User talk:Toddst1

User talk:67.122.138.76

Just to make sure they won't repeatedly remove the block notice while blocked, mind changing the block to include talk page access revoked? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:22, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

S/he's allowed to remove warnings and block notices from his/her own talk page. See WP:BLANKING. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING also says that they may not remove block notices while blocked. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Read it again. They can remove the block notice, but not ancillary information about the block or declined unblock notices (during the duration of the block). Read the last line of that section carefully. Toddst1 (talk) 22:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly. They cannot remove block notices while blocked, and you said "...but not ancillary information about the block..." which is my point. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

In relation to your post, thank you. This has been one policy I've needed to review.--ForgottenHistory (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at LikeLakers2's talk page.
Message added 23:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Some oldies but goodies

I opened an SPI before FaheyUSMC came on the scene, and you can see it at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kyphis/Archive. Do you think we should tag these users as puppets of his or anything? Elizium23 (talk) 00:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Based on what Hersfold said, probably not. Toddst1 (talk) 00:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

*Protracted sigh*

Let's give this one more try before we go to AN/I, okay? I think you may have misjudged the situation. DS (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You didn't handle it last time:

• You did nothing about the personal attacks.
• S/He's been nothing short of disruptive during DR - nobody has agreed with him/her, yet multiple characteristics of WP:TE go ignored by you.

You have completely failed to handle this and made two bad unblocks now. I have zero faith in your ability or at this point - desire - to handle this. Toddst1 (talk) 14:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been very busy, dealing with a) paying clients and b) other screaming raging Wikimesses. That discussion was so fragmented that it became difficult for me to tell what was even happening. And MuZemike and DeltaQuad - and even Elizium23 - are admitting that maybe the IP editor is not Fahey. As for the issue at heart here, the mess with the LICD article - I've agreed with him, did you not notice? Not fully, but I have agreed, and I'm far from being an LICD fan. And he has complied with the restrictions I placed on him. So it's a question of whether I made two bad unblocks, or whether you made two bad blocks (especially since I had already stated that I would handle it if he got out of hand). Bear in mind WP:BITE, bear in mind the size of a fanbase that can raise that much money that quickly, bear in mind the possibility that you, Toddst1, have fucked up hugely. DS (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding a better job

Could I trouble you to pay a little more attention to your blocking checklist, please? Yes, you said you unblocked me, but you left the autoblock in place, effectively keeping me blocked. Could you explain where the breakdown occurred for you? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry dude, you are correct. I looked for an autoblock after I unblocked you but it didn't show up until later. Toddst1 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Is the autoblock necessary? I mean, if you block the account, autoblocking the IP seems like overkill, unless you are expecting socking or something. Were you under the impression that that was what I was about? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's on by default. Again, sorry you got caught up In it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No hard feelings; I think the block was a bit more than called for, but I imagine there isn't a person alive who's been blocked who doesn't say that, or feel the other editor in the dispute was more of an idiot. At least I learned something new. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal Feeling raised the discussion

The discussion raised in Pabulo Henrique Rampelotto Page by Headbomb is clearly moved by his personal feelings about the Journal of Cosmology and related authors. In fact, the discussion just torn around is the journal is scientific or not.

The same discussion was raised by Headbomb in the Journal Page. As expected, Headbomb` personal and vulgar comments have been denied by wiki community, and now, the page remains as an encyclopedic paper must be. But even today, this guy insists with his ignorant attacks (See Journal of Cosmology Page Discussion).

I just hope this kind of personal feelings do not happen again here and in others pages.

The Page has been improved and updated by different authors in the last days fitting as an encyclopedic paper must be: with clear, formal, and coherent information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by H.vonNeumann (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The original dispute

Okay. I've modified the original article such that everyone should be satisfied. I decline to become involved any further in a meta-dispute, and will be doing productive work elsewhere on the project.

This whole mess has been an embarrassment to everyone involved. DS (talk) 22:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm placing myself under sanctions: I will not be unblocking anyone who I did not block myself. DS (talk) 00:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that will save me the trouble of taking this to arbcom. I disagree that my actions in this fiasco were in any way embarrassing and will stand behind every one of them. Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not embarrassed either. I stood on Wikipedia policy and I did not stoop to dishonest tactics to assert my side of the argument. Elizium23 (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Block of 98.236.28.9

I see you blocked 98.236.28.9 (talk · contribs) as a likely sock of the user that was stalking me (Pajko123 (talk · contribs), etc.) but is there a reason you believe that to be the case? Pajko (talk · contribs) was harassing me before I ever interacted with this IP, and the IP has never reverted any of my edits. I think you may have made a mistake and blocked someone who wasn't offending. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It was this edit with the interesting edit summary which Pajko edit warred to retain. The user is unblocked now. Could have been a mistake. Dunno. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Nah, there were a whole bunch of other edits of mine Pajko undid - many were disambiguating a link. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Alpha Quadrant's talk page.
Message added 17:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alpha Quadrant ^talk 17:47, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

DC-area Meetup, Saturday, October 8

National Archives Backstage Pass - Who should come? You should. Really.
	You are invited to the National Archives in College Park for a special backstage pass and scanathon meetup with Archivist of the United States David Ferriero, on Saturday, October 8. Go behind the scenes and into the stacks at the National Archives, help digitize documents, and edit together! Free catered lunch provided! Dominic·t 16:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Just pointing out

The very same activity which led to you blocking Ihutchesson (and me) has again been restarted by that user. I've not made any edits to the article, as per my agreement, without arriving at a solution in article talk. Apparently, the other author doesn't feel the need to follow the same sorts of rules. I invite your opinion in the matter, as he is endeavoring to add the same trivial references as before. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)