User talk:Toddst1/Archive 5

This page, Toddst1/Archive 5 contains archived talk page discussions for Toddst1 (talk).
Please do not edit this page.

• Current time: May 9, 2024, 09:27 (UTC)

The Rolling Stones songs on series finale of Cold Case.

Hi. Can you tell me what songs of The Rolling Stones were featured in the CBS drama, Cold Case. On the article, they only showed one song that was featured, but what were the other songs? Do you know? Could you find the information for me please? Thank you and will talk to you soon!98.234.170.224 (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Hogmanay greeting

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral unblocking of Binksternet

Please see the discussion here. User:Gwen Gale has unilaterally unblocked Binksternet, despite a clear consensus on AN/I that the block, given for Binksternet's harassment of me, was appropriate. [1] This was Binksternet's 6th block in 6th month, last time he was blocked, he also promised to "stick to 1RR" only to engage in further disruption right after he was unblocked. So he has been basically let off hook, I suspect off-wiki lobbying by another admin to have played a role in this unilateral, out of the blue, action. Kurdo777 (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comet Egypt

I really think that, because of the mention of the minor's name repeatedly by the editor, it would be best to blank everything except the block notices and then full-protect the page. If the user is seriously interested in getting unblocked, he can e-mail someone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Something like that, soon. Toddst1 (talk) 21:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

10-4. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

From the content and style of the comment on the Biz Kid$ page, and the recent creation of the user identity, I believe User talk:David H Braun (1964) is a Comet Egypt sock. I am so sure that I think it a waste of resources to require a CU confirmation. What do you think? Bielle (talk) 23:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Braun has a much better grasp of spelling than egypt, but that may be an affectation. Toddst1 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible big oops: I misread two things on the same page. My apologies. Feel free to RevDel if desired. As for the spelling, C.E.'s was so erratic, it was more than likely an affectation. That, however, proves nothing about Mr. Braun. I believe I have been hasty to rush to judgement. Bielle (talk) 23:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

User Page - Recent Edit

Hi. I have gotten rid of my past and present locations from my Userpage. Do you think you could distort my pic somehow? I'd do it but I'm not good at photo editing. Thank you for your time. (Cjsnow1 (talk) 04:37, 14 January 2011 (UTC))

I don't know how to do that. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh. Okay.(Cjsnow1 (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC))

Looking to get your thoughts on this Amp Energy Talk page post

Hi there Toddst1, I came across your post Amp Energy Talk page and it prompted me to do a bit of research with the intent of bringing that article closer up to WP standards. Now you made that post many years ago (in 2008), but I thought you might still be interested in weighing in on the follow-up post I just made here - in which I've proposed a revised version of that article. If not, no worries mate. Cheers, Jeff Bedford (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Slow-motion Edit war

About this edit war on article Maria Pavelić... I created the article with sentence "Croatian Poglavnik". This user with IP adress erased my edit without explanation on talk page and without any source. Now, leter I added sources and erased his change, but he continues to ignore this, and he always erase my edits. Please, solve this problem.--Wustefuchs (talk) 13:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Cookies!
		Thanks for deleting that attack page! My bot scored that as 9.7 (way above the threshhold for 'critical risk page' (the threshhold is .8) in its IRC alert. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that was rather pathetic. Toddst1 (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Northwestern HS, Maryland Edits

I am writing to you in regards to the edits you made to Northwestern High School in Hyattsville, MD. I have literally been working on this article for several hours, adding citations and making other edits. When I saved the page, I was alerted of changes that were made but when I viewed those changes... none of the changes that you made showed up in the article at the time. The only changes I was shown was the fact that an administrated had added semi-protection status to the article. So I resaved the page with my changes. Then, another poster reverted my edits onlyu minutes later, claiming that I was misleading and reverted the previous posters edits. I had no idea what he was talking about. It wasn't until after I went into the history section of the article question, that I saw all of these edits you made. So, the task at hand is... how can we somehow merge our two edits. I didn't spend all of this time working on these edits for nothing. Please respond when you get a chance. Thank you. Maryland Pride ... a Wikipedia contributor (talk) 07:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the note. I've replied on your talk page and on the article's talk page. I've reinstated your edits. Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Phyllo

Hi. the user A Macedonian, is disrupting my edits, deleting comments on talk page. can you help me out please? thanks. camoka4 —Preceding undated comment added 22:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

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

A Macedonian

hi. this user A Macedonian is using his home page as an attack page for nationalistic and offensive approach. for example he described the language of Gjorgje Ivanov as "quote": a modern Bulgaro-Serbian Slavic language like Gjorge Ivanov does. Gjorgje Ivanov is a president of Republic of Macedonia that has a codified language named "macedonian language" in the United Nations ID card for this state. thank you and respect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.125.225.45 (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, you remind me of someone... However. Read Macedonian language before accusing me: South Slavic branch of the Slavic branch of the Indo-European family of languages. The closest relative of Macedonian is Bulgarian [...] The next closest languages are Serbian, Bosnian and Croatian (once collectively known as Serbo-Croatian). I choose to use just the two main languages to define Macedonian language and disambiguate it from the unrelated ancient Macedonian language and that’s what Macedonian language is, so that’s what it is, deal with it. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Pretty obvious. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Just noticed! Yes, I was talking about User:Mactruth. A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 01:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

And I think he just tries to make me take the bait... A Macedonian, a Greek. (talk) 01:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

sorry

Hello, it's Comet Egypt. I am sorry for making bad edits, I in no way ment to do anything wrong, and I will not do it again, Can you please leave replies on my Comet Egypt talk page? thanks. 204.112.104.172 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

note

I have posted the above IP at AIV for being a self-admitted sock. Another item, which you may or may not have noticed, is discussion at the ref desk talk page about Gud music only (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which some editors there think might be another sock of that guy. I have not studied the matter myself, however. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dude should have taken a left at Albequerque. Bugs is on it. Toddst1 (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-alcoholic beverage ‎

January 2011 With reference to your comment on my Talk Page regarding Non-alcoholic beverage, I am a little surprised that you found my edit 'potentially controversial' given that the addition I made, Gunner, has its own entry and falls within the scope of the term Non-alcoholic beverage. I apologise for failing to link to it, which was an error as I thought I had done this, but I think my edit was both constructive and in good faith. I imagine therefore that there is no need for the additional verification by citing reliable sources or discussing first on the article's talk page as you suggested. I am only an occasional and non-expert contributor, so I'm sure you'll be able to tell me if this is this right or wrong. Thank you. Gxdruid (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Gunner (cocktail) contains no references. Toddst1 (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mikie Da Poet

Due to editor's claims that the artist did not fully meet the criteria, the previous deletion reviews were turned down. The page is being placed under 'speedy removal' without any consideration to policy. The following statement is taken directly from a Wikipedia criteria and a Wikipedia editor, from an earlier deletion:

• "The kind of independent reliable sources we'd need to justify the claims in this article would be things such as articles in culture- or music-oriented magazines, newspaper articles, mention in published books, newsmagazine articles, TV news segments, and the like."

The following is a TV news segment from Fox News, in which Mikie Da Poet performs a song and closes the show (4:32 mark of video) for platinum-selling hip hop group, Do or Die, who are also found to be notable by Wikipedia. [1]

• News anchor David Navarro calls Mikie Da Poet a "hot new star" (0:09 mark of video) and Fox also reports him to be "the new Eminem" according to fans and music critics. (4:32 mark of video)

Wikipedia, among others find Fox News to be notable, therefore Mikie Da Poet is notable.

• Mikie's song "Exploitation" is under license by 20/20 Media and has been used as the featured song in the upcoming film/documentary "Business As Usual: Exploitation of Hip Hop", starring Mekhi Phifer, Kanye West, Dr. Cornell West, Bobby Brown, and many more Wikipedia notables. [2] (Video at bottom of official site)
• [3] His name is mentioned in the credits at the conclusion of the trailer.
• IMDb page for the film, credits shown for Mikie Da Poet's composition and writing of the featured soundtrack. [4]

To sum up, based on Wikipedia criteria, the sources provided above should be more than enough to restore this page. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.44.99 (talk • contribs) 10:13, 25 January 2011

WP:DRV is --> that way. Toddst1 (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, no. Toddst1 (talk) 07:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Similar name

I doubt Toddy1 is an impersonator but I thought I'd point it out fyi. When I saw your post at Bugs I initially confused you with them. I'm still working on that little square with the arrow thing. Slightsmile (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Toddy1 seems like a solid editor and I think our names are sufficiently different that people will know the difference between us. I'll poll Toddy1 (talk · contribs) to be sure. Toddst1 (talk) 16:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The first evidence of our existence on Wikipedia are as follows:

• Toddy1 17:18, 30 December 2006, which was a note telling me that the first article I wrote was tagged for speedy deletion.
• Toddst1 02:13, 2 May 2007, which was an edit to a page that still exists.

Unless you believe me to be a time-traveller, it is clear that I cannot have chosen my ID to impersonate you.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that only after I posted. I know I should have looked before posting but I don't think there's any harm done. Like I said, I initially thought the post on Bugs was Toddy1 - no big deal. Also I should have said more forcefully, "I'm sure Toddy1 isn't an imposter ...". If someone confused me to a name similar to mine I would be appreciative, not offended by someone pointing it out to either one of us. Slightsmile (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you there Toddy1! Toddst1 (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Next Step Realty

I do not understand why this page is continually taken down/edited. I do not work for them, nor am I affiliated with them, so I do not understand how you can infer that there is a conflict of interest. Also, where in the page was it an advertisement? Everything in the page was purely informational with sources, you also claim the sources aren't good enough, how can that be when they come from bloomberg and the wall street journal? Your edits/deletion of my edits are absurd. At least explain exactly what is wrong and what needs to be fixed in order for my edits to remain, that is a lot more helpful than you just taking them down, and merely saying look at our guidelines, when I do not see myself making any of those errors. Thanks. Hockeyguy676 (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2011

As a new editor, how would you know "this page is continually taken down/edited"? Have you edited the page before? Toddst1 (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Because you have done it to my edits several times, at the last count I think my own edits have been changed 4 times Hockeyguy676 (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)hockeyguy676 1/31/2011

You must be editing under multiple identities then, as you have only edited that article as Hockeyguy676 (talk · contribs) on January 27. See WP:SOCKS. Toddst1 (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not, I've never edited on another profile. I do not understand the problem here, I made several edits to the same page "Next Step Realty" over the course of about 3 days. You or someone else repeatedly removed my edits, but never explained what the problem was. I merely want to know what I have to do in order for my edits to remain and what would constitute proper citing if the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg does not, for not only the page Next Step Realty but also for further edits. If you don't want to help me that is fine but understand, I am not trying to cheat you, I have never edited on Wikipedia before I worked on Next Step nor am I attempting to advertise for the company. Hockeyguy676 (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Hockeyguy676

You're arguing about an article whose subject appears to be about as notable as my big toe? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Thanks BW. Toddst1 (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I think I will opine Keep: in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bwilkins' big toe per WP:BIGTOE. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Dude! You made coffee come up through my nose! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

As an admin you are more familiar with deletion procedures that I am. There is a redirect to the article on The Next Step Realty from Blair Brandt. If Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Next Step Realty results in the deletion of the article, will the admin who does the deletion also delete aliases that redirect to it, such as Blair Brandt? Or will I need to put a speedy delete tag on the redirect, once it redirects to nothing?--Toddy1 (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

If it's done correctly, yes. Toddst1 (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the articles and redirects on this obscure company have all been deleted. It did not turn out at all as I expected when I nominated the articles. I thought that various editors created the articles would argue their case in the deletion discussion. I expected them to provide robust defences for all the sources that they had attempted to cite in the article. If they persuaded uninvolved editors that these were substantial, they could then have turned the article into the kind of article they wanted it to be. Instead, they did not bother, which suggests that they knew you were right.

You were and I were both subject to unacceptable abuse on the same day (though from different users and about different matters). Your abuser got a 1-week ban for homophobic abuse. My abuser got a notice placed on his page asking him to post in English (the abuse was racist abuse written in Ukrainian).

Good luck in the future.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish I was aware of the abuse directed against you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I posted a report on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#IP editor 24.0.177.155.2F70.111.133.184. The IP editor(s) had used a racist word (Кацап) in edit summaries and then on 7 February posted racist comments on may talk page. Кацап (katsap) is a Ukrainian-language racist word for Russian people; calling someone a katsap, is like calling Serena Williams a n****r; it is unacceptable. At 15:17 today, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise awarded 24.0.177.155 a 48 hour block for personal attacks and disruptive editing.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

First/Final Warning

Earlier today, I added a {{Uw-spam1}} to User_talk:82.108.32.42. I notice that later on, you added a final warning for the same issue. I'm out of touch on WP guidelines, so I just wanted to bring it to your attention and make sure that this was intentional and appropriate. Assuming it is, should the first warning be removed in favour of the final warning? – RobinHood70 ^talk 21:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well technically you are right - we usually go in incremental levels of warning. I wanted to leave a pretty stern warning as that IP is connected with the business that every on of its edits was promoting. I've removed the first warning - hope that's ok with you. If they were a registered user, they'd be indefinitely blocked at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't bother me a bit. – RobinHood70 ^talk 23:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've not looked at the particular case in question, but if an IP is engaging is lots of vandalism, it is quite appropriate to issue a lvl 1 on first coming across the vandalism, and follow it up with a 4im on further investigation. Mjroots (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

SS Alesia

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

Hi, are you sure that the name of this ship became Dunrae, or that the date of 1899 is correct? Reason I ask is that it doesn't sound very Norwegian and The Times of 18 September 1899 (p4, column C) states that a Norwegian ship named Duraes sprang a leak and sank off Elba on 8 September 1899 with a cargo of minerals. Duraes is a much more Norwegian name, but Alesia was not a cargo ship. Anyway, food for thought, I'm not proposing to make any changes to the article on the ship on the strength of this. Mjroots (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm not, I was going by the source that's linked: [2]. It was the only one I had at the time. I suspect the Times is more accurate. I'll copy this conversation over to talk:SS Alesia so others have the benefit. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2011 (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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonial Promenade Alabaster

I added some references to Colonial Promenade Alabaster. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonial Promenade Alabaster. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

New user Todd.st

Just wanted to call your attention to Todd.st (talk · contribs). --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Toddst1. I am certainly not attempting to impersonate you. My real first name is Todd (two d's; the only way to go), and the ".st" represents the first two letters of my last, very Italian name. Not much else--short of spelling out my entire name--would go through the Wiki form fields. Peace.

Todd.st (talk) 19:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for the tutorial links (and the meat pie, of course). Todd.st (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SOV. The user name may appear disruptive as I thought that the user was you, but perhaps you should have let another user post the message on the users talk page as you have clear conflict of interest. I was going to do it, until I saw yours. No harm though, it will work itself out in the end.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandalizing a talk page?

What's wrong with you? It was the talk page!--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Join Wikipedia!

A quick note to say that you essay brought a smile to my face and day. Only one quibble - in the case of what Santa is really doing at the North Pole, he is promoting "Rangifer sexuality" :-) Thanks again for the laughs. MarnetteD | Talk 23:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it. No offense to Santa. Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 23:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Abhishek191288's talk page.
Message added 06:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Edit War

Hi Toddst1: My heartfelt thanks for your assistance to restore Electronics City. Can you please give some pointers as to what can be done when more than 2 people are involved in an Edit War? It is very possible that a group/team may try to suppress content written by 1 user, for the wrong reasons. In the article discussion page, I was asked by User: Sodabottle to justify every point which I did. He suggests that I wait for 24 hrs to revert that change. Whereas the other user User: Abhishek191288 who was repeatedly reverting my changes is free to make multiple edits, including manual deletion of my earlier edits. I have no time to dispute each of his edit. Despite malicious repeated deletions, he says: "stop your disruptive edits - you vandal" - his rude language in the edit comments is highly objectionable. Thanks again. Raji ect (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

About my content that was repeatedly undone by him, when can I revert his undo? Can it be done by a Wiki Admin? Thanks Raji ect (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your concern of edit war on Delhi

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

Hi please see this. The same edits which I have reverted have been reverted by SpacemanSpiff showing clearly that I was not edit warring. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 13:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

moving to User talk:Abhishek191288 Toddst1 (talk) 16:04, 17 February 2011 (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 Talk Pages

Thanks for the heads up, i'll be sure to remember that in the future Dougofborg^(talk) 19:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

proposed deletion

You proposed to delete the rape of college women page, I strongly disagree that it should. This is a current problem, and their are not other pages that have this specific nature. Every thing on the page is facts, it is not clouded with opinion or judgement. All the sources cited are legitimate, scholarly sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clmclm1234chma (talk • contribs) 04:57, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

4 Reverts in 24 Hours

Hello - please note that User:Sayerslle has made four reverts to the entry Libya within the last 24 hours. Consensus has been achieved in the Talk board to keep the green flag of Libya on the entry's main page. Nonetheless, he has deleted it four times in less than a day. What would be a good course of action to restrain User:Sayerslle from further vandalism of this entry? Thank you. Felixhonecker (talk) 01:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

S/he has been warned. LMK if you see any further WP:EWing. Toddst1 (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Meat Puppets Edit warring

Users User_talk:DileepKS69, User_talk:Bijuts, User_talk:Mountainwhiskey, Arunvarmaother and some anonymous IPs are all from a forum called SkyscraperCity (See the talk page of Dileep). There they are glorifying Kochi, defaming other cities (esp Trivandrum), and engaged in online wars. They all became active in wiki since Nov/December 2010 and are constantly engaged in edit wars in wikipedia too. You may see it from their talk pages or the article talk pages(Talk:Kochi#Neutral_Point_of_View and Talk:Thiruvananthapuram#Blind_Reverts).

There are even personal attacks and use of abusive phrases in local language(Malayalam) in the article talk page.

I wish experienced editors could pitch in and take appropriate actions. Thank you very much --Samaleks (talk) 11:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Mountainwhiskey has again went beyond limit and continuing personal attacks:

1. [3]

This continued even after the warnings given to him: [4]

1. [5]
2. [6]

I request you to please help out. Thanks, --Samaleks (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

None of those diffs are personal attacks. Please learn to play nicely.Toddst1 (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain.

In first diff, he addressed me as Sama-licks. I replied in talk page asking him not to do that again: [7] In the second one, he again addressed me as Sama-licks. He also asked me to engage in a fight with him: Have a nice weekend and keep the warnings to yourself cos you can't do nothing. If you have the substance to fight me, FIGHT. I don't care about warnings

And then, this one

Please check this diff (which I missed before) : [8]

I think the user is really arrogant and displaying uncivilized behavior. --Samaleks (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Scottandrewhutchins

Hi, Toddst1

Could you take a look at Scottandrewhutchins? He was blocked recently for not understanding WP:BLP and just added a pornsite link [9] to Carrie Prejean after first changig text to "masturbating to pornography" [10] and then justifying pornographic material of a blonde look-alike as "First source doesn't detail what she's doing". User seems to have an axe to grind and doesn't understand what a WP:RS is. --John KB (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

done. Toddst1 (talk) 08:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. --John KB (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Alleged edit wars.

Hi Toddst1, I saw the allegations of edit wars and meat puppetry upon myself. Since you have intervened, I wish to clarify some points.

I participate in various web forums, which has no bearing on my activities on wikipedia. I haven't made any reference anywhere about the editing activities on those forums. I use the same ID, which is my real name, everywhere across the web. I have nothing to hide.

I stand behind facts. You can go through my edit and talk history, and see for yourself. I never, ever, used abusive language, and I always conceded when a valid argument is made by the other editors. Sometimes even to weak arguments, because it didn't make sense to beat the head on a brick wall.

I seek your help with the Thiruvananthapuram page. I have made valid arguments, but user Samaleks is trying to stonewall them, and reverting the edits, calling that no consensus has reached. If that is allowed, anyone can block any edit by raising the same arguments ad infinitum. Rational people can't do it, but it is a real tactic I had been seeing in use a lot here.

Could you intervene and provide your opinion please?

Thanks. DileepKS(talk) 04:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

I'm well aware of that; no need for the template. WP:DTTR and all that. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no. dttr is fine until someone claims they were blocked for 3RR without warning. No offense to you intended. I certainly recognize your status as seasoned editor. Toddst1 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:3RR Violation?

Dear Toddst1, you posted the following on my talk page in connection to my block.

Perhaps you can learn about WP:3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe you are referring to the four edits I did on 25th Feb:

1. 21:36, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) Thiruvananthapuram ? (Assertion based on extrapolation from an unreliable reference. Already explained in Talk page.)
2. 21:35, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) Thiruvananthapuram ? (Updated tourism numbers from govt document proves that TVM is NOT the first. Explained in Talk page.)
3. 21:33, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) Thiruvananthapuram ? (?Air: Sometimes? It is NEVER cheapest. Shown on Talk page many times.)
4. 21:31, 25 February 2011 (diff | hist) Thiruvananthapuram ? (?Air: Assertions based on news report of a lobbying activity is removed. Explanation already given on talk page.)

This is in fact one revert. I separated the points, with the hope that the practice of blind reverts of many changes could be stopped, and issues resolved individually. I could very well have combined them, and avoided the mere technicality that you used for the block.

I also was the impressions that good intentions matters more than rules in wikipedia, and admins checked the facts and context. It seems I was mistaken.

Well, as I said, you learn something new every day. Have a good day.DileepKS(talk) 01:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Reversion is reversion and 3RR is a bright line. Stop trolling. Toddst1 (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of page Shoaib Khan (Rapper)

Why have you deleted the page Shoaib Khan (Rapper)? According to the clause A7 it as deleted because it is considered as unimportant. If that being the case, why did you contact him in the first place? Don't you think this act is demoralizing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najeeha Humayun (talk • contribs) 16:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:CSD#A7, and WP:COI. The author was notified each time the page was deleted here. Are you the same editor? Toddst1 (talk) 20:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Your block of Ssilvers

That single beach chair on the left is yours; our budget does not allow sending multiple people on (brief) wikibreaks.

Just a heads-up that I've posted at the ANI thread requesting that this block be reviewed. Please feel free to comment there. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Further heads up, your blocking history is under review at ANI as well. N419BH 05:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your heads up and the good faith on ANI. I'm wikibreaking out of here for a while. Toddst1 (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1,

Sorry I didn't come here last night to tell you I overturned your block; I usually show that courtesy, but was tired, flustered by an autoblock I couldn't find, and just forgot. Anyway, I usually make 45 mistakes a day, and yesterday I only made 43, so you can have my two spares. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Todd, take care, and we hope to see you back soon. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Abhishek191288's talk page.
Message added 14:59, 4 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EDIT WAR on Thiruvananthapuram

Hi Todd,

There is a IP user EDIT war on the Thiruvananthapuram page. Some are trying to reinstate information that is in dispute. The others trying to put them back on. Appreciate if you could intervene. Thanks! - MountainWhiskey (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

The IPs starting with 115. is a sock of User:Mountainwhiskey or User:DileepKS69. The user has done numerous reverts within a single day:

• 1st
• 2nd
• 3rd
• 4th
• 5th
• 6th
• 7th
• 8th
• 9th
• 10th
• 11th
• 12th

--Samaleks (talk) 14:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

With reference to the above allegation of sock - I am sure there is a mechanism to prove/disprove User: Samaleks's allegation - I hope this is clarified to him/her. I deny use of IPs or Socks to conduct the edit war. FYI: 115.x range of Ip addresses usually belong to Reliance Netconnect users all over the country. This is the nth time that User:Samaleks is making such allegations to mislead admins and other editors. Hence requesting you to please clarify his allegation. Cheers - MountainWhiskey (talk) 17:13, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Invitation for a discussion at WP ANI

Hello Toddst1,

This message is to inform you that a motion to the second chance type of unblock of Iaaasi has been filled at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Iaaas in either order for the decision to be approved, or to be repealed by community consensus. Inasmuch as you would like to let the community know what your opinion is about the case, your participation in the discussion is welcome. Regards.--Nmate (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle Abuse

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

If this edit is NOT vandalism, then this edit too is NOT vandalism!! Please see that my wikistress now on wikipedia is only because of you. Perhaps users tend to retire because admins (or experienced users) like you bite relatively new comers. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 11:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

On its own, I would agree. However in the context of [11] and [12], I see a pattern of obvious and deliberate disruption.

On the second issue, I think you need to own your own response to stress. Toddst1 (talk) 01:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, you are doing nothing other than abusing your admin powers. As I said, if there are a whole lot of editors like you, then wikipedia would lose all its good editors. I feel it's your deliberate action to shoo away editors who are relatively new comers. No wonder you were taken up at ANI. And yes you are very rudeto relatively new comers. Regarding me feeling discouraged now as I said is only because of you! If you can be given a second chance when you mess up most of your blocks as an admin, it is also my right to be given another chance when infact it was just on a few edits that I messed up. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 04:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Abhishek191288 - I am having difficulty understanding this one. Are you saying that you are User talk:75.73.83.117?--Toddy1 (talk) 05:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's simpler than that. Abhishek is now trolling. Toddst1 (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

A troll deliberately exploits tendencies of human nature or of an online community to upset people. From this statement, I believe that it's you who is trolling from the way you have behaved. I have interacted with several other admins, but all of them were very kind and passionate unlike you! Instead of replying to what I said in the above statement, you were very smart in making this accusation. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 15:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't interacted with you in a month. Given that it appears that you have an axe to grind, please stop posting on my talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Unilaterally ending discussion

You have unilaterally ended the discussion. You don't just want to respond to what I have asked you. Are you scared to respond? Regarding you not interacting with me for a month, I was actually waiting for your response on my talk. But you ending the discussion does not change the fact that you are happily biting editors who are newer than you (which you enjoy a lot). In general you are just not civil in your behavior. Anyways, I'm done here. As you asked, I will no longer post anything —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 04:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Go away. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I would no longer post anything since you asked. But I have a clarification with you rude message above. So are you trying to shoo me away from wikipedia (I'm sure it is)? Anyways this is gonna be my last post as I do not want to interact with rude, incivil and unrepentant editors like you. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 16:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Look - I'm not taking your bait. Get the hell off my talk page and stop trying to harass me! If you continue, I will seek to have you blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2011 (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.

Disruptive user

Hello! I've noticed that you too have been reverting OR or POV edits from user:216.118.143.198. This Nova Scotia user has been edit warring for a very long time. This is apparent in articles such as Dress, Gown, and Aurora (Disney). The user has been warned several times and suffered many blocks using different IP's. Is this user editing "in good faith" or are we dealing with a troll? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 01:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Next Step Realty

They are back! See Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Blair Brandt created by New User Lax35 at 21:13, 23 March 2011.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Amazing. Toddst1 (talk) 15:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

accusations

First of all, Flatterworld reverted my edits first! Second of all, he leaves his talk page intentionally blank, which means that he doesn't want people posting stuff on his talk page, so I couldn't consult him about his edits. Third of all, I did not harass him at all. In fact, I even respected his talk page by not posting anything. And I would also like some specific examples of "harrassing" and "stalking" other editors, because I have no idea of what you're talking about.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

When one editor reverts 20 or 30 of another user's edits, on the same number of articles, it sure appears that someone's WP:HOUNDing someone. As you point out, it appears that Flatterworld is hounding you and I have left a message on his/her talk page. Sorry I didn't catch that right away.

However, in your correction, you are pointing out that you are edit warring.

You were blocked on 26 November 2010 for harassment. I suspect you know the details much better than I. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1, I suggest you look further into the record as you'll see it's quite the opposite. I looked at a few Reps and Senators the other day for other reasons and realized Jerzeykydd has been systematically going through these articles - and there are hundreds more to go! - and undoing the work I and others had done last summer and fall before the 2010 election. We thought it was obvious that a sitting Rep or Senator's biography should focus on that person's background, experience and current activities. Before the election, I believe almost all of them did. (A few are so famous their articles are unique.) Through consensus over the years, a more-or-less standard format has come about. Jerzeykydd is determined to focus these articles on the campaigns, elections, and personal lives of these people. For example, he thinks it 'makes sense' to bury the list of Congressional committee assignments at the very end of the article - he doesn't think their actual job responsibilities are important. He has never, to my recollection, contributed anything of substance to these articles. When he does add material (to the campaign sections, of course!) it's along the lines of "handily defeated" X or "handily won reelection". (I have come to hate the word "handily".) We are an encyclopedia, not a political blog. There was a discussion on these articles, and it went on last year when more people were involved in the political articles. After the elections when things quieted down, apparently he saw his chance to go in and redo the articles. He didn't try to discuss anything because he already knew no one else agreed with his view. Jerzerkydd has a history of being disruptive. One of his goals shortly (and it was very shortly!) before the election was to create 'stub' articles for Republican candidates (and, as I remember, a single Democrat for 'balance'), cutting and pasting fragments of campaign brochures in them. That was the sole source, and the only External link provided. Rather than tagging them for quick deletes, I added Votesmart, Follow the Money, etc. and fixed his phrasing and grammar and asked him to do that sort of thing when he created articles in future as people rely on Wikipedia for serious information. Instead, he just created lots more of these 'stubs' and said he wasn't interested in doing any additional work and thought the rest of us should be pleased to clean up after him. Assume Good Faith is not a suicide pact. I don't know what his game is, or why he's determined to ridicule US government and elected officials by treating their articles in this way. I don't know why he hasn't been permanently banned from all political articles. I don't understand why the Admins are so 'patient' with him, or so determined to be his enablers. Quite frankly, I'm appalled and disgusted. I suggest you look at his actual 'contributions' to political articles. Flatterworld (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Well apparently Flatterworld assumes bad faith. He thinks that I'm trying to destroy wikipedia, when I'm trying to improve it just like himself and everyone else. Maybe we can work this out if he would allow a civil, rational discussion. But the editor currently doesn't allow people to post things on his talk page, nor is he even interested in having a discussion. Instead of reverting all of my edits, maybe we can come to a compromise. I worked very hard on trying to improve wikipedia articles. All I want to do is have a discussion.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Rubbish. We had a 'civil, rational discussion' earlier, which you lost. You're not interested in 'having a discussion', you're interested in wearing everyone else down until you can claim you've 'won'. Tell you what - why don't you link to the all the actually substantive edits you've made on these articles? I certainly never found any. If you're so determined to focus on electioneering, go work on the campaign articles where that sort of thing belongs. These people are supposed to be running the country, and all you care about is copying whatever fluff's in their campaign websites and whatever partisan political blogs you read. You want to report me? Go ahead. And you can stop all your whining and playing the victim, as if I'm some big bully attacking poor widdle innocent you. That only works for a short time, and you have form. Flatterworld (talk)

Beefman block

Hi Todd,

I've commented at the ANI thread about Beefman's block, and I'm a bit puzzled; it seems there are things I may not know about, but... I don't know what they are (by definition). Could you comment there (or, if you hate ANI, here) about it? Thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, for the comments, and for the block reduction. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Defining rape in the lead of the Rape article

You have recently been involved in the development of the Rape article. I am stopping by to alert you that opinions are needed on the following discussion: Rewrite of the lead making the term difficult to define. Flyer22 (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

easy2comply page

Dear Toddst1,

I’ve added 2 additional independent professional resources. I have verified by reviewing similar entries that this entry comply with notability guidelines.

I’d appreciate your assistance with full approval of this entry.

Thanks, Natalko

Happy

Thanks for your reply. As I said I have no objections to what you have done. I'm very glad that our differences have been sorted out. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 16:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey Todd, thanks for the barnstar. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 03:56, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

harassment?

i was warned for harassment and the warning was not extended to someone calling me a dick? i believe you should have warned OrangeMarlin as well, why did you find it necessary to only warn me? OrangeMarlin has a history of abuse going back a long time.Overseer19XX (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember the conflict that you were involved in. Pointer please? Toddst1 (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks a lot for trusting me with the rollback feature. It was a pretty pleasant surprise. I was participating in WP:WIKIFY when I stumbled across the copy-pasted article. Anyway, I'm putting it into good use, so don't worry. Do you know if there's a log which displays all my rollbak edits? Cheers! Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 03:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's an easy filter other than looking at Special:Contributions/Sp33dyphil for the summaries that say "Reverted" without "(TW)". Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

arbcom isn't responding and may not have received my e-mails

Hello, I have sent 2 coppies of my unblock request to arbcom, one in march, and one in early April, but no response, so I am seaking advice, what else is there for me to do, I'm totaly out of ideas and I have lost faith in wikipedia. what can I do? 204.112.104.172 (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like you've been indef blocked under another user and unblock requests are going nowhere. I'm not sure who you are and what the circumstances of your block are but given that you've lost faith in Wikipedia after we've apparently lost faith in you, I'd recommend golf. Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

troll at work

please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annuario_della_Nobilt%C3%A0_Italiana Persistent vandalism from ip hopper --Torean - capricorn (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Not to taddle, but

..our old pal User:LAz17 seems to be in breach of your topic ban on Serbs of Bosnia and Herzegovina [13] ("all edits relating to the historical demographics of ex-Yugoslavia"). Is the thing still in effect..? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

troll at work

please be aware: the repeated insertion [here] made by user "Contegragheonte" are fake, spam, self-promotion, self advertising, in the intent to promote a complete differente new publication holding the same name of the historical one. The user is the editor of this new publiction, and the same as the user "Torean - capricorn" that inserted [here] a lot of fake informations to try to discredit what he see as the rival publication. Please patrol those two voices. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ersormarchese (talk • contribs) 11:09, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually an user --Ersormarchese write that Torean-capricorn is the publisher of the Annuario (?!).

I think it's fair to say that the Ersormarchese, or the user 109 ....... as you prefer, that modify pages is the owner of a genealogical site already expelled out countless times from Italian wikipedia:

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categoria:Wikipedia:Cloni_sospetti_di_Orazio_e_Clarabella

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/Pirillo

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/Ninni_Svampa

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Utenti_problematici/Antonio_Gargiulo

After a long work as troll this user, identified as a troll in the Italian WP, as requested, have received the anonymization by the administrators: however, as he insists to associate names and users do not think it's fair to silence what has already happened in Italy.

In Italy he had vandalized the same articles: see the history in italian WP:

http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annuario_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana&offset=20100801015604&action=history

http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libro_d%27oro_della_nobilt%C3%A0_italiana_(periodico)&action=history

et caetera

This men is angry because the Annuario della Nobiltà didn't published his fake predicates, with the [redacted], title and predicate that is owned by Sambiase Sanseverino's family AND LEGALLY PROTECTED. Really current Italian law protects the peerages "predicates ": such example is "[redacted]" is protected by law and also on WP any person cannot endorse such a mess !!

This post was published on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Annuario_della_Nobilt%C3%A0_Italiana by A curious reader. But unfortunately the troll is always at work as "Er sor marchese" or "Larastabata" or 109........ as you prefer! This page is constantly being vandalized by [redacted] alias Larastabata alias etc. as revenge because he wasn't published in the Annuario della Nobiltà.

The Italian version of this article is much more complete. This men has even deleted some posts in this page. I reported these facts to a Wikipedia administrator and I have restored the posts deleted by [redacted]. --Contebragheonte (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Again this user deleted some post on Discussion page --Contebragheonte (talk) 21:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• An identity has been redacted and suppressed per WP:OUTING and WP:Oversight following a request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:53, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Plus more of same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Mistaken block

Hi, Toddst, sorry to bother you about something that happened more than three years ago, but Exxolon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is attempting to use the fact that I've "gotten myself blocked ELEVEN TIMES" in a rather tangential context; however, this figure of 11 includes your mistaken block of me in April 2008, as well as one other completely mistaken block, plus nine others which all resulted in unblock. Anyway, I wonder if you wouldn't mind commenting either on his talkpage or in the thread concerned to confirm the total irrelvance of your accidental 'incident' to my track record? Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 14:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

IP socks

The IP sockpuppets are very active on Skol fir (talk · contribs)'s talk page and on the IP pages that you tagged. Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:41, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken

You accused me of being a sockpuppet with an anonymous IP address. I have never logged in as anyone but Skol fir. I am proud of my contributions here and don't need this aggravation. The address you accuse me of using is from the United States. I live in Canada, as you can see from my User Page. I am afraid you are falling for the tricks of the same user you just blocked Porgers (talk · contribs) who has been spreading false rumors of me being Mr. Stradivarius, just because that editor stepped in to help me out with a difficult situation on the Jean Chrétien article. As you appear to be an experienced editor, from what I see on your User Page, you should not jump to conclusions because someone who is under investigation for edit warring is spouting nonsense about another editor.

I am proud of my record and contributions here at Wikipedia, so far, and I resent being accused of such despicable behavior as sock-puppetry. Please be more careful who you accuse next time. --Skol fir (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Please don't resent my actions. It is possible you are being set up with circumstantial evidence, which is why I have not blocked you. I have not jumped to a conclusion, rather stated a concern. Toddst1 (talk) 02:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am being set up. I am glad you are aware of that possibility. I feel better now. This has never happened to me before in all the time I have been at Wikipedia (June 2009) and I don't want this to spoil the whole experience. It would be enough to cause me to quit forever, if these accusations persist. --Skol fir (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The entire IP range has been blocked. If you see more disruption like that, please bring it to me or Cirt (talk · contribs). If we're not available, please bring it to WP:ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, Toddst1, for using the word "resent" above, but you might not know how the accusation made me feel. It was not good. I am glad that you have taken some further action. I am afraid I stepped into a hornet's nest even getting involved with such a person as Porgers, but I was just trying to do my job as an editor, watching over suspicious changes at articles that interest me. I guess it is a learning experience, if anything. --Skol fir (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I found out more about the IP addresses that have been trying to make me look bad by going to the articles where I was editing and pretending to be me. First of all, you will notice that they hardly ever use edit summaries, and those they do write are not in my style at all. I always try to be as forthcoming as possible with edit summaries to explain what I am doing. Here is some information about the range of IP addresses that recently kept reverting your and other administrators' comments at my own Talk Page (you termed that an IP hopper) --

IP: 75.47.146.105
Registrant:
SBC Internet Services, Inc.

  3300 West Esplande
  Metairie, LA 70003
  US
  Domain Name: SBCGLOBAL.NET

  Administrative Contact, Technical Contact:
     Beach, Audrey		DNSCONTACT@att.com
     SBC Internet Services
     3300 West Esplanade
     4th Floor
     Metairie, LA 70003
     US
     504-846-7549

That's all I have for now. --Skol fir (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's a DSL provider in Corona, California, outside LA. The entire range is now blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I found another IP address locator at [[14]] and that agrees exactly with what you just said about Corona, CA. My search led to a city called Norco, CA, just north of Corona, and also in Riverside County. --Skol fir (talk) 05:19, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The IP address 75.47.157.136, that was included in the range block by Cirt, had also left two User-reported alerts at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism (see old revision of this page at 18:50, 18 May 2011). You will see that these alerts were made against both Porgers and his earlier identity as the anonymous 67.193.59.152 . Both alerts had no real basis (just a smoke screen) and for that reason some admins just rejected them, which was to be expected. These alerts happened around the time that the other suspicious activity was going on at my Talk Page and at pages where I had differed with Porgers/ 67.193.59.152 . You might note that Porgers draws our attention to quotes from both these alerts, at User:Porgers reported by User:Mr. Stradivarius. That means he clearly admitted to being the same person as 67.193.59.152.

The intruder 75.47.157.136, however, was obviously trying to impersonate me by submitting these hastily-prepared alerts (and even quoted from one of my earlier warnings to 67.193.59.152 -- "Disruptive edits"). IP 75.47.157.136 was the same editor who tried to intervene in the sockpuppet warnings on my Talk Page. He was certainly active and creating a major nuisance, making your investigation that much more difficult. I am more convinced now than ever, that this person was trying to frame me, by inserting himself in a dispute that was none of his business. :-( --Skol fir (talk) 07:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that a new category was added to User:75.47.157.136, Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Skol fir. Is that really necessary? Also could you please remove the note that "An editor has expressed concern that this IP address has been used by Skol fir." I don't deserve being smeared like this, when I did everything possible to help clear my name. --Skol fir (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. Toddst1 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Toddst1. Before you removed it, I also saw above that notice that a confirmed link had been made to User:I-10. It looks like progress is being made to identify who this person might be, who was trying to frame me. --Skol fir (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Toddst1! Thank you for dealing with the Porgers issue. It looks like it was more complicated than I first suspected... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Catherine Sanderson

I have clarified my block on User talk:Catherine Sanderson. JFW | T@lk 06:03, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

IP hopper from Corona, CA

Hi, Toddst1. I think I understand what might be going on with this IP hopper with the range 75.47.x.x ... I looked back at my contributions over the last two months to see if I had any dealings with such an IP address. I found a few different issues that I had dealt with, some quite contentious, where I had to be firm with editor(s) starting with 75.47.x.x who kept tampering with code and templates in articles related to "single-handed sailors." Another editor I know (User talk:Diiscool) has also noticed this, and we worked together to resolve one of the issues. At any rate, this particular pest, hopping between IP addresses in that range of 75.47.x.x, was quite nasty and churlish in his comments, and a very difficult person to deal with. I also recently had a strange request from 75.47.x.x. for help in getting permission to upload some photos at one of these sailor's websites. This person may have been disappointed when we failed to get permission because the author of the photos was not responding to his email. Anyway, I now see a few issues that I have dealt with, some leading to warnings on that person's Talk Page, that relate to addresses starting with 75.47.x.x.

There might be someone out there who has a grudge against me (for whatever reason) and did not like to be corrected. That may be why he/she recently unleashed a flood of edits on the same pages that I have been editing. When they saw that I was involved in a Noticeboard Report against Porgers, they might have seen the opportunity to get back at me, and tried to make it look like I was using a sockpuppet. I just thought I should let you know that someone in the range 75.47.x.x may possibly be trying to damage my image, and might try it again when their block wears off. I'll let you know if I see anything suspicious. --Skol fir (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I have also just considered the possibility that this particular individual ( 75.47.x.x ) was sincerely trying to help me revert the edits of Porgers after I had tried to help him get some photos accepted. He jumped into the fight as my alter-ego. Then he tried to defend me at my own User and Talk Pages, because of course only he and I would know that he was not my sockpuppet, but a different person altogether. In the same way, Mr. Stradivarius and I obviously know that we are not each other's sockpuppets, but different people! As your detection system does not consider the possibility of a "guardian angel" trying to support me in a dispute, you immediately assumed it must have been my sockpuppet. Even if that anonymous person's intentions were good, they backfired. That is just another theory. In that case, I would have nothing more to worry about from this individual.

Still, it would be rather unusual for an anonymous editor to be "stalking" my activities and then trying to defend me in my own disputes, without some ulterior motive. So, that last theory does seem implausible. Your suggestion that someone is trying to plant "circumstantial evidence" against me is more plausible. I'll just keep a watch for his return in a week, when the block expires on that range of addresses. --Skol fir (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Intersex, Sex and/or Gender Diverse (ISGD)

Hi Todd,

I have recreated the Intersex, Sex and/or Gender Diverse (ISGD) page following your deletion of the previous entry. It wasn't until after I created it that I realised I should have written to you first so I'm sorry about that.

Hopefully, this new version of the page will have resolved any issues you had with the original. I've fixed up the style and referencing and added more references all up. I've also added more information. If you have any feedback on this page, I am definitely interested. Although I've done more or less minor edits on Wiki before, this is the first time I've ever created a page so I'm sure there's stuff I could have done better.

--LadySappho (talk) 08:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems ok to me. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Rollback privileges

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

--Skol fir (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Dengue updates

I wanted to clarify the new classification of Dengue by WHO. I work for GOARN and I was attempting to have the WIKI page match our actual classifications. I am sorry about the mistakes I am new to editing these sorts of pages. Please feel welcome to alter it back if you wish or if you wish I can give you many references for my changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorAM (talk • contribs) 23:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

You have mail

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

Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Reaccess to Twinkle

Hey Todd, any possibilities of me being able to get back access to twinkle? —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 10:16, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Abhishek. I gotta tell you, I still see you edit warring. Look at Rajiv Gandhi International Airport. Sure that link didn't work, but it took me all of 9 seconds to figure out that the link that worked is http://flydubai.com/english/where-we-fly/timetable.aspx - which you did not do and continued to edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 12:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Todd, I could have also found that link but I didn't because I felt it wasn't really required as RS is already provided for the same.—Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 08:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

... and that explains the edit warring how? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

More socks of Porgers active

I found another sockpuppet of Porgers (talk · contribs). It is IP # 69.70.75.106 . I got an email saying someone "from the IP address 69.70.75.106 requested that we send you a new login password for the English Wikipedia." What should I do about it? I also noticed that User 69.70.75.106 has been editing the Jean Chrétien article again. I hate to get into another edit war, as one is brewing if no one else steps in. --Skol fir (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I figured it was time to open an SPI on Porgers. --Skol fir (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Toddst1. I have not used my "rollback privileges" yet, because I have not had time to read the instructions. That will happen soon. :-) On another matter, I just saw that my SPI case against Porgers was closed. I guess I was not a good enough "prosecutor" yet to make my case, or I opened the investigation in the wrong forum (most likely the latter). Thanks for your input there. It appears that we Wikipedia editors are powerless in stopping other projects from being vandalized by the same editor. Where is Versageek when you need him? I left him/her a note about this, so he might have an answer. I thought s/he was able to make global blocks, as s/he appears to have done it with Porgers' main IP address. I quote --

• "He took a poke at mine as well from Wikiversity. The IP has now been globally blocked. --Versageek 01:23, 22 May 2011 (UTC)".

--Skol fir (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why the authorities decided to shut down my sockpuppet investigation on Porgers. I have been keeping my eye on a couple of recent editors who have the same editing pattern as Porgers and his aliases, and they have been busy again (mostly nonsensical edits) since the block on IP address 67.193.59.152 was lifted on May 29.

I have noticed that Porgers has already been re-editing the same pages where we had problems before, rolling through various aliases already. I have been keeping my eye on User:SuperX9, User:Golfer787, and today User:Babafat22a, in sequence, as his edits appeared on pages I was watching (I was not trolling him!). You have already blocked two of them. He was trolling me, as you quickly noticed. You call it WP:Wikihounding. Thanks for removing his attempts to smear my name with other editors. I appreciate your help. --Skol fir (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Removal of content from the talk page of another editor

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

Do not remove content from my talk page as you did here. I can clean my own talk page. Thank you. Dolovis (talk) 01:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I have rolled back all edits of that banned user. Such action is well within policy and restoring his/her edits is not considered constructive. Toddst1 (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is my talk page and I will do with it as I wish. Dolovis (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the use of revision deletion for this is pretty controversial. I was doing it in much more extreme cases than this (only after reverting all edits from the user for over a year) and still couldn't get consensus that I was acting within policy. See WT:Revision deletion#Proposed changes. Dolovis is free to restore them unless you can demonstrate that he is proxying for the banned user.—Kww(talk) 02:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yep. That's why I backed out my edit on Dolovis' talk page and revision deletions there. AGF would have been helpful on the part of Dolovis. Toddst1 (talk) 02:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1's AGF comment baffles me. Where do you see that I did not AGF? Dolovis (talk) 03:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

See your snarky remark above. Toddst1 (talk) 03:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You are reading too much into my words. There is no "snarky remark", just a statement of fact. WP:AAGF would have been helpful on the part of Toddst1. Dolovis (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, when an admin does a "rollback all" on the 4th or 5th sock of a prolific socker, it's preposterous to leave a note on every talk page affected. To have you charge over here and repeatedly say It's my talk page and I'll do with it as I wish is rather tedious. After I explained that it was part of a "rollback all" of a sock, you reiterated your ownership of your talk page and now you're saying I should conclude you're not acting aggressively? Really? Toddst1 (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't let him get to you. He acts aggresively with everyone he comes into contact with. If you read his talk page he pretty much yells at anyone that does anything he doesn't like or who doesn't agree with him. It isn't worth your time to pay him much attention. -DJSasso (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2011 (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.

Autopatrolled rights

Revoking my Autopatrolled rights is unwarranted. I did not request Autoparolled rights, but I do request that you restore this privilege that you revoked soon after my notification to you here asking you to not remove content that had been place on my talk page. Dolovis (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Incident involving you

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dolovis, it might involve you in some way, and I thought it best to notify you of this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:46, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:JR789

Toddst1: thanks for your note you placed on my page regarding this editor, however if you look at my comment here my primary comment to this editor was that he was edit warring regarding his contributions instead of discussing them. Even if his edits are valid and have a place on the en.wp, he should not be continuing to push his edits without discussing them in talk and reaching consensus since this is a disputed issue. Your thoughts? Tiggerjay (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. However it's clear that the editor is a non-native speaker and is rather frustrated. It's also clear to me that he/she is trying to improve the project, but is having a difficult time avoiding the edit war. I'm just trying to de-escalate the situation a bit. Perhaps we can rally this editor into a more constructive path. Just my €0.02 worth. Toddst1 (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the place where wrong information is spread. They returns an article without a evidence. Please show me evidence.JR789 (talk) 23:37, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Abhishek191288's talk page.
Message added 5:26 am, Today (UTC+5.5). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 5:26 am, Today (UTC+5.5)

likely abusive sockpuppetry and conflict interest editing using Singapore government resources

See the suspicions I have presented at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#problematic_anonymous_users_at_articles_about_Singapore_politicians.2C_possible_conflicts_of_interest_and_government_censorship, also I have explained my behaviour on my talk page. I strongly dislike repeated reversions; I have repeatedly made appeal to discussion using user talk pages -- it's not merely a single post on a talk page. Given that the editors are anonymous, use sockpuppets, are incivil and use false accusations of vandalism, are strongly inclined against the use of discussion, and use one-line explanations for their edits to remove clearly-referenced statements (as with the incidents at Vivian Balakrishnan) it is difficult for me not to perceive them as bad faith editors.

The main issue I am concerned about is not actually whether the statement gets reinstated at all; I am happy with whatever outcome that is the product of consensus-building. I am strongly interested in consensus-building However, I suspect that the ruling party agents, already known to astroturf online (see the AN/I post) do not feel any obligation to respect consensus; there is a general pattern of deleting entire, sourced critical sections without explanation. My main reason for being so critical on target articles and so harsh on these editors is to disincentivise such behaviour by governments or interested parties. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress, which I helped author. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to request that if the user(s) do not reply within 72 hours (I think this reasonable, as they tend to be punctual when the revision is not to their liking, within 12-24 hours), that this be seen as the abandonment of discussion that I am fit to revert, if only to get them to use discussion forums. I am not actually interested in which revision gets upheld at all. I simply want to send the message that attempted astroturfing and conflict of interest editing backfires. I have evidence that I will provide in detail, if necessary, that this spate of editing is part of an organised online campaign done by the ruling party. This seems like a weird or paranoid accusation, but I ask you to recognise that press freedom of Singapore is ranked #151 in the world, and that organised "sabotage" activity against the Opposition, including distributed denial of attacks against opposition websites, has been ongoing recently; the Singapore government, which generally has a strong advantage in the print media, has recognised that it is disadvantaged online in terms of grassroots support and this may incentivise it to cheat. I have every interest in complying with policy. These editors may not. If you considered blocking me for edit warring, I also ask that you consider the general pattern of abuse of these IPs as well. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 17:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

User talk:IHateMarmite restore

done. thanks. Dlohcierekim

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Samaleks's talk page.
Message added 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 03:03, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Political agenda

this user was blocked in past but needs to ban him because he has blatant political agenda on a lot of articles about ex Yugoslavia! He always removes sources which opposes his political agenda! Examples:

[15]

[16]

[17]

--Mengardo (talk) 07:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Page protection circumvented on Teo Ser Luck

Hi, I noticed that you had page protected the Teo Ser Luck article due to edit warring and content dispute. However, one of the parties involved in the dispute Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) has some how managed to edit and revert to his version even before the page protection expired ( set to expire June 12 but the editor edited on June 8). Is there some work around the page protection at this editor is exploiting, or is some high level administrator/editor privilege being abused??Zhanzhao (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

• note there is also a report at ANI - here - Off2riorob (talk) 22:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Will you please be so kind to provide diffs of my edits that caused your warning on my talk page?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

See here: [18] Toddst1 (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You presented link to revision history with about 16 of my edits during past 30 days. Will you please be so kind to provide diffs of my edits (or at least one of them) that caused your warning on my talk page?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me

An editor violates the rules relating to biographies constantly, using three IP addresses aka sockpuppetry(One of which has been suspended too!!!!!), there are three editors, not just me alone, reverting his work, but I get a warning over the Peggy Kirk Bell edits? Did you bother looking at the articles history, what the editor was including, and what they were removing in the slightest>????????????????????????????????????- William 17:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes as a matter of fact, I had. The warning was highly appropriate if not an immediate block.

You should have done what Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk · contribs) did, requesting page protection instead of edit warring. I hadn't seen that report, but it was the correct thing to do. The incorrect thing(s) are to continue edit warring and indignantly defending your ill-advised actions with false bombast when you violate WP:3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Please check this out since you contributed to the article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Edwards (civil engineering professor).Steve Dufour (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

UE

Well then, it chooses a side. I attempted to analyse what the failure to understand each other was, and propose a text that accomplished the legitimate goals of both sides; but one side seems much more jusrified than the other - and piling in is one way to settle an edit war.

Comments on substance are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(use_English)#Goethe Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'd rather stay uninvolved. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

La goutte de pluie's sockpuppetry issue

Hi, I'm the anonymous IP involved in the "edit war" with User:La goutte de pluie over at Teo Ser Luck's page. Firstly, it is really beyond my control that my Starhub IP keeps changing. I am really not on any proxy.

I would like to bring up something but User: Strange Passerby has asked me to keep off the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents board. During the "edit war" with User:La goutte de pluie, I noticed another anonymous IP popping up to help La goutte de pluie to revert back to his edit. Also under the Talk Page, it was the same person who added the questionable content about MCYS. If you asked me, I think that guy is also La goutte de pluie and I'm saying that because during several exchanges with him, that's exactly the same things he said to me over and over again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.250 (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You aren't supposed remove talk page comments, when it was relevant to discourse, and it was not libelous in any way, at least not against a living person, and simply because it exposed your editing behaviour. I would in fact, like to seek some sort of sanction for your comment-removal behaviour, which is disruptive to the community. (The IP thing is because I edited off my phone and didn't log in because it takes a while, even on an iPhone.) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

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

--Sodabottle (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Sodabottle's reblock

I believe your actions here constitute wheel warring; I'd like to ask you to reconsider them and unblock the editor. With all due respect, in my opinion, reblocking was a serious lapse in judgement. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Additional events transpired, triggering a different block for a different issue - The dude was lying. It is in no way wheel warring. Toddst1 (talk) 23:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I know you blocked due to a violation of WP:GAME and not the original violation of WP:3RR, but I believe the block was still unwise, because it was related to the very same dispute, although examined from a different angle; that's I'd like to invite you to take the matter to WP:ANI for review (because, in my opinion, at the very least, it was improper of you to be blocking admin.) Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Toddst1 (talk) 00:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate it! Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 00:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for doing what you did. - Sitush (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Unactionable report ai AIV

Hello, I noticed you removed my report of AdmiralProudmore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to WP:AIV as "unactionable". Please could you explain why this is unactionable? Thanks, --BelovedFreak 08:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Mistake. See User_talk:AdmiralProudmore#June_2011. Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks... I was trying to figure it out! --BelovedFreak 15:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Erendiz

i couldn't understand why you did delete Erendiz. it's a Turkish given name and notable people with the name exist (one of them has an article in Turkish wikipedia). In the other hand, it's related to Turkish mythology. i would enrich the article and further link to Turkish mythology.

please undelete the article. --Polysynaptic (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It might survive as a WP:DAB page if any of the folks on the page were notable, but as an unreferenced list of WP:NN people, it's not even a DAB page. Toddst1 (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

i think you are wrong.... wikipedia itself is a tertiary source. and tertiary sources are indicators of notability:

"Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources, though primary sources are permitted if used carefully."

— Wikipedia:No original research

and

"Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias or other compendia that mainly summarize secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. "

— Wikipedia:No original research

see also Wikipedia:Notability (academics)

Erendiz Atasü is a scholar whose biography is published in a tertiary source: Turkish Wikipedia. She may not have an English article yet, but she might well be listed.

In the other hand, the article you deleted is an article on a given name, not on a person. how could you decide that one of the Turkish given names is not notable?.

please undelete Erendiz.--Polysynaptic (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BIO. If the folks listed, don't have wikipedia articles, then they don't appear to be WP:Notable. For speedy deletion, the burden of establishing notability is on the creator. I'll restore the article as a courtesy, but you can take back the accusation of wrongdoing. See WP:NPA. Toddst1 (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to communicate and to try-to-understand and thank you for restoring. i'm sorry for accusing you for wrongdoing. i read what i had written before about your adminship and i saw that it's too harsh and unfair and it even wasn't what i had meaned at first place. i wanted to mean something like "it wasn't a good idea to ...", but mis-constructed the statement. i'm really sorry. Finally, i couldn't understand what you meaned with "taking back"? should i delete the sentence from the talk page or what?--Polysynaptic (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome to delete it. The {{talkback}} template is used to let folks know you've answered them on another page that they might not see. It's not important once you've seen it. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 02:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I removed the sentence and edited a few others. Hope it fixes. See you around --Polysynaptic (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Web Therapy

Could I ask you please to restore this article, or give me permission to restore it? It's received plenty of coverage in reliable sources. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:56, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Let's get those sources in the article so it passes WP:WEB. Toddst1 (talk) 08:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but this deletion represents a fairly serious misunderstanding of our deletion policies, in my view. Can you help me to understand your thinking here? Lacking sources is not a valid reason for deletion. Being a web-only series is not a valid reason for deletion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The article asserted no notability and was subject to WP:CSD#A7. No misunderstanding at all. Toddst1 (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It stars Lisa Kudrow. Meryl Streep guest-starred. Don Roos directed. Any of these on its own is enough to escape a speedy. A quick check of Google News revealed a number of sources. Besides, the article existed since 2009, so I'm not sure why you would not have tagged it and let another admin take a look, rather than deleting it yourself...? Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Web#No_inherited_notability. WP:CSD has no temporal context - old articles are subject as well as new and are deleted at administrators' discretion. Check it out.

I'm not sure what your beef is here. Your article has been restored yet it still doesn't pass WP:WEB. Instead of busting my chops, why don't you fix the article? Toddst1 (talk) 08:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Ice paradise

Hello adminstrator, As you know You deleted the new page Ice paradise after claiming it was a hoax. I am here to imform you that this micronation is real and I have created it and to make it official I have sent an informative letter to every country claiming Antarctica to let them know that I am here now. I would like to put my page on wikipedia so it can be online and not on some other website people don't trust. I would appreciate if you would let me do this Jayson368 (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Jayson368

So get some WP:RS to back it up. 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Albanian diaspora. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 00:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

i already noticed admins about that on appropriate page 178.148.32.118 (talk)

Query

Hi ... is there any more to your explanation that I am missing than the edit summary here? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

no vandalism found as was explained bu the reported editor. ----

His explanation was false. It mis-stated the facts, and gave no acceptable reason for his deletions, or his additions, after two warnings -- including a final warning.

He said he wasn't deleting anything, but he was -- he was deleting the religion of the subject of the bio, which was referenced to five RSs.

He also made another mis-statement, in that he said he was replacing it with some text (about the religion of the person's parents; text that was sourced to only one quasi-RS ... though he left in the five RSs that supported the statement he deleted). In fact, that add was just a re-statement of the precise text that was already in the exact same para, and therefore completely inappropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

As you know, AIV is for obvious and persistent vandalism. This was not obvious. Toddst1 (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry -- I had thought it was obvious that his statements were mis-statements. Since you based your close based on his statements, I imagine I was wrong. Nevertheless, given that his statements were incorrect, query whether the close might perhaps have been different. As to the persistence, this same deleting of referenced information by the editor has now taken place over a number of articles, over a number of months (with the same peculiar approach -- he deletes the religion (RS sourced) of the subject of an article, and then adds the religions (less well sourced) of the parents of the focus of the article)-- what would you suggest is the best course to address it? Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Either WP:DR or perhaps WP:RSN depending on the issue. Toddst1 (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a look, and this seems to be taking place over many articles, despite many warnings, over a long period of time -- at what point does RFC:U become appropriate?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

IndieFlix edits

Thank you for helping make the IndieFlix Wiki Page more neutral. I apologize for the marketing speak. I should have posted in my user sandbox and gotten comments on it first before posting it. I'm a new user and still have quite a bit to learn, so I was hoping you could clarify a few things for me. (I'm not asking you to revert anything or undo any of the edits you made to the Indieflix Wiki.) I have two major questions.

- What does the edit reason "subsect" mean?

- For the 'selected releases' section I looked at the Indiepix page and that article hasn't been flagged so I thought it was okay. Can you be a little more detailed about why that wasn't okay? If I understand what I did wrong then I can avoid making that mistake in the future

--Leslieindieflix (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Subsect I guess is a bit cryptic - I created a subsection. As far as featured releases, yes they were footnoted but we generally don't list things like that per WP:NOTCATALOG. If there are certain releases that the company's Marketing Director wanted showcased as hot new releases, well, we don't do that per WP:ADVERT. WP:OSE isn't a good reason to have something in an article.

As OM stated on your talk page, we take conflicts of interest fairly seriously and more than a few companies have had attempts at using WP as a marketing vehicle backfire on them in a number of dimensions - not the least of which is being blocked, but in some instances the press and analyst community has gotten wind of such activities leading to some fairly negative outcomes. Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I took down the PROD of Crazy Drake

I don't feel this is a PROD. You are welcome to take it to afd. If you did a google search you would find that you can find sources of this game to make the article. Please do google searches before you nominate articles for afd and PROD.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I own this game, so all the information is true. --Puckingham TALK 02:51, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 02:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Good. I might do some articles on other eGames titles. --Puckingham TALK 02:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of web content

I saw the note in your prod of Imperial Warfare and thought I'd let you know that {{db-web}} applies to web content, and the template itself specifically mentions "browser games". Sure, not all products can be speedy deleted, but this one can. Cheers! Wyatt Riot (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

it's not edit warring to revert copyright violations

I am puzzled at why you think reverting repeated copyright violations from an article (the edits are essentially copy and paste jobs from government websites) count as edit-warring. I do think this shows bad judgment on your part, especially when you threaten to block people. Thank you. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be removing a lot more than copyvios. Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Check again. The language is much to similar to official sources -- this is why I rewrote the problematic sections. I in fact, sought to elevate and praise Vivian Balakrishnan wherever possible, as per the original editors' wishes. However, structural and expressive similarity to copyrighted web pages is not acceptable, hence I reverted them. The copyright violation is readily noticeable; that is all I have been reverting. The segregation of the biographies into sections like "political career" and "non-political career" can be seen in government sources; so is ordering the page so the most recent events (political career) comes first, and early life and medical career later -- not only is this against the MoS, this is the exact structure the government biographies use. In addition, the resume-language, the dates and the style are all similar, in places where it's not already outright word-for-word the same. It is a blatant copyright violation that in any case should not be tolerated, and I would appreciate if you did not perceive enforcing Wikipedia copyright policy as edit warring. I haven't touched Teo Ser Luck for a long while -- in fact no one has edited it for a week. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 22:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Copyright violation is actually not as clear cut as you make it to be. I.e. Information published on government sites are practically public domain, so copying even word for word is allowable (there's a whole wiki article on copying from US government sites, though he name escapes me for the moment). However if you feel that the language is POV feel free to address it at that level instead. Zhanzhao (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Copying from US government websites is perfectly acceptable. Singapore's government however practices "all rights reserved". We have deleted official Singaporean government portaits from Commons because of the implausibility (and the lack of an OTRS ticket) that a private citizen would hold the copyright (and would therefore be able to release it) to such images. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"Information published on government sites are practically public domain." This is not true. What is true for the US government isn't generally true for any part of the world, in fact the US government's practice of releasing all copyrights is the exception to the norm, because of its unique constitution. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 00:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

In that case you would do well to study the Copyright Protection laws for Singapore then. [24]. I believe taking material from government websites is covered under Fair Use. Zhanzhao (talk) 00:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wholesale copying is clearly not fair use. This my instinct serves me. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:03, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I am curious how you advance that claim of fair use

[25] I am also curious about your deletion policy as an administrator since wholesale copying (without attribution!) seems tolerated under your definition of fair use as well! Cheers, Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 04:18, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Elle, you would do well to familiarize yourself with what "fair use" actually means first. Well if attribution is an issue, the site from which the information is taken from can easily be used as a reference. Do note that Fair Use proposes a protection on not facts, but the way they are presented. Considering the source in question is basically a matter-of-fact chronoligical statement of the subject's portfolio in bare bones simple prose, there is not much free room to rewrite to begin with. And I really hate to bring up this again, but you snuck in some unreferenced OR in your attempts at rewriting as seen [[26]] with your claims about how "Government officials are eager to point out that all Singaporeans should hold this obviously highly talented minister in the most greatest esteem". If you think it is possible to present the facts in an alternative but acceptable manner, you are not doing a good job of it. Zhanzhao (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There are many ways to express those facts without the structure (and the order!) that the government biography uses. The prose is more complex than you think, and the voice is unique. That statement was to invite discussion, especially since no one appeared to be paying attention to the copyvio issue. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 06:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

As an administrator, you should have known much better than to knowingly place a NPOV statement into an article's main text just to "invite discussion" so to speak. I have nothing more to say here on that matter. Zhanzhao (talk) 13:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually the PAP often says that the talent and calibre of its ministers should be respected and revered (compared to opposition candidates') all the time; it's not a particularly controversial statement. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 13:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

RV on Liquor Party

Hi Toddst1, just because one user reported my edit as "vandalism" doesn't mean it's so (reg. Liquor Party). In fact, you'll see that that user (User:BabbaQ) is the one who's previously been blocked for vandalism (sockpuppeteering), not the other way around. Adding a Notability-tag to a page that has no links to any coverage whatsoever is hardly vandalism but obviously a constructive edit (as I stated in my edit summary, a debate article of theirs was once published in Aftonbladet, but they never received coverage in it - you'll be hard pressed to find any actual coverage, because there is none!). If you could look at this user's edits in regards to my perfectly legit clean-up of the COI-tagged article on Anton Abele, I would appreciate it though. ENCRYPTMATRON (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Everyone can make mistakes. I have learned from mine, you however seem to not do the same. Instead attacking anyone that tells you not to do a certain edit.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The party appears to pass WP:GNG (although I don't read Swedish - what seem like sources in the article might not be such) so it seemed silly to have a {{notability}} tag on it. I should have manually removed the tag instead of using TW. Sorry about that - the end result is the same.

If you think those sources fail WP:RS, you should probably discuss on the talk page or WP:RSN and tag the page with {{reliable sources}}. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to your claim of my not assuming good faith

Long ago in 2007 I had added a band page (The Mad Maggies) primarily because we had play in a TV series mentioned on Wiki and it made sense to link to who we were. I did this long before I had any idea of Wiki's COI rules and parameters. A few weeks ago I became aware that the page was up for deletion. I asked why and to reconsider the deletion. The page was ultimately deleted. It should have all just stopped there but no. Kintetsubuffalo & Bwilkins dropped snarky comments on the deletion discussion which were unnecessary, not very professional AND contrary to "assuming good faith".

So now you tap me as acting without assuming good faith. My, my.

Here's the continued snark: "She left the same message on my talkpage. She's upset that her COI nn bandpablum got deleted.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

"I mean, the description of the genre made me throw up a little in my mouth. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Squeezindiva (talk) 22:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC) squeezindiva

Stop trolling. Toddst1 (talk) 23:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Request

User: Foodie 377 is back to his business inspite of being warned and blocked by you for 24 hours. His illogical, unreasonable and irrational attitide is causing wexation to sincere Wiki users. Please block the person indefinitely. Kumarrao (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Banhammered. Toddst1 (talk) 14:16, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Indian Logic "Vandalism"

Hey bud, It wasn't vandalism, I was reverting an edit (that had changed 1860 to 1960 or perhaps the other way around with no explanation) that had changed something that had been left for multiple edits. I assumed it was vandalism (look at their user talk page, nothing but warnings) so reverted it. Apologies for the mistake Hattic (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Blindly reverting an edit is not constructive. In this case you were re-inserting an error, likely number vandalism which would have been patently obvious if you had read the article on the subject. Please be more careful .Toddst1 (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Abhishek191288's rollback privileges

Hello Toddst1, Abhishek191288, whose rollback privileges you recently revoked, has asked to have them back. Before deciding whether or not to grant him the flag back, I'd welcome your input. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

CSD in re Imperial Warfare

In your prod of Imperial Warfare, you wrote that it was a "great example of why Wikipedia needs a speedy deletion criterion for articles about products that do not assert the product's notability." While I'm really against that concept and generally think "assertion of notability" is an ugly and outmoded vestige of the pre-GNG days that results in unencyclopedic gee-whiz verbiage being added to an article in order to satisfy obscure Wikipedia process, there already is a speedy deletion criterion applicable to Imperial Warfare under that criterion, A7, which Imperial Warfare is eligible for since, as a self-described browser-delivered game, it's Web content. Just noting. —chaos5023 (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of Choice editing

You deleted the article Choice editing based on the fact that it is a copyright violation. The article certainly used some of the same terminology as the cited web page, as this appears to be the lingua franca among the sustainability community. I invite you to look at this version that I was working on when the page was deleted. The "copyright phrases" are now cited quotations, but the rest of the article presents facts from a variety of sources. I'm not sure how well such an article will stand up to a deletion discussion (it appears to be in the "duh -- they gave that blatantly obvious activity a name" category), but I think it deserves a chance. If you approve of my version, I'd ask that you restore the deleted version to preserve the contribution history. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good and looks like it's back. Toddst1 (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

TB

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

No significant contribution by Roopak Saluja? Really?

Dear Toddst1,

I was really surprised to see that you've deleted Roopak Saluja citing that the person mentioned hasn't made a significant contribution. I assume that you mean setting up an advertising company and shaping up the ad industry in India is of no real significance?

I would beg to differ. Please refer to the Economic Times's cover on Bang Bang Films for concrete evidence on why I didn't think that I was jeopardizing the spirit of Wikipedia with an inappropriate addition: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/et-now/daily/bang-bang-films-disrupting-the-ad-film-industry/videoshow/8722756.cms

As far as my previous contributions on other pages are concerned, they were all introduced in the spirit of giving something back to the community.

I'd like to request you to please undelete the page and help with any changes that you seem appropriate.

-Kathspeaks (talk) 07:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BIO and WP:CSD#A7. If you think the article shouldn't have been deleted, then Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion is the place to take it. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Heads up (this is informational)

Hey Toddst1,

I'm going to restore an article you speedily deleted in January, Rock Hill Galleria. An editor at WP:REFUND says they found sources. Just leaving a note to let you know. Have a good day. Protonk (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the heads up. Toddst1 (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

User:MadMaggies

The block message on User talk:MadMaggies was for a usernamevio block, and encouraged the user to choose a new name. However, the block log says {{spamusernameblock}}. Because someone searching for Mad Maggies could end up seeing the block log on Special:Contributions/MadMaggies, I've offered to change the block log rationale to match the talk page note, but want to give you the opportunity to (a) do it yourself if you prefer, or (b) disagree. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The block log is more correct than the talk page. The vast majority of the user's edits are promoting her band: it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. I've updated the talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 01:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, your reaction is informative. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the block log anyway. Please let me know if you decide to get my admittedly dickish move reviewed somewhere. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

How about you do that yourself? Toddst1 (talk) 02:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Because if I did it, it would be drama whoring. If you do it, it's because you disagree with my actions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I certainly do disagree with you. I also think you're trolling. Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent deletion

Umm hey, just wondering why my Hangout Music Festival article was deleted... it followed the same format as every other music festival article since I used them as a direct template. I thought it was getting to be a decent article, needed expansion, but there definitely needed to be an article for this music festival since every other major music festival has a wikipedia entry, and I'm not exactly clear on why it was deleted... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.43.200.194 (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hangout Music Festival

You speedily deleted this as A7. It was contested, and I have restored it on the basis that notable performers constitute a reasonable claim of notability. I am notifying you in case you wish to pursue AfD. LadyofShalott 00:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'm glad this was resolved. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

IP strikes again with vandalism

Hi Toddst1.. You blocked IP:188.107.4.206 once, but he is here. He is obviously a fascist (not just racist) who is clearly calling for ethnic cleansing. Everything he adds cannot be verified like Fatima Bhutto's Pashtun origin or the imaginary ethnic distribution of Kunduz Province based on an imaginary Kunduz government website. A semi-protection of the articles or a range block for that IP might be helpfull. Thank you (Ketabtoon (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC))

Comet Egypt

Hi Toddst1, I've had some private communication from Comet Egypt (talk · contribs) over two issues. One is the tag you placed on their user talk page [27] back in April where you are applying the "abusive sockpuppeteer" label. Studying the WP:SOCK policy page, I can't really convince myself they've violated any specific provision there, at least badly enough to warrant that label. They did continue to edit as an IP after I blocked their account, but not abusively. Cluelessly, yes. And the reason for the indef block was not running socks, it was just plain all-around disruptiveness, again of the clueless variety rather than malice. I would suggest removing the template as a courtesy.

The second issue is that they are moving house on or about July 13, so the static IP address they use for access will now become available for someone else's use. I would suggest here that we blank the IP talk page and I will ask CE to access Wikipedia so as to get the orange bar (but NOT make any edits), then either now or when they contact me after moving, we lift the block settings on the IP address. This will let any new users of the IP address have a fresh start. Obviously the indef block still stands for CE and if they choose to violate it we will know soon enough.

Do these sound like reasonable proposals? Regards! Franamax (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, I would argue that evading a block is abusive, but at the end of the day it sounds like CE has constructively engaged. I'm all for unblocking and removing the tags. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Eep, I wasn't actually suggesting unblocking the user account, just tidying up the paperwork. I guess we'll see how that goes. My suspicion is that it's at least 6 months too soon, but since I have the door-slamming button ready to hand I'll just keep a careful eye out. Thanks for your help on this. Franamax (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, unblocking was clearly the wrong thing in retrospect, based on the inability to deal with BMK. It was time to fix that mistake before it impacted the community more broadly. Toddst1 (talk) 05:58, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You made my day thanks

Hey Toddst1, thank you for unblocking me, you just made my day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Comet Egypt (talk • contribs) 03:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Please edit carefully. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Pokemon question

Ok, I don't know if you know much about Pokemon, but in the first movie, it said that the pokemon Ho-oh appears in the first episode, which I deleted. Would it be reasonable enough to leave my clame that it's just Mew in the shape of Ho-oh stay? I just deleted the part about Ho-oh in the plot section of the article. See its talk page for more details. Comet Egypt I Am Mewtwo 04:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1 - Please take a look at Comet Egypt's contribution here. Is this really someone you want to have unblocked to contribute to Wikipedia? It's embarassing. There's a clear WP:COMPETENCY issue here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Note

I wouldn't describe showing someone some good faith as "ill-considered". You gave him a chance, and he screwed it up. Those things happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, man. Toddst1 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I think if editing competency were the only issue, it's possible it could be dealt with - like if he were cooperative. Instead, he immediately starts labeling as enemies, anyone who criticizes his efforts. If someone is handicapped but nice, they can engender some sympathy. When they're handicapped and abusive (or even just too weird for words), that sympathy can turn to resentment very quickly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

ARBMAC warning

Excuse me, but what exactly have I done to merit an ARBMAC warning? Constantine ✍ 16:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, it is about Zeibeks (talk · contribs). He is a long-time troll who has abused dozens of sock accounts in his quest to prove that the Zeibeks, Zeibekiko, Yoghurt and any number of other things are Greek. The consensus is against his view, and the source he claims has been refuted at Talk:Zeibekiko. Since these articles are not supervised by many people, I have reverted time and again. I am not sure whether I would call this edit-warring though, perhaps you should ask Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs) for a bit of background info on this user. Constantine ✍ 17:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My references based on reliable sources and I dont think that Im editing warring at all--Zeibeks (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Toddst1. My advice here is to please check the sockpuppetry credentials of user:Zeibeks before you hand out any more warnings to an established editor like Cplakidas. Especially that big, ugly ARBMAC template. Thanks. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Any check is welcome --Zeibeks (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. It appears Zeibeks has been editing and edit warring under quite a few dynamic IPs. Warning for Zeibeks appears appropriate but not Cplakidas. Toddst1 (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much Toddst1. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 17:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Toddst1. I too apologize if I was a bit touchy, but this guy is like the Lernaean Hydra of sockpuppets and after all the trouble he's caused over the past few weeks, being equated with him was a bit too much. All the best, Constantine ✍ 17:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I see the dynamic IPs. If any others (IPs or named) pop up going forward, let's tag'em and bag'em. If they're obvious, we can skip the SPI per WP:DUCK. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. Sources are reliable and any of sock not associated with all accounts--Zeibeks (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Here's the new sock: Zeibex (talk · contribs). Constantine ✍ 19:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Rant by yet another block-evading IP removed. Just FYI though, BouzoukiGr is right about one thing: some of the accounts blocked yesterday weren't really him, but apparently Wikinger (talk · contribs) piggy-backing on the case and mimicking him. This probably goes for BoyzoykiGr (talk · contribs), BoyzoykiGr1 (talk · contribs), and Zeibex (talk · contribs). Sorry I fell for those ones at first. – Αρχ.Καραγκ. ;) 07:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Rick Hill

Would it be appropriate to downgrade to semi-protection for now? Given that most of the SOA/COI editors who were previously edit-warring on the page have either been blocked or appear to have left, and that discussion to edit the article from the talk page has been largely productive, semi would be appropriate. We wouldn't want to keep it locked down for any longer then is necessary, but still have to address BLP and COI concerns extant on the article, so semi would (in my view) be a good step down for now. (We can always re-raise the protection level later if the SPA/COI editors return again.) elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It's on my watchlist, so I'll be keeping an eye on it closely for the time being, should any problematic edits return. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My warning

Greetings,

I cannot possible see why you warned me on edit-warring on the 2011 Copa América. Edit-warring involves some sort of content dispute between two editors. There isn't one. There is one editor--User:Yeaplc98--who has been blocked for continued disruption of content/vandalism on the Copa articles and others, and myself, an editor making sure content stays accurate by reverting his vandalism. I do hope for the future that you understand my or any other editor's reversions before you warn them for breaking the 3RR rules or edit-warring. Thank you. Digirami (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring is edit warring. You didn't appear to be reverting what is considered vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 03:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you had checked, you would have seen that I was. All the other editor did was change the times in football articles to his local time after repeated warnings not to do by myself and another editor. In fact, the other editor you say I was warring with is now blocked indefinitely since it is a vandalism only account. Digirami (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

It was not WP:Vandalism and you were in fact edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

An edit war involves a content dispute. There is no content dispute since both have to believe our edit are correct. I know my edits are correct. The time and dates of a match are definitive with zero wiggle room to their correctness (in addition have been in place for months or having already taken place). He put in very, very incorrect information after repeated warning to do so. If it was the first time doing that kind of edit, it would be disruptive. But after six warnings on multiple articles from two different editors, it stops being good faith edits and becomes bad-faith vandalism. Digirami (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

"I know my edits are correct." That's what makes it an edit war. There's a relevant discussion here. Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Please note that a discussion has been started regarding your recent block of Dekkappai. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:45, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. I'm glad you unblocked. Good thinking! Bishonen | talk 22:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC).

Please start the RFC if you feel so strongly. AGF seems to have gone out the window here. Good thinkiing! Yeah, yeah to you too, pal. Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

GLAM-Wiki Baltimore meetup

You are invited to the first Wikipedia Baltimore meetup on Saturday, July 23, 10:00am-12:30pm at the Walters Art Museum. Come meet Wikimedians, learn about GLAM-Wiki partnerships, get involved, and discuss future wiki outreach and activities in the Baltimore area!

There also is a Wikipedia & Cultural Heritage at the Young Preservationist Happy Hour on Friday, July 22, 6:30pm at the Midtown Yacht Club, an unpretentious neighborhood pub.

---

Note: You can remove your name from the Baltimore meetup invite list here. -- Message delivered by AudeBot, on behalf of User:Aude

Smithsonian Archives of American Art Backstage Pass

Archives of American Art Backstage Pass! - You are invited!

The Smithsonian is hosting its first Backstage Pass at the Archives of American Art in, Washington, D.C., on Friday, July 29. 10 Wikimedians will experience the behind the scenes aspects of archiving the world's largest collection of documents and photographs related to American art. After a complimentary lunch, an edit-a-thon will take place and prizes will be awarded. Followed by an evening happy hour. We hope you'll participate! SarahStierch (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Birth places in lead

WP:OPENPARAGRAPH recommends not to put the birth place next to birth date in lead. Andrewlp1991 (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Average Joe's

Just wondering. Per this old draft, what made you take Average Joe's Entertainment as a hoax in September 2010? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, I have no idea. Toddst1 (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at ResidentAnthropologist's talk page.
Message added 23:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Resident Anthropologist (talk)•(contribs) 23:20, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Terrorism

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/ins/summary/v031/31.1kydd.html

This is currently the most influential article on Strategies of Terrorism. My submission was heavily based on this and other seminal works in the field. Given the paucity of legitimate submissions in the field of terrorism it's extremely important to avoid using media reports to construct 'encyclopedic' wikipages.Twyn3161 (talk) 04:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You've discovered the difference between Wikipedia and a peer juried journal. You know where you should be trying to get that stuff published. Toddst1 (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your tips, and I appreciate your forgiveness. Thanks. Phoon (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

help with Sam Brody page

Hello. Sam Brody is currently being re-directed to Jayne Mansfield. There is another Sam Brody, who had a page at one time which I linked to in Workers Film and Photo League. Can that page be found and re-instated and the other one changed to Sam Brody(attorney) for the Jayne Mansfield link?

Thanks Cleshne (talk) 20:35, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 02:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Restoring rollback

Can you check in at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Binksternet and help determine whether I should now get rollback after you removed it from my permissions a year ago? Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I have addressed your concern about my long string of faulty Twinkle reversions which ended a year ago after I figured out what I was doing wrong. I know I did wrong a year ago but I have not since. Binksternet (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Τασουλα

You just blocked Τασουλα for edit warring. I agree they were edit warring, but I believe the block is unfair, considering their opponent (who was edit warring as well and doing it against consensus, at that) was blocked for edit warring and, then, after being unblocked by the blocking admin, went on to report his opponent. I believe that both editors should be unblocked and an eye kept on the article, ready to block them both or protect it, should the edit warring resume... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to unblock. IMHO 3RR is 3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just unblocked Τασουλα. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you there?

Hi -- I'm looking for an admin who could quickly rev-del something and saw that you've edited in the last few minutes; are you there right now? Looie496 (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page -- did you see it? I can try to get somebody else to do it if you're too busy. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Kakkanattu

Hello Toddst1. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Kakkanattu to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-pro of Cocktail dress

I was curious why you protected this page for six months, because as far as I can tell this is the first time the page has been protected? I note in the logs that you've been fighting IP vandalism here for a while, but the latest spat was only over the last three days.(as far as I can tell). Cheers

Crazynas ^t 06:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Full disclosure update update, this is part (you are the first) as part of a new experiment I'm doing over here. Feel free to comment. Crazynas ^t 08:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is reasonable to monitor logs to discover admin actions with which one does not immediately agree, then ask the admin concerned for an explanation. Sure, in principle it is great to talk with someone to find out their reasoning, however that should only be done when there is an actual interest in the topic. Otherwise, it is just placing an unnecessary burden on other editors, particularly since it is often easy to formulate a question, but quite time consuming to give a meaningful reply. I had a very quick look at the history of Cocktail dress and it is obvious that link spamming has been going on for a long time (much longer than three days), so some form of tough response is required to avoid disruption. Johnuniq (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

It sounds like you advocate the end of RC. I have as much interest in the topic as all those 1.6 million reverts that we let a bot do (without human eyes ever seeing it.) Regarding this article. Did you note that before the seven spam posts and reverts it was three months [28] since the last edit? It seems to me what your saying regarding my questioning of this action is only those with COI are allowed to question why an administrator has done something. Since one of the general principles of adminship is that you do not preform administrative action in areas where you have conflict, I don't see why having an independent editor take a look at the action is wrong either? It's an unnecessary burden if I'm acting out of spite, attacking or singling out administrators, all I am trying to do is help out. I think I have satisfied the requirements for civility, neutrality and transparency, which I thought quite a bit about before I started this project. Just to note that this is the only interesting action I've seen after ~one hour perusing the logs so if I want to waste my time what is the harm?

Crazynas ^t 16:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what to make of your experiment. Assuming good faith on your part I'll answer your question below. Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Back to the question

Given that the spamming has been going on intermittently for months from numerous IPs all geolocating to the same place in China, short-term protection seems pointless. If you disagree with the protection, I'd be open to a discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that per the guidelines I was curious because A. no protection has been applied to this page previously. and B. as stated previous the most recent series of vandalizing only occurred in the last three days (with a three month gap with no edits). As it is always possible that an IP will be browsing and want to make a good faith contribution[29] (yes I realize that is over three years old), 180 days just seemed like a lot for the first time semi-protecting. Also considering the irregularity of the attacks half length of your protection could go by before these linkspam IP's even make it back to this page.Crazynas ^t 17:33, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

So, in the context of the edit history on this article, what do you see as the problem with the protection currently in place? Are you concerned that anonymous users might not be able to constructively contribute to the article? From what I can tell there hasn't been a single constructive edit from an IP since 18 February 2011 - and that was a trivial edit. Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

In the context of the article history, taking into account that this isn't something likely to get Jimbo sued, I think that initial remedy doesn't fit the offense. I understand the issue with long term intermittent link spam. However, what I see, perusing the IP edits over the last year is: two instances of linkspam in September of 2010; two good faith contributions one in October and one February; two instances of linkspam in April; and then the seven attempts since August 6th. I also note, as a mitigating factor in your favor that almost 50% of the edits in the last year have been attempted spam, and ~75% is spam + rvv. I don't think that attack pattern favors long term protection. Just because positive contributions haven't happened recently (or at all) doesn't mean they won't. I certainly agree that the article needed to be semi-protected NOW to stop what was going on in the last week; I just don't think that six mouths as the initial remedy is appropriate. On a more general note, I think that protection is a necessary evil because it violates the principle that everyone can edit and, in a way, it assumes bad faith (I hope you see why).Crazynas ^t 02:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

I see zero non-trivial, non-spam edits by any IPs since 2009, but that's perhaps focusing on the details of the problem while we both agree a problem exists.

Let's look at a solution since you are dissatisfied with the one I've put in place: Are you willing to add this article to your watchlist and take responsibility for keeping an eye on it (i.e. reverting the spamlinks that are persistently added)? Toddst1 (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN and my rather inconsistent editing history I don't think MY watching it is a good idea (besides I'm more an RC style patroller anyhow), although I agree with the idea that every article should have someone watching it. Doing a quick google search of this site looking for the most recent offending spam site I find no legitimate uses currently being referenced. Maybe this is appropriate for the spam blacklist, or perhaps the bot? In any case I think keeping it semi-protected for a week or two is not only reasonable, but prudent.Crazynas ^t 03:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok. When you get it on the blacklist or the bot list, let me know and I'll unprotect the article. Toddst1 (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Bueller? Bueller? Anyone? Toddst1 (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I've investagating to make sure it does in fact fit for xLinkBot added here (now I just need an admin to add it to the list ;) )Crazynas ^t 17:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Tell me what to add to what and I'll take care of it. I didn't realize it required the admin bit. Toddst1 (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to tell you what to do and screw the bot up... but I think you edit this and add the website \cocktaildressshop\.com to the bottom... however I'm fine with letting an admin that's comfortable with the regex add it. Thank you for keeping an open mind about this, and realizing that we're all just trying to help the 'pedia. Crazynas ^t 18:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Resolved [30] via User:COIBot please remove or substantially reduce the protection time. Thanks again, not just for working with me on this but your countless hours of mopping up to keep this place clean. Crazynas ^t 18:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Cool. I've unprotected the article. Thanks for working with me on this. Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, I documented it as done as well. Huzzah consensus! hopefully that page will go another six months without being a target... stupid vandals and spammers.Crazynas ^t 06:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

LT&MM Availabilities

I was only adding the availability sections in the cartoons that were released into the Looney Tunes Super Stars collections. I didn't mean to offend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LooneyTunerIan (talk • contribs) 22:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Question re:ARBMAC

Hi, Toddst1, I'm a fairly new admin (about 2 weeks), and I just responded to a request for page protection at the recently created Durrës County (Kingdom of Serbia). After reverting to the WP:WRONGVERSION, I fully protected the page for 5 days. However, as I read the history further, and looked more into the dispute, I'm wondering if perhaps I should have handled it differently, considering the results of the Macedonia Arbcom case. If you have time, I'd appreciate if you looked at the history of the article, as well as the discussion on the talk page. I'm wondering if instead of protection, I should have considered AE against one or more of the editors (the article creator, at least, was informed of ARBMAC quite a while ago; I didn't check the talk pages of the others). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you did fine. My personal approach when I protect a page like that is not to revert, just to protect. When I come across any dispute regarding ARBMAC, I liberally issue {{uw-balkans}} or {{uw-balkans2}} templates on the participants' talk page, and log the warning on WP:ARBMAC#Log_of_warnings in case there is further conflict. The whole ARBMAC area is one of those very few cases where AGF isn't very useful, so after the warning is issued, you shouldn't hesitate to block or impose edit restrictions if disruption continues. Of course you'd log the block at WP:ARBMAC#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Take a look the fourth section on WP:What you won't learn in new admin school - the obvious sarcasm in the title aside, it's not too far off. It's good to keep in mind. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 13:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Toddst1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Request for Autopatrolled user right

I want you to know that I have been working to restore my reputation as a constructive editor in the Wikipedia project. I am asking that you please consider restoring my Autopatrolled user right which you revoked two months ago. A review of the articles that I have created in the past two months will assure you that I have been creating quality stubs, primarily about ice hockey players who meet the notability standards as set out at WP:NHOCKEY. You will notice that my BLP articles are properly referenced and contain enough information for other editors to expand upon, and that your reasons for revoking my privilege have been recognized and addressed. Dolovis (talk) 03:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, I'd feel better if you'd have fleshed out more articles than you left for others. If the articles you're creating have legs, than autopatrolled is a non-event. However, if you're still creating stubs that would do well with review, then the current situation is best.

All that said, I should acknowledge your recent efforts. Toddst1 (talk) 04:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The standard for autopatrolled rights is 50 articles. I have created almost 300 articles in the past two months, without receiving complaints or concerns about my formation of new articles. Please be specific about what you require from me before you will restore those user rights? Dolovis (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to understand why it's important to you that NPPs don't review your articles. Toddst1 (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

To prevent nuisance AfD's like this one (tagged within 3 minutes of creation) placed by drive-by new article patrollers. And also, like I said, I am working to restore my reputation. Dolovis (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have re-enabled the bit with a note saying "If the quality of new articles created by this user drops, it may be revoked again." Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 16, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue requiring moderation here. Several folks (1 & 2, 3, 4) have recently told Maryland Pride (talk · contribs) that his/her position is an outlier and doesn't reflect consensus, while s/he has been unable to find anyone over the past 8 months to support his/her position on a remarkably trivial issue - essentially having turned a Wikipedia article into a scrapbook for a high school s/he has some involvement with.

Of course things become much more difficult when communication has been cut off.

For anyone seeking more info/context on this, please read the interchange where I came to this conflict as an uninvolved administrator in January. The discussion is here. Toddst1 (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for WikiProject United States to support WikiProject Maryland

It was recently suggested that WikiProject Maryland might be inactive or semiactive and it might be beneficial to include it in the list of projects supported by WikiProject United States. I have started a discussion on the projects talk page soliciting the opinions of the members of the project if this project would be interested in being supported by WikiProject United States. Please feel free to comment on your opinions about this suggestion. --Kumioko (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of talk page rights?

98.195.202.152 (talk · contribs) doesn't appear to want to appeal the block, he's just taken to posting copyvio material on his talk page. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Van Flandern and Akuvar

Hi Toddst1, could you please have a look at what could be (or become) an issue at Tom Van Flandern? See my edits [31], [32], [33] and [34], and user Akuvar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits [35] , [36] and [37]. Some wp:outing might be involved here, and perhaps some wp:OWN. Cheers and tia - DVdm (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Toddst1, I am responding here to a post you made to my talk page, about being involved in an edit war. Perhaps you are right, but I don't see it. Perhaps you did not read the reason for my reversion on the article's talk page Tom Van Flandern. I will reprint the relevant points here, I said in September of 2010,

"I am surprised to see you edit here after editor JuanR provided links to your website where you maintain a section devoted to debunking the subject of this article (or at least at the time he provided the links you did). Not only is this POV but contributing to this article, IMO, is self-serving for your website. I would ask that you please recuse yourself from this article. Akuvar (talk) 13:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)"

To which the editor responded:

"...I do not intend to contribute to this article, as I am not really interested in this subject anymore."

I was NOT the editor who posted these links or outed this editor, and I do believe it was outing. But once the evidence is there, it cannot be ignored that someone has a vested interest, perhaps even financially, for ridiculing the subject of the article and should not be permitted to edit it. User DVdm seemed to have voluntarily recused him/herself before we launched a formal protest, and then returns 11 months later to continue editing.Akuvar (talk) 17:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is any concern about conflict of interest, the majority should be directed to Akuvar, a personal friend of the family of the subject, long time OWNer of the article, and family hagiographer (see also here). He has been able to control this article because few people care about the ridiculous physics crank and face-on-Mars fruitcake Tom Van Flandern, that's all. If anyone should recuse or be involuntarily removed from editing the article, it is the unethical and abusive Akuvar himself. Tim Shuba (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Sodabottle revert-warring again

This user is abusing his tools again and revert warring blindly (with strange summaries) in Tamil Muslim article. Please take a look at [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]. He is trying to own the article and not let it grow. He keeps reverting all IP edits here based on his POV whims and fancies. Please put him down to restore peace and order.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.54.138 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 19 August 2011

Hi Toddst1, this IP is the sock master Shinas/Anwar.Saadat - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Shinas/Archive. He has come back after some time. Please review the previous SPIs and this IPs edits and semi protect the Tamil Muslim article.--Sodabottle (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Quack / whack. Toddst1 (talk) 18:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!--Sodabottle (talk) 18:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/La goutte de pluie.
Message added 05:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

OpenInfoForAll (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Northwestern High School (Hyattsville, Maryland), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 12:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Good answer. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

August 2011

Can you please explain which addition you are referring to in your message? Thank Djflem (talk) 01:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please explain your conclusion posted on my talk page with regard to the inquiry made at User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Removeal_of_User_page?

I asked to be directed to the page where it states that an editor can delete another's userpage. Can you or Moonriddengirl please do that? Can you also please be specific and provide a link to the addtion to my userpage about which you are referring? Thanks Djflem (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G12 as I stated on MRG's page. Toddst1 (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Kapil Sibal

Toddst1, would you please make it semi-protected for a period until 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement ceases. Because of this ongoing social movement in India and the role of subject in it, people are making highly defamatory comments, and unfortunately, I don't think it would stop for a while. — Bill william compton^Talk 13:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. They didn't waste any time after the last semi expired yesterday. Toddst1 (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! — Bill william compton^Talk 16:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

"Sesame street in Britain"

I wish to bring to your attention that have jumped the gun about deleting this page in question: "Sesame street in Britain" Reason being it content WHICH I DID STATE IN THE COMMENT SECTION: still needed abit of work and some rewriting to make it up to standards. The page is not a duplication of sesame street page but is a page about the troubled history of the series in the UK. There is hardly any or no proper details about this on the main page in question. Im still working on the page which has now be revised again sine this deletion. I still working on the "OFF web" page which will provide high level of information.

It sounds like it should be a section in Sesame Street. Toddst1 (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Alas it would at this moment of time take up a good amount of sesame street page, and I have no even got half way thought put the page together yet, but if you wish for me to clog up that page then so be it, but I get the feeling someone else will complain and say it should have its own page just like all the other SS in world.

Maybe International co-productions of Sesame Street. Toddst1 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok I shall place the information already created to that page, I still need another day to get the rest finished, I suggest you take a look a the addition information I placed to see whether new page should be created.

Hi, I'm the main editor of the co-productions article mentioned above. Crazyseiko is correct; I do have issues with his addition about Sesame Street in Britain. Many of those issues are editorial in nature, and I intend to discuss them on the article's talk page. I'd like to address one of those issues and to continue the discussion here. Crazyseiko is also correct in that his additions "clog up" the article. I see no problem with the content going into a new article; many of the co-productions mentioned in the article do have their own article; i.e., Vila Sésamo, Plaza Sésamo, and Sesamstrasse. Christine (talk) 14:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/James Craig Anderson.
Message added 08:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Another reply there. Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Deryl Dedmon for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deryl Dedmon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deryl Dedmon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..

Nomination of Murder of James Craig Anderson for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Murder of James Craig Anderson is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of James Craig Anderson until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article..

From Herbolzheim

OK Toddst1, thanks for the advice. I have in fact no edit war with Alex - it's some other guy who is refusing to enter into discussion. I'll make sure that I don't change the page unless I can engage with him. I'd dearly like to do so. I'm still quite new to this. Herbolzheim (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:Edit war

Fine, I won't revert his edits. However, you should look at the reasoning. His edit simply adds "(Defense of the Ancients 2)" after the main title, despite the fact that I have shown him references later in the article in which the game's directors says specifically that it is not called that and as such, it is not an acronym, so much as a thing. I am convinced that this is a user using proxy servers, considering that it is an identical edit. DarthBotto _talk•cont 20:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 18:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

re:St. Patrick High School (Chicago)

Heya Todds!

I have to disagree with your call of non-vandalism. This alum is being added with no referencing, and it seems to me on those grounds alone, I can challenge the addition of unsourced material per WP:BLP. Beyond that, this editor keeps including a link to a business that not only doesn't name the alum, but certainly doesn't indicate that he attended the school ... this reeks of WP:ADVERTISING. I understand the need to avoid edit warring, but it can't be that difficult to remove something that so blatantly doesn't belong. LonelyBeacon (talk) 22:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy that that editor is making a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Advertising, sure. Self-promotion, sure. Not WP:VAND. Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Not WP:REFSPAM? I'm not trying to be intentionally argumentative here. The editor has all but admitted that this person is of local scope only, and I just have a feeling that this is an attempt to circumvent WP:V, WP:N by constantly including a person who almost certainly cannot be referenced reliably, and includes a business link that does nothing to support inclusion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article due to edit warring by a non-talking IP. (The guy has been reverting for three months). Feel free to modify this if you believe a different solution is best. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Good answer. Thanks Ed. I suspect the IP doesn't understand WP:BIO and LB keeps reverting it with the best intentions. I think LB is an outstanding editor and misinterpreting WP:VAND in conjunction with WP:EW is the most frequent cause of seriously constructive editors running afoul of policy. I know if you look 50,000 or 60,000 edits back in my history you'll find a few times I got caught up in very similar situation. Fortunately for me an insightful admin had a similar view as to what I'm trying to take here and understood that I was just trying to defend the wiki and pointed out the finer points of WP:VAND. I'm positive LB is similarly well intended. Toddst1 (talk) 04:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

ANI thing

Hi Todd--will you please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#user_Elizium23_violating_WP:CANVAS.2C_engaging_in_tendentious_and_unproductive_editing and tell me if I missed something blatantly obvious? I think the complaint is complete BS, but you may know more than I do. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Toddst1! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 20:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! Toddst1 (talk) 21:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Barry Hinckley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Barry Hinckley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Hinckley until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've commented on the AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 17:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 19:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have changed some details, you might want to review your vote. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 21:15, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Toddst1 (talk) 21:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess that its from incubator, that I notify users or the CP. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
_Contribs 21:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 04:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 04:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Indef block evasion?

Hi Toddst1, looking at this, wouldn't this edit be a case of indef block evasion? Just wondering. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is. I've tagged it as an {{ipsock}}. Toddst1 (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 19:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 19:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Murder_of_James_Craig_Anderson#Requested_move

Since you voted "keep" in the AfD, and what the AfD meant is in discussion, I though I would let you know about it Talk:Murder_of_James_Craig_Anderson#Requested_move.--Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 05:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You have your position, and I respect it (even if I disagree). However, I was not involved in the BLPN discussion (IIRC), but it was not about the title, AFAIK. I voted keep on the AfD, and I do not see anything in the AfD that says anything about the title. So there is no forum shopping - this is the first time a discussion on what the title of the article should be that is happening in the talk page. The only forum to develop consensus on an article title is that forum, and that is what we are doing - after the discussion between you and me resulted in no consensus. --Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 05:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled again?

Hi, I made a recent request for Autopatrolled and it was declined, but there was advice that I should inquire it off you. If it's OK, I have made eiligble references in my Spanish articles now (and hope to include refs in future articles), would it be a good idea to have Autopatolled again? It's just that other users have recommended it to me, and it would be a lot less hassle if a NPP were to mark every single one of my articles as patrolled. Thank you, Jaguar (talk) 14:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Will you be creating unreferenced articles? Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please refer to my contributions for that - I have mass created over 200 articles and each and every one of them has a suitable reference. Jaguar (talk) 16:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Toddst1 (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your help! Jaguar (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Student caught on someone else's autoblock in a class project

Hello Toddst1. You blocked User:Unmeshsphalak for a copyright violation. Now take a look at the unblock-auto request at User talk:Skaivalyas. Skaivalyas is not blocked directly, but he is hit by the numbered autoblock. Most likely Skaivalyas is innocent of the misdeeds of Unmeshsphalak, but that is something you should probably decide about. Look at the list of contributions from the IP that is blocked to figure out the name and activities of the class. Maybe somebody should contact the teacher. It is puzzling that students would be using the possibly shared IP to make so many edits. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I took care of the autoblock. There are a ton of different users on that IP. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:19, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like the right thing to do. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:01, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!!!

Thanks a lot, Toddst1 for getting me unblocked. I feel great to be back to freedom on Wikipedia!!! Very happy to be unblocked. Thanks a lot!!! Jobin (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you got caught up in that autoblock as well. I will try to change the settings on that block. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#User:La goutte de pluie and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,OpenInfoForAll (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Toddst1 (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Editor you blocked in June

Hi Todd!

I reported User:67.180.136.82, whom you blocked in June, at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism today.

Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems like s/he's doing ok now. Toddst1 (talk) 14:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied

Please see my reply at User talk:EdJohnston#SPI on an IP whose unblock you declined. I don't see any problem with your actions, and suggest waiting for events to unfold. EdJohnston (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Prasanna Meda

Being the President of a large nonprofit political organization itself is the notability. Let me know if that is not enough to be notable. Check on it and undo the speedy deletion. Townblight (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

See WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Mountainwhiskey again with Personal attacks

• Mountainwhiskey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is often involved in Edit wars and personal attacks since many months. There are several warnings issued against that user, by many other users. The user has been blocked previously for same reasons. Still the user is making personal attacks. You have blocked this user last time.

The latest one is here: User_talk:Mountainwhiskey#RE:Your_Language_on_Trivandrum_Pages_and_elsewhere.21

Before to this incident, user:Mountainwhiskey dropped a message in my talk page using IP 14.96.184.149. When I checked the contributions of that IP, I found that is none other than User:Mountainwhiskey : PROOF. Hence I replied to the message in my talk page to user:Mountainwhiskey.

His reply was very much abusing me personally. Some exerts from his message : "

• are u exposing the weaknesses of what could be a narrow stereotyped mind
• DO NOT vent any frustration here that you have been carrying since birth.
• Or have you lost your marbles? Try to be more productive on Wikipedia rather - always a good idea for people without sense of direction in life.
• You should wish you were born once more. "

Thanks, --Samaleks (talk) 04:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Help needed?

• Todd, you there? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 14:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Please disregard the above message, Antandrus just dropped by and provided me with the heads up. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 15:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. Stepped out for a few. Toddst1 (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Your response would be appreciated

here. CityOfSilver 04:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Dating Guy

Just curious ... the talk page was restored with the reason "temporary restoration for purposes of other RFC - no need for editing this page". What's the other RfC? I can't find one linking to it. I also noticed the page doesn't appear to be protected, as a comment was posted to it today.

I wanted to get clarification before I re-deleted it to avoid trolling. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The RFC is at Talk:Least_I_Could_Do#Request_for_comments. It's a sad saga that includes Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FaheyUSMC. I think you should check with DragonflySixtyseven‎‎ (talk · contribs). I had re-deleted it and s/he restored it. Toddst1 (talk) 05:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note. I am sorry it appeared rude...I felt the responses of the some of the editors was inappropriate and unprofessional. The bottom line is I was getting different responses from different editors but none of it was designed to help. Today when my username was block without following Wikipedia's guidelines (they state I should be warned about the issue) I then had to jump through hoops just to communicate my problem.

Editors should keep in mind that not all users are here to exploit or vandalize the site. Respect the time and work of others before content is deleted.

Ericwilliamh (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)EricwilliamhEricwilliamh (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, not all of us are admins and your fellow editors generally will give you the best info they have. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Desux+

Special:Nuke might be helpful. →Στc. 06:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Only 2, already nuked. Toddst1 (talk) 06:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

Tfd: Facepalm

• See WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 October 3#Template:Facepalm
• Facepalm... Goodness, gracious, great balls of fire~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Toddst1 (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

why did you warn me about "edit warring"

Yet you never warned the other guy involved "what appeared to be edit warring"? Whatzinaname (talk) 07:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct - I did not. Toddst1 (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

BLP2E article

I consider your BLP2E article as gaming the system and I believe you should undo your creation of that article. The issue is under substantial positive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Bologna and I believe that your contribution belongs on the talk page in the form of discussion.Jarhed (talk) 15:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

It's an essay. What's the problem? Toddst1 (talk) 00:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

There is extensive discussion at the top of the Bologna deletion discussion about BLP2E being a humorous reference, and about how it encapsulates the issue of how notable prior press coverage is complicating the BLP1E issue. It is clear from that discussion that the editor wikilinked BLP2E to highlight the humorous nature of his comment, demonstrating that there was no such thing. Your edit takes advantage of that situation and injects your POV into the discussion ("fallacious") in a way that magnifies it. It is a great example of gaming the system and I don't think anybody should be doing that. Since that article is tailored to the Bologna discussion, I judge its ongoing usefulness as zero. I think that you should revert yourself.Jarhed (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Folks were referring to BLP2E like it was a real policy. The essay states it isn't policy - it isn't. If you don't like it, take it to MFD. Toddst1 (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I would rather take it to the administrator's noticeboard, because I think this question should be examined by other administrators. I would appreciate it if you would open an incident on this issue there.Jarhed (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Do what you want. Toddst1 (talk) 15:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:BLP2E

Wikipedia:BLP2E, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BLP2E and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:BLP2E during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hey - just wanted to apoligize if it came across as edit warring. I just genuinely disagree with having that essay in non-userspace if the other side's viewpoint can't even be stated. (I'm not even advocating that the essay should claim my view is right or legitimate, just explaining the reasoning behind it.) I just thought it'd be less of a hassle if I reverted your edit and supplied my reasoning instead of coming across as a jerk and immediately taking it to MfD. So, I hope you have no hard feelings - I certainly don't object to having any sort of essay on it, and I don't think your reasoning in opposing BLP2E is somehow crazy, I just genuinely disagree. :) Inks.LWC (talk) 22:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate that. I've created an essay using your wording to articulate the opposing point of view. Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Your attention would be helpful

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

I think this edit as well as several others by Ihutchesson are pretty out of line. He's reverted my edits at least once since you blocked the both of us for edit warring less than a week ago. I am trying - very hard - to give this guy the assumption of good faith, but the editor has accused me of bad faith editing for almsot three wekes now. I'd like you to do something about it, please. I've kept my work. the other editor has pointedly refused to. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's been hard working with Jack Sebastian as he's complained about every edit I've made. Now he "simply do[es]n't have the time to further educate" me. *. -- I.Hutchesson ► 08:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Oops, sorry - forgot to add stalking my edits to that list of problems. And there is no need to ink that I don;t have time to deal with you; I readily admit it. I've dissented with your edits because you keep insisting that your view of policy is right, despite five other editos telling you you are flat out wrong. Indeed, you encouraged another editor to make changes to the infobox that - when I did so, you reverted. It wasn't the edit that you had a problem with, it was that it was I who made it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

If I don't speak, I get accused without defense. If I do speak, it will only cause your talk page to get flooded. I can only leave it to your discretion, Toddst1. -- I.Hutchesson ► 20:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't figure out what's going on between you two but it doesn't look constructive. Instead of blocking both of you, I'm closing this discussion and asking you to go play nicely. Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2011 (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.

Thiruvananthapuram, Tourism in Kerala, Kochi, Kerala

Can you do me a favor and watchlist all these articles? All of these have been hit extensively by a single person who has sockpuppeted under many names, including User:Bijuts, User:Mountainwhiskey, User:Amazer007, User:DileepKS69, User:PuttumKadalayum, and User:Jrafale1978. The IP ranges, I believe, are 117.254.128.0/19, 117.200.0.0/14. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Those IPs belong to a very large Isp in India. So all users of the isp must be socks of one master. Talk about confused admins. Lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.225.55.115 (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Advice appreciated

I don't know if I've done the right thing. On Oct 5 I changed the color of the Template:Infobox background for the Haven article. This elicited a negative reaction from Jack Sebastian, ie he opened a talk section complaining about it. After you closed the above discussion between us, he decided he would provoke conflict by changing the color of the infobox background *. Now I have reverted it to the previous color *. At this stage, I don't really know what the wise thing to do is or whether it was wise to revert here. Should I put it back, Toddst1? I doubt if I can fart without receiving censure. -- I.Hutchesson ► 06:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Try WP:DR. Toddst1 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. -- I.Hutchesson ► 17:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You also might be interested in Wikipedia:Don't edit war over the colour of templates. After you read that, you might not even need dispute resolution. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it's about the color. I think it's about who changed it in the first place. — I.Hutchesson ► 19:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Navy children school visakhapattnam

hey you deleted the article by this name saying its copywright violation i was warned about it while i started writing the article so everywhere that i have used exact words i have put a reference list.they r basic things like objectice,mission and facilities of my school that i cant change.rest whatever i have written is my own work.icluding the images.kindly check the article as and when you get the time.it is in my sandboxUser:Bhavna.jaidwal/sandbox
and again.i cant change mission and objective and if it helps,i am in touch with the creator of the website from which copywright is claimedBhavna.jaidwal (talk) 19:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:Bhavna.jaidwal#Re:Navy_Children_school.2CVisakhapattam. Toddst1 (talk) 20:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

NRHP Photo Contest

Just a reminder that the WP:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Fall 2011 Photo Contest

will start on Friday, October 21.

Smallbones (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Barry Hinckley

Google News

WRNI

I consider this to be significant coverage in the place that matters, which is Rhode Island. He is considered the Republican challenger to a sitting US Senator. It makes Wikipedia look bad not to have this article. It certainly needs to be improved, but it is a start. Scott Illini (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not the one you need to convince - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barry Hinckley is where the decision was made. Your only venue is WP:DRV, but I don't think you'll have much luck there right now. See my comment in the AFD. Toddst1 (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

And in the decision, it says "Can be recreated if he meets the normal notability criteria (i.e., substantial third party coverage)." I claim that has now been met. Coverage in Barrington Patch, Westerly Sun, and Boston Globe since September 30th. I am asking you to review my evidence and be persuaded to this conclusion as well. We do not need to involve anyone else. You and I are empowered to resolve this per the decision itself. Scott Illini (talk) 01:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The page has been WP:SALTed. Take it WP:DRV or better yet, drop the stick and back away from the horse. Your conflict of interest is patently obvious. Toddst1 (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I was just trying to get to the right answer. I take Wikipedia seriously as well.Scott Illini (talk) 05:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Note

On the 27th, you asked about e-mail. I changed it, and the old one is obsolete. However, your current e-mail here is disabled, or so it seems. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - I did that during the FaheyUSMC fiasco. Fixed. Toddst1 (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I just sent a test. :) P.S. I also just saw your user page. I just assumed your name was Toddst. Like your brother Rodst. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Got it. Toddst1 (talk) 04:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ersa Group

Hi Todd, I am not a Wikipedia Pro but I was working on an article for the page on Ersa Group. The founder of this company was indited on charges stemming from this company in federal court and it was on all the news channels last month here in Detroit. Here is a source but I don't know the proper way to add it or make it sould good. Here is the citation not sure if that can even be used. http://www.clickondetroit.com/video/28710819/index.html I also fix that citation that was wrong but I accidently deleted the deletion thing. Sorry. If you can help me edit it, it would be appricated. I like to add articles on notable businesses or notable people in my area and state. Thanks :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tidyrambo (talk • contribs) 21:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Toddst1! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy delete notification

Hi, just to let you know that you notified me of the deletion of a page I didn't actually create. Easy mistake to make as I moved the actual page to one with the name of the subject: Inox Festival. I've removed the notification. No worries. Just though you may want to notify the real author. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You did create the article page. See this log. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't access that page as I'm not an admin. However I did not create the article Article wizzard, I merely moved it to Inox Festival. Check 22:57, 26 October 2011 in my contributions. I don't care if the page I moved it from was deleted or if the page I moved it to gets deleted, I was simply patrolling the new pages and noticed that it needed moving. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:08, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You created it when you left behind a redirect. From Special:Undelete/Article_wizzard:

Page history
(del/undel) (diff) 21:58, 26 October 2011 . . Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) (39 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G2). (TW))
(del/undel) (diff) 21:57, 26 October 2011 . . Delusion23 (talk | contribs | block) (27 bytes) (moved Article wizzard to Inox Festival: Moved to actual name of subject.)
(del/undel) (diff) 14:29, 16 December 2010 . . Lear's Fool (talk | contribs | block) (648 bytes) (Requesting speedy deletion (CSD A7). using TW)
(del/undel) (diff) 13:50, 16 December 2010 . . Toni-lea (talk | contribs | block) (634 bytes) (←Created page with 'Georgia O'sullivan, is BLACk american attending Lsu schoool, she has achieved lots Of achievements at her school, she works and works untill she gets where she want...')

Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't understand what's going on. I saw a new article in Special:NewPages called Article wizzard, so I moved it to the actual name of the subject: Inox Festival. How can I have created an article which I never created? I found the article and helped. Consequently I don't think I deserved the condescending template message on my talkspace assuming that I didn't know how to create an article correctly. I think the tag was meant for the person who wrote the article Article wizzard who was User:Marine.laval. I merely moved their mistakenly named new page. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:31, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

When you move a page, there is a box that asks "Leave behind a redirect?" (try it) If it's checked when you move it, the old article is literally moved, and a new page with nothing but a redirect is created with the old name. That's what happened here. When you see an inappropriately named article such as Article wizzard, be sure not to leave behind a redirect. Toddst1 (talk) 22:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, glad we got that cleared up. Cheers. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 22:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Leelavathi (actress)#Awards_and_recognitions

The section is with reference, please check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contribut (talk • contribs) 09:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. No references there. Toddst1 (talk) 15:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Bradley M. Scott article deletion

Please provide explanation regarding the deletion of the Bradley M. Scott article. Scott received a Senior Executive Service appointment by President George W. Bush to head up a region of a large federal agency. His appointment was only one level below the level of the head of the entire agency. As Regional Administrator, he was responsible for some of the largest construction projects in Kansas City over the period of almost a decade. Based on the amount of media exposure and significance of projects managed, I don't see how the individual could be seen as not notable. Receiving a presidential appointment to an SES level position should be noteworthy in itself. BlueGold73 (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

He appears to be a WP:NN bureaucrat. While there is some local coverage in the Kansas City press, fails WP:POLITICIAN. As a courtesy, I've restored the article and sent it to AFD to let the community decide. Toddst1 (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

SPI

You blocked this editor, so please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujacicm. He appeared again and said "Quack, Quack". --WhiteWriter ^speaks 12:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Leelavathi (actress)#Partial filmography

You request citation here:Leelavathi (actress)#Partial filmography. I compiled the information from IMDB, and few other sources. There are many(most) Filmographies, which have no citation. Why does Leelavathi (actress)#Partial filmography require Citation? One Such page is here: Rajkumar filmography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Contribut (talk • contribs) 16:44, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

See WP:V and WP:OSE. Toddst1 (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Cyrillic, asking for an opionin

I removed the Cyrillic part from the Kosovo lede. Is there any problem, because it said: Serbian: Косово or Kosovo, that is Kosovo or Kosovo. Should we include both Cyrillic and Latin script, because they are both official? Or should we settle for one script? Majuru (talk) 17:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on that. It's a content issue. Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Arpad Szabo deleted article

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

I would be grateful if you could email me a copy of the Arpad Szabo article that you apparently deleted earlier today. I have no reason to doubt that it fully deserved its CSD A7 but the subject of the article is quite likely notable, assuming that he was indeed the Arpad Szabo who wrote "The Beginnings of Greek Mathematics" listed under Imre Lakatos#Further information. While, given the A7, I would be very surprised to discover that the deleted article contained any information that would be usable in any future article on the subject, I would at least like the chance to confirm this. Thanks. PWilkinson (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've userfied it at User:PWilkinson/Arpad Szabo. Toddst1 (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. The right person, accurate (and in fact easily sourceable) so far as it goes, but indeed a clear A7. I will keep it for the time being, as it might be possible to incorporate it into the lede of a proper article - but, assuming I do get to write the article, I may end up deciding to start again from scratch anyway. PWilkinson (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it was a mistake to delete the page. Arpad Szabo was a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and he published widely on the history of exact sciences, see here. See also this: [44]. Kope (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Explain why you think that article did not qualify for WP:CSD (not the person - the article). Toddst1 (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Explain what your shorthand WTF means. Kope (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It means I don't think you know what you're talking about, professor. Move along now. Toddst1 (talk) 12:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No problem, Mr What-The-Fuck. I am out of this. Kope (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Name-calling - nice. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be true that I don't know what I am talking about, but I think that Arpad Szabo, perhaps not the greatest figure of 20-th century research on the history of Greek mathematics, but he made important contributions and certainly deserves an article in WP. But, after this, hm, dialogue, it won't be written by me. Kope (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2011 (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.

The brpr Group Page Deletion

I would like to know why The brpr Group page was deleted. The page is for a new media agency that is well established. Each section of the article had multiple sources to back up the statements made. The article was written in a neutral tone and did not promote the business, it merely reflected the articles already written about the agency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamdillard (talk • contribs) 20:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:CSD#G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Do you have any connection to the firm? Toddst1 (talk) 20:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No I live in the area around the firm though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annamdillard (talk • contribs) 15:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Christopher X. Brodeur

Oy. Someone else is going to have to stare into that void for a while. I'm done. At risk of running into BLP territory, reading up on subtype 5 here might be helpful. I'll give him this: He's a hell of typist based on the WPM of his emails. - Richfife (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

edit war

Uh, I did not edit war, I made one edit which was revered, and then a second edit that did not overlap with the first. That is not an edit war. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I strongly contest the allegation of edit war. I made one edit, which at the time I felt was strongly in consensus. Afterwards the bulk of the talk page discussion happened, and my change was reverted. I have since made a second edit that did not overlap with the first edit. That is not an edit war. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Vanishings! article

Instead of marking it for speedy deletion, and have it deleted, just remove the content you think violates copyright, and mark the article as a stub...other tv programs have been created with episodes list copy and pasted, and those have not be marked for deletion.LanceBarber (talk) 04:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Which part of the article didn't you cut and paste? WP:OSE? Toddst1 (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Mute point, feel free to re-create the article, make a one sentence statement, with a stub line, and call it good for now.LanceBarber (talk) 03:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

It is good for now. Toddst1 (talk) 03:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning?

Hello there!

You have warned me for changing "heavy casualties" to "light casualties" on the page Chesapeake Bay Flotilla. The page Battle of Bladensburg states that in total 64 deaths were inflicted on a force of 4,500. In my view this constitutes light casualties. If you disagree, I would prefer if you discussed the matter on the talk page rather than attempting to impose your point of view using administrator powers.

Thanks 94.193.35.68 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

When an editor with a history of disruption changes an adjective to its antipode without a citation or explanation, it's reasonable if not prudent to assume more disruption. Had you provided explanation on the talk page and/or edit summary, we wouldn't be having this conversation. And no administrator powers were used. Toddst1 (talk) 22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The pre-existing passage didn't have a citation, and I was unaware of any previous disruptions. Moverover I don't believe I had ever edited the article before. Finally, "assuming" "disruption" is explicitly against wikipedia's policies - you are supposed rather to assume good faith. You threatened to ban me if I changed it back, which is certainly involving admin powers. Am I now free to do so without threat of reprisal? 94.193.35.68 (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

We assume good faith until behavior indicates otherwise. The behavioral history of your IP address indicates a lot of otherwise (which may be other editors sharing the IP address - that's why many of us register for accounts). To be clear, WP:AGF is a guideline, not policy and is applied with discretion.

FWIW, anyone can issue a warning for disruption - you don't need to be an administrator to do so, and as I said, no "administrator powers" were used.

Let's try to end the animosity. Please continue your editing and let me know if I may be of assistance. Toddst1 (talk) 16:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

For my edit on Hollywood Undead?

What exactly did I do wrong? Minaret Review ISN'T a prestigious music review site. Do you just really like Hollywood Undead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.244.57 (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:RS and how to deal with unreliable sources if you believe that is what Minaret Review is. Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Edition of Body Gossip page

Hiya, sorry I was in the middle of adding the references you asked for, when I had to help my disabled mother with cooking dinner, and when I came back I found out that you had deleted the entire entry. Could you undo it so that I can continue the referencing please? I had only just started and would really like to continue :)

Thanks :) MooseyJake (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Help needed

Toddst! I need your help. Majuru is again removing vast sections from Timeline of Kosovo history article. By chance, those are almost entirely about Serbian history of Kosovo, while edit summary is "ev to last version, references needed". As you may see, Majuru deleted minimum five references, so it looks like that is not the main reason for deletion, as the rest of article is in the same (and worse) state. This section will explain even further, that Majuru was informed that his edits are vandalism and POV pushing. I also don't want to participate in his edit spree anymore, so i am asking you for action. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Lynching

Can you revert your edit temporarily please. I just spent well over an hour going through all the external in that article. We have an edit conflict now. I don't know what you did, but whatever it is I am sure its fine with me. I don't know how to deal w edit conflicts. I was going to request your help after my edit because I honestly think that's the worst article I ever read on Wikipedia. I can only wait 10 minutes and then I will try to figure out what to do to save my edits. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

s/external/external links 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

that article needs to be locked down, some of those links are not only completely ridiculous, they look dangerous to browsing 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

okay, you didn't like my edits on books, you can enlighten me later on that....that's a minor thing as far as I am concerned and I have absolutely no problem with it...but the external links are really bad...I am awaiting your input. I could care less about the formatting of the books and I will certainly look into the edit you've made....I am awaiting your input 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please enlighten me as to why the boldface in the name of the book Theodore Rex is permissible on Wikipedia. Your revert was not valid. I annotated all the problems with that article. The wise thing to do is to lock it down. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you reevaluate your revert of my edit. I'll go back to Paul Robeson and Bert Bell in the meantime. And for goodness sakes, stop with whatever the Twinkle tool you are using and start reading the article. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That being said, the lynching article is clearly the worst article I have ever come across so I understand your defensive posture. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please enlighten me as to which aspect of my edit was not in line with MOS, my edits were clearly in line with MOS clearly in line with MOS near as I can tell, see Bert Bell. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC) If not, please enlighten me, I have 1300 edits in that article and I will go back and change them. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Guild of Architectural Ironmongers

Hi I have just created new page hope its ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GAIadmin (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Help

How do you get rid of the Deletion Template on the Freakyforms: Your Creations, Alive! page and let it keep it up in Wikipedia? I did add sources in this page.DigiPen92 (talk) 20:05, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable, third-party sources would help. Reading WP:SOURCES would help you understand why the sources you've used aren't considered reliable. As is stands now, all that the article states is it is a game and it exists. It doesn't assert any importance or pass WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

banners

Thanks for the post. I am sure you understand that none of the banners are insults/punishments/rebuke or any such thing. all of them are appeals for help and participation, and all has a call to explain on the tag page. In fact, at Wikipedia, this excessive and redundant tagging is sometimes called tag bombing, and, as it stands against the spirit of the banners, can be seen as disruptive editing. I have not removed a single banner whose essential message isn't already there in another banners. Moreover, it's not my article, and whatever improvement I can do, you can do too. Taking this as a misunderstanding, I am cutting down on the disruptive amount of redundant banners once again. But, that action is definitely up for discussion. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

User requesting account creation

Hello Toddst1. Through the WP:ACC interface, a user has requested an account from a school IP in British Columbia that you blocked. If you want to look into this, send me an email and I'll provide more data. If you give your OK, the account will be created. Otherwise, under the ACC rules, it is probable it will have to wait for a checkuser to wander by. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, why not. Toddst1 (talk) 21:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Susquehanna Valley Mall

I had this page under construction and you deleted it a few minutes later before I had a chance to build it. I was having difficulty downloading the mall's page. I notice that the Fairlane Village Mall is being nominated for speedy deletion meanwhile but do not understand why. Heff01 (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

See WP:CSD#A7 - the articles must assert importance. Just that a mall exists, doesn't mean it has any importance. See WP:MALL for further information on shopping mall articles. Toddst1 (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on it. The mall is anchored by Bon-Ton, Boscov's, JC Penney, and Sears. Heff01 (talk) 15:10, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

That really doesn't assert importance. Toddst1 (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

Why were my pages deleted, they were for a group of fans who had proposed them, so they were made. Please overturn your decision to delete. I'm being polite and not offensive, so give me a break, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpg521 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7: Article(s) about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Kim Ostrenko

Why are you speedy-deleting the page? I just started working on it!!! You can't even allow 10 minutes for someone to work on the page before speedy-delete tagging it? What gives? --Sanya3 (talk) 04:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

CSD Tags

Hi

Thanks for nominating Amy cox for deletion. Unfortunately, you tagged it as non-notable, but the reality is it was an attack page. It is important that articles are tagged correctly, particularly attack pages, as these are removed much quicker. This page stayed up for an hour; it would have been removed a lot quicker had it been tagged correctly. Thank you. Stephen! ^Coming... 18:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey Steven. Go look at the page history. Do your homework before attempting to correct others. Toddst1 (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can see that a lot of negative things were added after you tagged it for A7. The version you tagged did still say that she was a lady of the night and that she stuffed things up her cat's nose. Stephen! ^Coming... 10:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I've looked again, and I can't see what it is that I've missed. I would appreciate you telling me when you've got a chance, especially as you've directed people here from my admin review page. Thanks. Stephen! ^Coming... 13:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In amongst the other nonsense, there was some negative information in there, yes, but to describe the article as "Pages that disparage, threaten, intimidate or harass their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose" would be a stretch. I'd think G3 is would be more applicable than G10 but any of the above would work. More to the point, I think you could find more useful things to do than splitting hairs on such a trivial matter. Toddst1 (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts. Not sure how my actions show "sloppy admin work", but I appreciate your comments. Stephen! ^Coming... 12:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Gibberish talk on my page

Hi, Todd! Just to inform you that user Laz really didnt vandalized page with this edit, it is just his very different way of talking, and reminder to me about some articles, and collaboration. Thanks for your care, but i find this interesting, and pleasant, as it is in a good faith. Just to let you know, but i will talk to him also, and ask that in the future, gibberish should be followed with real language... :) Thanks, and all best! --WhiteWriter ^speaks 13:13, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the note. Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: JWebSocket

Hello Toddst1. I am just letting you know that I deleted JWebSocket, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you deleted it as WP:CSD#G12, the same as my nomination. Toddst1 (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Requesting your feedback on an article User:Righini68/Micky

Hi -

I have followed the feedback that you provided and toned down this article and made it more factual. I also created the article as a sub page under my user page. Can you please take a look and let me know your thoughts / feedback?

Thanks, Matt — Preceding unsigned comment added by Righini68 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Matt, I gotta tell you, it sounds like you have a connection to the dude and are desparate (or perhaps paid) to create an article about him. What's going on here? Toddst1 (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Todd - I am sorry about this - I did not know about this rule. I work at the same company as Micky and wanted to publish his bio. I appreciate the heads up. (Righini68 (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Righini68 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.137.20.208 (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion review for Cam Newton eligibility controversy

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Cam Newton eligibility controversy. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. 198.137.20.27 (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Latish redone/Rhinoselated

Hi Todd. I agree that the two accounts are run by the same user, as are the IPs in the recently blocked range, but Latish redone (talk · contribs) is actually older than Rhinoselated (talk · contribs) by three years, so if you don't object I'll change the sock templates. Favonian (talk) 17:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Please do. Toddst1 (talk) 18:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Edgewood

Hi there, a few weeks ago you requested speedy deletion for the Edgewood Management, LLC article as a result of text copied from one of the cited sources. The page has now been rewritten and all unoriginal content removed. Thank you for spotting the mistake. Askryan (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

TriTech Software Systems article

Hello Toddst1, thank you for the feedback on the TriTech Software Systems article. When I originally started the article, I had attempted to use proper weight for the information. Since then, two new editors have added on, and I have attempted to merge the added information into the article. Do you have any suggestions for correcting the article? Thank you, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 18:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on the article. I believe you have summed up the content quite well. Thanks for your assistance. Best, Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me

You deleted Outline of Earth, while I'm not going to contest the deletion, I'd like to ask a couple of questions. First of all, did I do something wrong? You stated that "The information already exists in Earth" which is true, I won't argue that, but it was /supposed/ to be for WikiProject Outlines. Akin to the Japan vs Outline of Japan articles. Secondly, Is there a way I can retrieve the text from the deleted article? Thanks... Ncboy2010 (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I've userfied the article you created. You can find it in User:Ncboy2010/Outline of Earth. I'm not familiar with WikiProject Outlines, although I now see it. What is the purpose of having an outline? I don't think you did anything wrong - it just seemed redund. Toddst1 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the purpose is basically to create an outline for a particular topic that allows you to find related articles. A bit less wordy than an actual article, but contains everything in a concise, easy-to-read, easy to find format whereas actual articles are written with prose, usually. Does that make sense? Also: Thanks for userfying it for me. Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. I suppose that's useful. It would seem like that would be better as a namespace connection to the main article. For example you have Earth and Talk: Earth. It would seem that Outline: Earth would be better than the way it's being done, but that would require some assistance from the foundation. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

That's actually a great idea, although I wouldn't know where to begin to do anything like that.. I only just found out about the WikiProject Outlines as it is. Ncboy2010 (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Thomas John Clagett link to proper Trinity Episcopal Church

You correctly pointed out that there is an incorrect link (to the wrong church) in the article "Thomas John Clagett". This original frame church was replaced with a brick church in 1846, which still stands on Church Street in Upper Marlboro. The church has a history page - [45] - but this is my first discussion on wikipedia and I have no idea about rules for citations, links to non-wikipedia sites, etc. Please delete if this is an unusable citation. I am very interested in Upper Marlboro history and would like to see the entry corrected if possible. Let me know what I can do to help Db1787 (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

While self-published, I think it is reliable enough for a start. See WP:RS. Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I edited out a double http:/http: broken link. As for more authoritative sources we have - http://www.msa.md.gov/megafile/msa/stagsere/se1/se5/019000/019100/019119/pdf/msa_se5_19119.pdf which refers to the book (which I personally own) - "Across the Years in Prince George's County" by Effie Gwynn Bowie VOlume I (Parts One and Two) on pages 137-140 which specifically notes (among other details not covered by the wikipedia entry) that he died August 3, 1816. I am sure that these pages are the authoritative source on Bishop Thomas John Claggett. I may need to revisit later, but it my day is done. Thanks again. Db1787 (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a great source. I've thought about purchasing that book many times as there are dozens of PG county articles I edit. Nice work. Toddst1 (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

ELLA MAE LENTZ

HI I WAS WRITTING TO STOP THE DELETION OF MY WEB PAGE ON ELLA MAE LENTZ. I FORGOT TO WRITE WHY SHE WAS IMPORTANT, THE REASON BEING BC SHE HAS CONTRIBUTED MUCH TO THE DEAF COMMUNITY. SHE HAS CREATED A TEXTBOOK LINE USED IN SCHOOLS TODAY, PERFORMED MANY SHOWS, ALSO CREATED A WHOLE POEM VIDEO, AND ALSO HELPED TO SPEAK ON DEAF CULTURE. SHE IS TRULY AN INSPIRATIONAL PERSON IN THE DEAF COMMUNITY AND WORTHY TO BE PUT INTO WIKI FOR ALL HER CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEAFHOOD. Aslforever02 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No need to shout. Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm at work and we keep the CAPS lock on. I didnt mean to post twice either I just dont know to sonsent this deletion becasue it is due in my class at CSUN on wed.... Aslforever02 (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumioko (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

TriTech Software Systems

Following your logic of superfluous entry, would you agree that the "Criticisms/Glitch" section goes into a "ridiculous level of depth" and be edited down as well. Totally Rock (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:TriTech Software Systems. Toddst1 (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for jumping in on the StratoLaunch Systems I am in need of as much help as I can get with this page.MathewDill (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. This template: {{cite news}} will probably be helpful to you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

yeah I will have to get those going soon just wanted to get the basics in that I was really excited when I read this and wanted to share right away. :) MathewDill (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of ConBravo!

I'm afraid I don't understand why the ConBravo! article is being deleted. The convention is easily as notable as Con-G or G-Anime and those have established pages without issues? Further, the organisers of these two conventions and the organisers of ConBravo! are related to each other and regularly support each other's conventions. -- Hidoshi (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

talkback

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

Barnstarbob

Just curious, under what reasoning do you consider Barnstarbob's own comments on his own talk page to be vandalism? I was under the impression it's ok for someone to edit their own page, however they'd like. Having watched this cycle of events repeatedly, the one month block is the longest I've ever seen him receive. It seems both welcome and overdue. Still, is cussing on your own talk page considered vandalism? What was he vandalizing? 842U (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, you can not put whatever you want on your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

How does that make his words vandalism? Did you mean something else?842U (talk) 11:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. However, I think you're being pedantic. Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

LOL. 842U (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible edit war,Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs

Thank you for your attention in this matter, you may also wish to send a notice to the following users, who may also be engaged in this edit Waring Vyselink and Jeffro77 as Blackcab and Vyselink appear to be, in my opinion, WP:meatpuppet's of Jeffro77 who also has demonstrated WP:COI in regards to editing pages in a manner that is defamatory towards Jehovah's Witnesses.Willietell (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Page for "Larkin Love" has been deleted

I'm new to creating articles in Wikipedia, but have gone through the basic introduction. Today I've created a page for an American porn actress with the stage name "Larkin Love" and gathered all the required information which're genuine in nature – sadly, the page has been deleted. Kindly give me more information on "A7. No indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content)." and help me retaining that page. Please verify draft page at User:Unknown.freelancer/Larkin_Love. Thank you. —Preceding undated comment added 09:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC).

That draft would also be deleted under A7 - it doesn't assert any importance of the person. Beyond that, you shouldn't re-create that article unless it can pass WP:PORNBIO. Toddst1 (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Cheese or Font?"

Dear Toddst1,

I was wondering why the page I wrote "Cheese or Font?" was deleted. I believe it is worthy of mention as it is an existing game which does in fact have a cult following. Also, it was referenced in a BBC Radio 4 documentary presented by Stephen Fry called "Fry's Planet Word". If you still believe this game is not worthy of mention on Wikipedia, please let me know. If not, I'd be grateful if you'd undelete the page. Many thanks. MikeyMikey667 (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 as web content that doesn't assert any importance. As a courtesy, I've restored it to your userspace at User:MikeyMikey667/Cheese or Font?. Please don't re-create the article unless it passes WP:WEB. Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Heiko Schmidt

you have deleted the page "Heiko Schmidt" with the argument this isn't relevant because it is a person. a) it is relevant as Heiko Schmidt is named in many wiki articles regarding SWEETBOX and others and b) Heiko Schmidt is a public person. If your rule is not having an article about a person, you need to delete the following page as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.A._Reid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.178.198 (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the article about Heiko Schmidt is that it didn't assert the person's importance - and hence it was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. I'll restore it to the author's user space if you'd like to work on it (that would mean assert importance and better yet add some citations from reliable sources to verify the claims). Are you the author? Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

cease and desist

Toddst1 consider this a cease and desist notice. I am not a sock, troll or vandel. You have failed to provide evidence to your assumtions. Please stay away from me and off my talk page. No further notice is needed. 24.52.237.81 (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you seem to be trolling fairly well, actually. –MuZemike 00:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This, this, this, and this make it bloody obvious of your intentions (as well as this). In any case, you can forward any additional legal documentation to the law offices of Dewey, Cheatem, and Howe, located in the Court of Law in Trenton, New Jersey. –MuZemike 07:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I understand the IP has engaged the services of the eminent attorney Charles H. Hungadunga. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Block Log

I am sorry I accidentally tarnished your block log while trying to block Barnstarbob. Please forgive me --Guerillero | My Talk 07:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your help. No worries. Toddst1 (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It's funny how an editor can go from "Cease and Desist" to "Hissed and Deceased". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

That's better than I could manage; 18 months ago I blocked myself. –MuZemike 08:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Autoblock fixed

Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

no prob. Toddst1 (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Exx-cell-enttt. Thx much Toddst1. I'll ask you tomorrow how you did that. :) Franamax (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

By magic. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

You blocked me in what I feel is an abuse of administrator authority

long section collapsed for readability

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. Toddst1 I am somewhat confused that you would choose to block me for edit waring and not at least also block the other editors involved when I was the one to come to you bringing to your attention that the disruptive editing and edit waring that was going on. I came to you in an attempt to get some resolution on the matter to try to stop the waring while at the same time I appealed to another editor for help in trying to invite other editors to make changes to the page in question so that this very defamatory page could be presented in a more honest way below is the request. Disputes on a couple of pages-Please help if you can: (posted to the talk page of user:LWG) Hi, I'm a relatively new user to Wikipedia and I ran across your username while investigating the talk page for Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses. Since your user page states that you specialize in WP:NPOV disputes, and you seem to have little or no affiliation with the editors I am currently having an issue with, I thought it might be a good idea to ask for your help in a matter with a couple of pages that I have been having difficulty editing since I got here. I will advise you, in advance, that I might not have proceeded in the wisest pattern of edit practices, partly because as a new editor I didn't know the rules, and partly out of frustration of having to deal with editors who cannot seem to be objective themselves(they even falsely accused me of being a WP:Sock) when it comes to material related to Jehovah's Witnesses. The problem of greatest concern is a series of web pages related to Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses that are written in a very defamatory manner, filled with half truths, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and tend to misrepresent the source material to a great extent, by it seems, editors who have a WP:COI when it comes to Jehovah's Witnesses and also the utilization of source material that is the very definition of WP:fringe. The primary page of dispute at this point is the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses_beliefs at which I have made more than a few attempts at "adjusting the page" to a less negative and defamatory article(remember what I said earlier about not always in the right manner, but I'm trying to learn the rules and follow them). I most recently made an edit that I think should be left intact, however one of the 3 disruptive editors who have continually fought against any objective change to this negatively written page reverted it, I filed a WP:ani complaint against him for disruptive editing and received a warning for Edit Waring, though I hadn't edited the page for 2 days. I had previously requested that the page be deleted, due to the pact that I felt that it would be a hopeless situation to try to convert the page into creditable material because I felt that I would never receive any real co-operation from the 3 editors in question( Jeffro77, BlackCab and Vyselink, two of which, if not all three, are members of Wikipedia project Jehovah's Witnesses. So if possible, please help. Maybe you could invite several neutral editors to come to the page and help rectify the pages negative structure. The second page is one on Bible Chronology, where I first encountered these editors and their WP:COI WP:NPOV with regards to material related to Jehovah's witnesses after correcting an incomplete and inaccurate chart on bible chronology, I would also like to possibly reach some type of compromise there with an editor who I believe just honestly wishes to have her material presented, she is Lisa, however, I feel that Jeffro77 has made it clear he will continue to revert any edit that I make that contains any material presented that is sourced by material written by Jehovah's Witnesses, even to such an extent that he seems to have become an "online Stalker" by following me from site to site reverting whatever edits I make, regardless of content or accuracy. The page in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_Bible any help you provide would be appreciated as I know that this will take a bit of your time to sort out.Thanks.Willietell (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2011 (UTC) To which you posted, without any evidence to support the accusation, in what I feel is a violation of WP:AGF As well as WP:Personal, this; As an univolved administrator, I find it hard to believe that this user is new to Wikipedia. Beyond that, WP:Canvassing is not appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC) Which is a very inappropriate and untrue comment, as I am in fact a new editor, and I'm not sure what WP:Canvassing is, but I will look it up. Perhaps there also needs to be a rule on WP:Online stalking to be applied editors who follow other from page to page reverting every edit they make? I don't know and perhaps you could inform me on just how to go about suggesting that one be put in place. However I feel that I am getting off topic. I have only been making honest efforts to correct a page that clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:OR by editors who have clearly shown WP:COI . IN any case, 1. I am no more guilty of edit waring than the editors whom you chose NOT to discipline. 2. I have expressed evidence that I am looking for ways other than edit waring to make the needed changes to the page 3. I was the one to come to you about the edit waring in the first place, thus I and at this point of all the parties involved, only I, have demonstrated good faith in trying to correct the situation. Also having looked at WP:canvassing, I noticed it states this "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus. However canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour". (behavior, by the way, is technically misspelled in the rule) Surely, by reading my request to LWG it is clear to see that I am seeking "to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." as I requested that he invite "several neutral editors to come to the page and help rectify the pages negative structure.", I thus requested that he invite editors who would conform to WP:NPOV in hopes of editing the page to be more in line with reality instead of being overrun by those who displayed that they indeed have a WP:COI , so your concern with regards to WP:canvassing seem unwarranted from what I read in the rules. Your block seems to have been for edit waring on the page Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible‎ which confuses me because I have been in discussions with the editor on the page regarding the edits, and have posted messages on their/ his page in an attempt to present an edit he/they feel is acceptable, as is noted below Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible: I am somewhat confused by your continued revert on the page Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible. You have reverted to an edit that has NO CITED SOURCE MATERIAL, and yet, you state that you are reverting my material because you view it as OR....I'm at a loss for what basis you are using in 1. Preferring one edit over the other 2. Declaring that the edit I posted required any additional source material than the bible, which is what the overall article is based on to begin with and therefore the best source for the material under consideration. Please explain, I do not wish to, nor will I continue to engage in an edit war with you over this material, but I would like a reasonable explanation of you actions and your line of thinking on this edit as so far something seems amiss. Thanks.Willietell (talk) 00:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC) DougWeller, I'm going to make another attempt at it and provide a non-biblical source, hopefully it will meet your criteria, if not, since I am a new editor, maybe you can guide me through it, because the information I have put in the edit is factually correct. Hopefully this time I get it right, please don't report me for edit Waring, because that isn't what I'm trying to do here, it's just that I'm new and haven't caught on yet.ThanksWillietell (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC) I think this as well at the conversation posted on the talk page for Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible‎ clearly show that this is not an edit war, but an honest attempt to reach consensus on what source material is considered acceptable and properly cited. I received no warning for edit waring on Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible‎ and therefore don't think that any of the editors involved felt that I was attempting to edit war, Additionally, the last edit I made to the page was prior to you issuing a warning for edit waring, so I am confused again as to this block and must wonder if it is related to your possible relationship with the editor(s) in question on the page Jehovah's Witnesses Beliefs , please explain as as I am considering filing an ANI complaint for abuse of administrator power.Willietell (talk) 18:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) You were warned about edit warring here, and continued edit warring here. I'm not sure what your issue with the block is, and the two other admins who reviewed it both endorsed it. Toddst1 (talk) 18:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC) One of my issues is that my last edit of the page other than in talk, came at 12:38 AM on December 16 shown here; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pharaohs_in_the_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=466114890 Your edit waring warning, the only one I ever received, from you or anyone else, came to me at 4:27 PM on December 16th, a full 16 hours after my last page edit, as shown here; You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC) and I was blocked by you after making no additional edits at 8:35PM on December 16th as shown here; You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Pharaohs in the Bible. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2011 (U Which shows that I first of all received only a single warning, and secondly, that you blocked me even though I made no edits after the warning was given...to me, this indicates that you were committed to blocking me regardless of what I did, and it is of no consequence that other administrators failed to overturn the block, since administrators are directed not to do so without discussing this with the blocking administrator first without very good reason, and I doubt that either of the administrators took the time to conduct a through investigation into the block, one even stating it was only a short block, so take a walk or something. Anyway, I would like a reasonable explanation for your unjustified actions and an apology would seem in order as well.Willietell (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Warning at 04:27, 16 December 2011, more edit warring at 05:38, 16 December 2011, block at 20:35, 16 December 2011. I don't know how much plainer to explain it to you. We're done here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2011 (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. Abuse of administrator authority continued: The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. I am restarting in a new section, because you collapsed the other section on the basis it was a "long diatribe" One of my issues is that my last edit of the page other than in talk, came at 12:38 AM on December 16 shown here; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pharaohs_in_the_Bible&diff=prev&oldid=466114890 Your edit waring warning, the only one I ever received, from you or anyone else, came to me at 4:27 PM on December 16th, a full 16 hours after my last page edit, as shown here; You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 04:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC) and I was blocked by you after making no additional edits at 8:35PM on December 16th as shown here; You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring, as you did at Pharaohs in the Bible. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2011 (U Which shows that I first of all received only a single warning, and secondly, that you blocked me even though I made no edits after the warning was given...to me, this indicates that you were committed to blocking me regardless of what I did, and it is of no consequence that other administrators failed to overturn the block, since administrators are directed not to do so without discussing this with the blocking administrator first without very good reason, and I doubt that either of the administrators took the time to conduct a through investigation into the block, one even stating it was only a short block, so take a walk or something. Anyway, I would like a reasonable explanation for your unjustified actions and an apology would seem in order as well.Willietell (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) Warning at 04:27, 16 December 2011, more edit warring at 05:38, 16 December 2011, block at 20:35, 16 December 2011. I don't know how much plainer to explain it to you. We're done here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC) We are not "done here", the messages are time stamped and clearly the time you would like to assign to my edit is incorrect as it is time stamped as having been completed at 00:38 AM on December 16th and NOT at 5:38 PM as you indicate. Together with the fact that NO ONE editing the page filed any complaint about edit waring and that you chose to "take it upon yourself" to determine that this was taking place without anyone mentioning it to you makes your motives seem questionable at best, I am still awaiting an explanation, not a history log, but an explanation for you apparent misuse of the authority entrusted to you by Wikipedia. Again, please explain.Willietell (talk) 14:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC) I've explained the block as have 2 other admins. It's time to move on. Please don't continue to post here regarding that subject. Continuing to do so will likely be considered WP:TE. Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2011 (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.

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is protection_request. Thank you. causa sui (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User:LAz17

Now, I'm not quite clear on the current status of User:LAz17's limited topic ban, but from what I can make out from the description on WP:ARBMAC, LAz17's is not supposed to engage in "contentious editing on the historical demographics of ex-Yugoslavia". I could be missing something here, but if so, on Yugoslav Partisans he's not only posting edits he knows are opposed on the talkpage (on the basis of WP:OR), but he's also enaged in an edit-war to keep those edits in [46][47][48][49]. Could I ask you to please clarify the situation? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Toddst? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Started looking at this and had to slip away to a meeting. Stand by. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I just want to inform that the article has actually a long-standing dispute, and as much as Laz´s edits are oposed, the edits of the "oposing ones" are also disputed. FkpCascais (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Laz is the only one in the wrong here. However, he violated the unblocking deal and has now been indeffed. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#protection_request Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I know, I know, no problem at all. I was just saying this as sometimes non-involved admins may assume the principle that a blocked user is automatically "wrong" in a dispute. :) FkpCascais (talk) 20:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Pork pie hat edit summ. & crazy IP

Hi, I wish you had not deleted that summary because I was hoping to cite it against this IP editor. This IP needs to be indefblocked but how do we work our way up to it if the behaviour is deleted? Djathinkimacowboy 21:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

IPs aren't indeffed for stuff like this. They're just blocked for successively longer periods of time. I'll be glad to undelete it but not further action can or should be taken wrt the IP. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course; I appreciate that. I was hoping to approach this through proper channels if the time came, that's all. It is pretty clear the IP is gunning for future trouble but we cannot second-guess these editors. Cheers. Djathinkimacowboy 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I've un-deleted it. Knock yourself out. Toddst1 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Todd, did you examine the edit history? I smell a sock, and it makes me nervous to see in IP specifically 'gunning' for Salvio. Salvio blocked IP 58, as you'll see, for silly disruptions and I have to wonder who this weird IP actually is....In any case, I do not have the time or the respect I should have to try to get this IP in trouble. I hoped you would do something. Djathinkimacowboy 22:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The socking isn't extremely apparent. Please {{ipsock}} tag the IP. Toddst1 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how/where to tag. I'm willing, because I think it is proper, but I just don't know where that goes...on the user pp.? Djathinkimacowboy 20:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Everyone can see what this is for, hope it brightens your week. Djathinkimacowboy 20:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar. Who do you think the ip is a sock of? Toddst1 (talk) 20:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, happy to do it. I think actually IP sock of another IP: beginning with 58, which IP was blocked by Salvio. Then this one immediately popped up, looking for Salvio. Ended up cursing another editor and I think was blocked for a week. You know, anons hop IPs to do this and that is what I think happened. Djathinkimacowboy 00:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

About editing issues

Hi, there!

I have some editing issues and need some help from you. Is it okay with you if I write some questions on your talk page??

Thanks in advance.Jsyun true (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Again...

Sorry, but you are familiar with the situation. All and everything i see is WP:DE, even without any special example. See for your self. Constant removing of everything that is not Albanian, diff, diff adding of Albanian where is irrelevant, diff, or not quite true diff. Bad faith reports diff (WP:BOOMERANG)... As you blocked this user just over month ago, for similar nationalistic removal of Serbian related data on Kosovo, it looks like user is not willing to cooperate, despite WP:ARBMAC warnings and block. This is simply too much. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 02:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:176.92.120.167

Hi, are we certain that the quoted edit was vandalism? The Real Madrid website here (click on Statistics) appears to support the IP's edit? Best, TerriersFan (talk) 19:06, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, no. Unsourced number changes reported to AIV are usually taken on face value as number vandalism - especially on the heels of a previous block. I have unblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 19:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks; if he really is a vandal I suspect that this is only temporary but I think that we need a clearer example. Best, TerriersFan (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, the infobox includes figures from home league matches only, not European matches, Cup matches etc, but the IP insists on adding these figures despite being told not to do so. He's been doing this since 13 Dec and doesn't seem like he plans to stop. What's the best course of action here? El0i (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:DR Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, Laz, and subsequent problems

Sorry to bother you Toddst1, but I am having unfortunatelly some problems regarding the aftermath of this earlier discussion. As agreed, a discussion on article talk page is taking place, however some participants are not behaving adequatelly. Initially, the thread opened by Laz was not taken seriously by User:DIREKTOR and some other participants. Subsequently, I took the initiative to discuss the issues that brought the article into that state in order to archive progress. Despite the agreement of some users that the article needs to be worked out, DIREKTOR has decided to invade the thread with a series of large comments in which he limited himself to make personal observations including unfounded missinforming semi-personal attacks (not quite WP:PA but almost). Making myself an effort not derail the discussion I tried to take the discussion into specific article content. I opened a new subsection where specific issues could be worked out, however for time being, while I did my part of analising sources and citing appropriate policies, DIREKTOR has been using a disruptive behavior which absolutelly provides nothing to problem solution, and as cherry of the cake, it adds trolling to the discussion. Just as note, I will like to say that it is preciselly this behavior of DIREKTOR that often gives a wrong message to new users on how disruption is allowed on WP discussions, and as DIREKTOR is more familiarised with WP procedures, it allways ends up being a trapp for other users disagreing with him for them to be blocked. I am not talking specifically about Laz19, but he has certainly also experienced that, just as many other users in the past. I dare to say that DIREKTOR´s behavior is being disruptive, as it makes dispute resolutions impossible.

If you feel more appropriate for me to take this thread to some other venue, please tell me, I just came to you as you were already involved in the previous discussion, and hoping you could spare us some time to help us, as I am not being able to put things going there. FkpCascais (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I just forgot to let you know where the discussions are taking place, here: Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#mediation followed by next thread Talk:Yugoslav_Partisans#Content_dispute. FkpCascais (talk) 23:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

MESSAGE

Hello. You have a new message at Djathinkimacowboy's talk page.

Dealing with Underhill postings

Hello, I am an expert in the Underhill family, having spent literally hundreds of hours researching the origins of the family in England and their spread to America. At many times along the Wikipedia has been a helpful tool to organize my research, and to make connections with other researchers/writers/scholars that I would not have otherwise made. In every instance where notability has been challenged, I've worked to add sources and strengthen articles. My intention is to continue doing so, though it would be helpful to have specific recommendations about areas to improve in each article, instead of simply flagging every article with RFD's. When improvements have been made, it would also be helpful to remove existing RFD tags such as on the Estelle Skidmore Doremus which has been greatly improved. I am a fairly patient person, though if we are unable to come to some kind of an agreement here, I'm like to stop making contributions to Wikipedia out of discouragement. Placepromo (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I see no indication of notability - specifically in-depth coverage other than an obit or primary sources. That's a good place to start. Toddst1 (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I have taken a close look at the Wikipedia notability guidelines. They are very clear that notability does not depend on things like "fame, importance, or popularity." I believe that I have demonstrated "Significant coverage" beyond just obituaries for Estelle Skidmore Doremus and Underhill Society of America. I would appreciate if you consider removing the RFD's those pages. Meanwhile, I hope you realize that I am really to meet the standards of Wikipedia and to be fair in my dealings with you and others. I am a highly educated person with a deep commitment to this subject matter and a determination to get it right. Hopefully you will see that and we will be able to work together. Thanks.Placepromo (talk) 17:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess the AFDs will give you the answer if they are notable enough for articles or not. Toddst1 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry X'mas~!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®}is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hi

Hi, user Twafotfs that you blocked is now harassing me and threatning me on his talk page [50]. It seems the user will continue to be like he was before the block when the block is removed later. I dont like being threatend with reports by anyone so I find that this behaviour should lead to an extension of the users block. The user has also tried to evade his block yesterday via an IP which was blocked for a week. Sincerely--BabbaQ (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way Merry Christmas to you and your family.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Amanda Lindhout

See my edit there. Shame this wasn't found by one of the involved editors, as it makes it clear that the statement she worked for France 24 was indeed made but only to help her and was not in fact correct. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Even though Dougweller is right about the particular edit,in my opinion that doesnt justify the user in questions harassments and threats from earlier today on his talk page towards me. And the block was correct. Anway if the user is prepared to behave and move on like I will I dont see a problem.--BabbaQ (talk) 14:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' Noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "User:La goutte de pluie". Thank you. Ta.  Chzz  ►  00:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I have unblocked User:La goutte de pluie. I am concerned that you saw fit to block her given your involvement in the dispute. The first block appears to have been a reaction to her restoring an edit you had reverted - as it was far from unambiguous vandalism - that block was unacceptable. A 1 month block in response to the later editing was then disproportinate and, in any event, you should not have been the blocking admin. I suggest you leave any future admin action in relation to User:La goutte de pluie to others and concentrate on resolving any differences of opinion as to what material should be tagged on the appropriate talkpages etc. WJBscribe (talk) 01:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Asking for clarification, ~WJBscribe: why "you should not have been the blocking admin"?  Chzz  ►  04:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Because he thought so, apparently. Apparently we're not that smart. Toddst1 (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Underhill articles

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Underhill Society of America, and related articles on family members". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Placepromo (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is the AFD process not sufficient? It looks a bit like WP:Canvass but I'm not going to make a big deal out of it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Because other than yourself the articles have not elicited special interest. This is especially true since they have been updated. Honestly, I have half a mind to remove the AFD's where I feel they are spurious, though I realize that would invite even greater scrutiny which would not help. I'd really appreciate if you'd come half way here and consider revisiting your position. Everything is not black and white. Often there are shades of gray. Placepromo (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Toddst1 (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

I've never seen discussion moved out of AfDs like you are doing. I do not believe it is acceptable. Policy discussion is part of how AfDs are evaluated. I request that you restore the material. If you don't, I will. You have no permission to move my comments. Yworo (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, I've restored it. If you move or remove comments again, I will take it to WP:AN/I for review. Yworo (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Ok. No intent to disrupt. Explanation of basic policy is sometimes moved or collapsed. Toddst1 (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

LAz17

Per what request is LAz17 unblocked? You unblocked a user that had created a sockpuppet shortly after he was blocked and admitted the matter on his own talkpage GibbonGiboo (talk · contribs). [51] I'm curious to know how many times users are allowed to cross the line which they are told not to. I'm also curious to know whether this request is the discussion in which he, sneakingly through a file he links, refers to me as "PRODUCER ustaska govnarcina" = "PRODUCER the Ustase shithead". [52] As for his misinformation: I had doubt that he had the source because previously he defended ethnic makeup figures that were manipulated by an IP from the same source as being accurate. [53] [54] Also, it was only after he was blocked that he provided the relevant requested section. While discussion was ongoing he simply provided a scan of the front page. Your decision is truely bewildering Todd.-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Producer was doing tenacious editing and removing sourced information. After I gave sources - multiple sources too, and went as far as scanning things to prove that I had the materials and was not making things up, Producer still went out of his way to disregard that material. He does not have good intent, or assumes that I do not have good intent. Whatever the reason might be, I feel that for me it is not worthwhile pursuing matters with him because he feels he and his views are correct, despite what any sources may say. There is only one solution when it comes to this, and that is mediation. That page has had problems for a very long time. Time and time again sources have been used improperly and have been miscited - not by me but by other people and by anonymous users. The talk page shows a lot of problems, mostly between direktor and me... to sum it up it's basically his threats at me and pointless discussion and his denial of his bad sourcing. Even when obvious things show that I am correct, what I think gets shunned. My only goal has been to get to the bottom of things by providing correct information with good sources. What I got in response to that is rude behavior and content blanking of sourced information. I had good intent. I tried. It failed, and these guys have been very rude and not supportive in improving the article. But that's okay, as I trust that mediation will limit their ability to say "no" when the sources say "yes". I will proceed with mediation after the holidays pass... orthodox christmas is on january 7th so I figure that anyone who might be willing to participate would be back by january 10th. In the meantime I would ask that Producer stops harassing me and looking to ban people - he recently requested user FkpCascais to be banned.[55] (LAz17 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).

Regarding producer's comment on ethnic make up and his editing... I did not defend things that were put by an IP. I defended complete blanking done by Producer. I did not know that an IP edited stuff, what I knew is that the information was there for a long time and that it's not fair to simply delete something so blatantly. The least that one can do is to investigate it and look into weather or not it is correct. If it is cited falsely then it should be cited properly. If producer had his way that would still be blanked. What's worse, he put false figures in and a source which does not even mention ethnic composition of the group. When I added a correct source he deleted it. Bad intention from him, or he thinking that I had bad intentions... whichever it is, mediation will solve the problems as it will limit him in his tenacious editing. Also Toddst1, do look right under Producer's own link, [56]. It mentions something about a Sisak uprising. Direktor inserted that into the article and claimed that this was the first partizan unit. This is a common myth that some croatians believe in. In fact direktor's own source says that this group in Sisak had nothing to do with the partisans. What does he do when I tell him that this is wrong and should be removed? He threatens me! [i]Touch it and you will find yourself immediately reported for POV content blanking. That is all.[/i] was his statement. So I hope you see what is going on here. We have an extremely unencyclopediatic article which is in desperate need of mediation. Producer does not want this to happen and is trying to get all users who disagree with his ideas banned. Because quite frankly, if FkpCascais and myself get banned then there is nobody to file a mediation, as it seems that other users have not been too interested in the article. That's his goal, to avoid mediation and fixing of the page. If you indeed think that producer is right in his requests to ban me, then at least do it after the mediation has started. I want to be able to submit all my sources first, to present the case. My only goal is a good solution, a good article on wikipedia. (LAz17 (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).

AE

This unblock was mentioned on WP:AE (in the FkpCascais section) it would actually be of benefit to us uninvolved sysops who are reviewing the FkCascais issue to see the agreement/request/reasoning behind LAz17's unblock (to see what the state of play is in this wider dispute) if you get a chance--Cailil ^talk 20:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cailil. My thinking was that my indef block was rather harsh as the editor was actively working to resolve the dispute at hand when I blocked him/her. It would be hard to characterize his/her active attempts at DR as disruption.

I wasn't aware of issues that occurred after my block - only reconsidering my own actions. I am not opposed to any other admin re-blocking if you or others deem appropriate. Hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Toddst1--Cailil ^talk 03:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

SPI

LAz17 has apparently created a sock account for evading his blocks. I've reported the case here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The sock was blocked too, so your evasion theory is somewhat flawed as the evasion had been stopped. (LAz17 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).

Toddst1, I hope you don´t mind a comment of mine about this issue, as involves a same dispute in which I am involved. LAz17 is a young unnexperienced editor. At begining I had several problems with him on completely unrelated articles to the ones we are dealing nowadays. I noteced that you gave him a chance. Honestly, for me in the dispute it may be as beneficial as not. His unknolledge of certain policies may well be prejuditial to his arguments, including the valid ones. However, he did improved and, mostly, he understood the importance of reliable sources (something that gives me hopes). In case of assuming good-faith and allowing him to participate, something I don´t oppose, it should stay clear that the discussion of article content should not suffer from unrelated disruption, and LAz17 should definitelly take some time to read and familiarise himself with all policies, as I am fed up of the other side taking dispute advantages because of policy mistakes donne by some users. His last initiatives are quite noble, as he favours a fair dispute resolution which will include a third party arbitration. It is actually the other side who wants to avoid discussion at all cost, as by means of numerical advantage and edit-war got their edits to be placed. So, whatever is decided I´ll agree, however some aspects of this dispute should be taken into account, as one side is for time being clearly favoured with no reason. Wishing you best regards and happy Hollydays, I apologise if my comment was inconvenient. FkpCascais (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The guy is an editor of five years [57] (two more than you FkpCascais) with thousands of edits, numerous reports, warnings, sanctions, three confirmed socks, and several topic ban violations I do not quite understand how he got out of. He's what you call a "grizzled heavyweight". That is not to say you aren't more careful than he is, but that's a lot different than what you claim. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 21:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

User Twaftofs has started an offending thread about me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Just to let you know.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know that the user has reverted your question on his talk page as harassment. And the user has also made comments about you on the closed discussion see here.. The user is also continuing its campaign against me writing insulting comments to many users about me. --BabbaQ (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way Happy New Year!!--BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 31 December 2011 (UTC)