst1 (talk) 01:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Do I really need to add the numerous amounts of articles railing Bruce Kone, for allowing a Republican connected student into the medical school? Or giving equal pay to women in the Medical department. Or firing old sexist, bigot men? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Micah2020 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:Reliable as well. Toddst1 (talk) 01:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

VegitaU is posing as an admin

I noticed that you blocked this user briefly a few weeks ago. He recently reverted my comments on Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks and threatened to block me on my talk page. He is not an admin and I assume not authorized to make such threats. Kauffner (talk) 08:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how VegitaU is posing as an admin at all. He issued two warnings which at the surface may appear legitimate. Discuss the warnings with VegitaU. Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

So if you don't agree with a comment on a talk page, the proper response is to delete it and then put an unsigned warning with a templete stating that the user will be blocked if he continues to post? I guess you learn something new everyday. I'll have to try it myself sometime. Yes, I have already warned VegitaU to stop vandalizing the page. Kauffner (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not at all. However, where arbitration has decided that "disruptive information or comments related to the promotion of conspiracy theories to the September 11, 2001 attacks" should not be promoted here, you will be blocked if you try such. I'll be glad to help there if necessary. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in the decision about conspiracy theories. You're quoting from a templete that VegitaU wrote. He wasn't even an arbitrator. Here is the relevant part of the decision:

Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Kauffner (talk) 17:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The entire arbitration is about conspiracy theories. Perhaps you should read it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not the same as banning them, is it? VegitaU is making up rules as he goes along and you seem to think I should I follow them. He also claimed he removed my comment because it continued a closed discussion--another bogus rule. A rule banning conspiracy theories would make no sense anyway. Everyone would start accusing each other of promoting conspiracy theories. I write what the best of my knowledge is the truth. I can't help it if you think its a conspiracy theory. Kauffner (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI ANI

There's an ANI thread about you here. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)