User talk:Toddst1/Archive 10

Mack EH talk
I am talking about this here:Administrators' noticeboard. Sammy D III (talk) 17:56, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no way I can apologize enough for effectivly slandering you. I wanted to put an apology where others could see it, but it isn't enough. Sammy D III (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

List of people from Jersey
Re List_of_people_from_Jersey the name I re-added is notable on the French Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Curb Safe Charmer (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If so, then create the article.  Toddst1 (talk) 21:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Will do; away on holiday at the moment and I will need to translate the French page. 21:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Macomb Community College
Hi Todd: Replying to your question about my connection to Macomb Community College. I am the manager of communications and was asked a couple of years ago to work on the College's Wikipedia page because it contained inaccuracies, misspellings and other embarrassments. I am a trained and experienced journalist with a nearly 30-year history with the college - making me probably one of the most knowledgeable contributors to Macomb's page. I understand the concern about Conflict of Interest and that is why I am taking great pains to be as factual as possible. I am not trying to "sell" Macomb. I had done a basic rewrite about a year ago but returned in the past couple of days when it was brought to my attention that the page contained a notation about the lack of citations. That is what I am attempting to rectify now. I hope this alleviates any concerns you or any other members of the Wikipedia staff had. Marysatmacomb (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC) marysatmacomb.
 * You should [have] declare(d) this on your user page per the message left by JudgeRM. I've updated Talk:Macomb Community College to reflect your connection.  Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Free software
You had undone some of my edits related to free software. My edits were however not nonconstructive. Please familiarize yourself with the topic. And have a pleasant 2017! 80.223.108.129 (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh. The articles say they're free.   You say they aint.  WP:PROVEIT.     Toddst1 (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion query
Hi Toddst1,

Hope you're well! I'm quite new to Wikipedia so apologies if this is the wrong way to do this... Getting in touch as I noticed you deleted Emily Dean's page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Dean

If I provide links to substantiate her page, would it be possible to get it back up and running?

X1c 95 (talk) 14:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would start with WP:AFC, but you'll have a pretty tough time after Articles for deletion/James Battams.   What's your connection to Dean? Toddst1 (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh dear
...you can't even get the right guideline right. this was the guideline you wanted. Please could you explain where about it says Infoboxes are compulsory? .  Cassianto Talk   19:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They aint. But you don't get to arbitrarily prohibit them.  Toddst1 (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The F Bomber
Hi T. The actions of this editor are beyond the scope of AIV. If you wish to pursue the matter, ANI is the obvious venue for this drama, though chances of a solution are limited. Favonian (talk) 19:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks.  I've given ANI a shot. Toddst1 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

famousbirthdays.com
Hi Toddst1. I'm in the process of removing famousbirthdays.com as a source from Wikipedia, because it's not reliable (See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153). I noticed that you've added it, realizing it's poor. We already have IMDb as an external link, which has the same info. I've looked for something better, but am not finding anything. Given BLP, I'd rather leave it out. What do you think? Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 19:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Either way. IMDB is pretty unreliable too.  Let's pull it.  Toddst1 (talk) 05:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Already done. Thanks. I've been looking for experienced editors like yourself that have been weighing these sources over carefully in the small, poorly sourced articles like Kenny Doughty, to see what perspectives others may have. You're making it easy. Thanks again. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me know if you want me to look at others. Glad to help. Toddst1 (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. Other links that are unreliable sources, other articles, or something else? I've been putting together a list of other links that look unreliable and widely used as I've been tracking famousbirthdays.com links: ethnicelebs.com, jrank.org, thefamouspeople.com, notablebiographies.com, and prabook.com. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Never mind. I think I'm confused.   Toddst1 (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

AFD
With respect to your recent nomination, I'm sorry, but I didn't see discussion or consensus pertaining to the two articles you nominated in a batch ... all comments seem to reference the singular subject of the "main" nom. If you see it differently, please let me know; otherwise, my guess would be relisting them for an additional 7 days would probably yield a straightforward delete result.  Go  Phightins  !  04:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I wondered if I was screwing that up when I nominated the others.  I'll resubmit the one remaining to AFD.  Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Medri Bahri
Have you looked at the citations being added on the page? I opened a section on the talk page. Duqsene (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Re:January 2017
Hello Toddst1. I did made use of edit summary. The place Rigopiano is not a frazione of Farindola. There are no sources (expecially in Italian, neither on the official site of the municipality) that states that. Please, revert edits with more caution.

Regards, --Horcrux92 (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh please. The problem is that the source for stating that the place is a frazione is missing. There is no edit war, simply a user convinced that something is different from reality and has no source for referencing it. --Horcrux92 (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me with all these pre-compiled messages? I am not a newbie. The user is an it.wiki user, and he most probably knows Italian better than English. Frankly, if he did not complain, I don't see why you should. --Horcrux92 (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're not a newbie, then you should know better than edit warring and not communicating in English. Toddst1 (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The link you have removed (i.e. the one I mentioned above) is pefectly working. --Horcrux92 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it returns the same error if I try to save it on web.archive.org. Maybe it is accessible only in Italy? Regarding the edit warring, I just told you that was not an edit war: I was the ony one who used the edit summary, and the other (and even you!) rollbacked without motivation. But if you want to continue keeping the point, do it. See you, rollbacker. --Horcrux92 (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. You should know that if you reply to me in your talk page I don't get any kind notification if you don't ping me. I hope I don't have to keep in my watchlist all the usertalk in which I write.

Re: Bloody Sunday disambiguation page
As far as I know, we have never even edited the same page, must less communicated in any way. Perhaps seen an edit while doing pending changes work. I have no idea why the heat. What I do know, from cleaning up conflict over what deserves the title 'Bloody Sunday a year or two ago, is that this is'' a fraught subject that has ramifications into problematical areas (from my knowledge, the march in Selma vs. event in Ireland.

And, as a disclaimer, this note is sent here entirely because of W's reaction to my note at T. Edit warring was never the problem to my mind. I just don't want W to stray even further into actionable failure to assume good faith. Whew! I'm old enough to have lived through fifty years (as an adult) of the events on that page, then reversions for the reasons mentioned above on that page, and now this comedy. I intend to let the page stand while I follow different options. The failure to AGF, well, that's up to you. I hope no further drama is necessary. But thanks for being interested in the subject. — Neonorange (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've interacted with either of you.  My view is while the other editor is correct in the WP:MOSDAB stuff, s/he appears to be far too rigid in the IAR areas and not interested in interaction to discuss or consider exceptions. Don't even think about questioning his/her actions!  It appears s/he is an engineer .  Go figure.    Toddst1 (talk) 21:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand. Oddly enough, many years ago I started out in physics, thinking that understanding how the universe works is the most important thing. Only later did I come to thinking that understanding people and physical reality are both necessary. It is important to understand how machines work; it is important to understand how people work—it is even more important to understand the difference. On Wikipedia I mainly follow American novelists and civil rights, and other political movements. From software engineer (before that was a thing) to documentary filmmaking—and here I am. Nice to exchange views. — User:Neonorange (Phil) 21:42, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement 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 Articles for deletion/Presidential Memorandum Regarding Withdrawal of the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiations and Agreement 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Yo
Why did you remove that donors helped make OC!?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThunderStrokeMedia (talk • contribs) 00:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * They donated, they didn't "found." What's your connection to the school? Toddst1 (talk) 01:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's renovate the electro swing page. It's basically a decade out of date and rife with innaccuracy.
I noticed that some recent changes were made to the electro swing page and then it was summarily gutted, leaving it more threadbare than before. This is a problem as the page does not even remotely reflect the current state of the genre, nor what's been taking place over the past decade.

It has spread to America, and with some force, becoming a fixture at Burning Man, Electric Forest, and San Francisco's Edwardian Ball [warrants an article unto itself]. There are many more artists to name who are not mentioned here, from C@ in the H@ [Richard Shawcross, organizer of Swingamajig] to The Vaudevillainz of Los Angeles.

I know the man who made those recent edits and he means well, but I understand that he doesn't get the required tone of these articles, nor the need for objective citation. I however am a journalist and would love to take some time with you when you're available and sketch out some updates for the article. Imagine, if you will, if glitch-hop or dubstep had articles which were basically devoid of updated information from the last 10 years. It would be a travesty, as it is here.

So please, take this into consideration, and let's work together on bringing this page into the present decade. After all, we only have a few years until it's the 20's again.

Take care, Sam Baker — Preceding unsigned comment added by FrankFitzgerald (talk • contribs) 18:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Dog tags
Hello, I'm new here and didn't know exactly where to respond to your message so I started a new one. I had attempted to contribute my personal experience regarding the subject of DOG TAGS and, as might disappointingly be expected, my comments, although not in any way intended to be harmful, were simply deleted.

Is it not possible at Wikipedia to contribute facts regarding something as banal as Army Dog Tags without providing a source, especially when there is no source other than one's own personal experience? In this case I am the source myself, having worn dog tags in the US Army which I still wear. Someone wrote everything in Wikipedia, and much of the material simply describes a subject and is not quoted from a source somewhere. You tell us how overloaded you are and ask for support here, open up your texts for editing, but then remove harmless edited text?

I am a registered Wikipedia user. The paragraph which I added was certainly not derogatory or otherwise insulting, fit in well, could be proven to be truthful, and IMO provided additional info to anyone desiring to read about US Army dog tags. So would it not have been possible to ask me to verify myself as a source in some predefined manner which Wikipedia would of course define, rather than just exerting your authority and deleting the text which I had posted and which I had not thought it necessary to back up?

At the moment I am left with the opinion that Wikipedia is a rather unfriendly place where people ride on high horses and what they say is Law, instead of providing an environment where it is possible to profit from the experience of those who know first hand what the subject is about. I'd be overjoyed if you'd prove me wrong. Of course I realize that Wikipedia is certainly not a forum, and that it cannot be made possible for members to simply post whatever they like.

OK, I've said my piece. Should it still be possible, I would appreciate it if I could at least be sent the text from the paragraph which I had attempted to contribute. I hadn't felt that a backup was necessary at a secure place like Wikipedia ...

All the best, RalphRalphdno (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Ralphdno (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC) ralphdnATgmxDOTde — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Ralphdno (talk • contribs) 01:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi .  Thanks for your lengthy and thoughtful reply.     You've pretty much hit it on the head - your personal experience doesn't count for anything here.  See Five pillars - specifically the last sentence in the second pillar.    We rely on one major principle for contribution: Verifiability.  Your experiences aren't verifiable.   Toddst1 (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Fine, your response has little or nothing to do with my posting, of course; see this, see that. You've succeeded in reducing your feedback by chasing away another interested user. As described above, only got one lifetime and better things to do than study to qualify for posting here. Good luck guys.

All the best, RalphRalphdno (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphdno (talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , Well played WP:TANTRUM. Toddst1 (talk) 15:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not leaving Wikipedia, no need, disagreements are normal .. just this particular dialog. All the best, RalphRalphdno (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Ralphdno (talk) 16:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphdno (talk • contribs) 16:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you appreciate that I honestly did try to explain why your stuff was reverted.  I don't make the rules here.   The content you added is permanently in the archive.  See here:    Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

IRT Broadway-Seventh Avenue Line and IND Sixth Avenue Line
The "history" section already talks about former services that served that line. We do not need to put them in the "Extent and Services" section. Also, many other services have served other lines in the past. For example, the V and also served the IND Queens Boulevard Line, the  and  served the Sixth Avenue Line, the  and  used to serve the BMT Fourth Avenue Line, the  and  used to service the BMT West End Line, the  and  used to serve the IRT New Lots Line, the  used to serve the IND Concourse Line, the  and  used to serve the BMT Astoria Line and so forth. Unless you plan on going to every one of those line articles and put in historical services, there should be no reason these two should have them. Also, I am not Kew Gardens 613.
 * I wrote this on 's talk page, where this user posted first: In regards to the above comment, ... I tend to agree with their removals, if only because these information are already sourced in the "history" section of each line's article, and the "extent and service" sections of these pages only talk about the current services. epicgenius (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove posts that are against your personal opinion.
Toddst1 - Please do not remove entries on New York Times that are fully cited (Rolling Stone, NPR) and valid, irregardless of your personal bias. Doing so insinuates that sources such as NRP are not credible, and furthermore violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker315 (talk • contribs) 19:21, January 27, 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove posts that are against your personal opinion on Gross National Happiness.
Toddst1 - Please do not remove entire sections or entries that are cited and valid. I can understand that you may want to clean the article in good faith, but good faith works in both directions. Quickly deleting entire sections that were seen and accepted for years by other contributors/editors, and without reading the cited sources is not helpful. Also making edits based on select reading of one sentence without a context and ignoring other sentences in source article can be seen as bias.

The article is about GNH, its origin and later developments. The entries you removed, cite articles that clearly state they are different versions, but based on the same GNH. If you took the time to read the source articles (not just the entries on wikipedia, which can be incomplete), you will discover GNW states it is a second generation GNH. Whoever wrote the disambiguation he or she probably meant about the versions. The source article state that GNW = GNH 2.0 It is global secular GNH vs. Bhutan GNH Index is local and spiritual. Both cite the King's GNH philosophy. Today, you have Thailand GNH, American GNH and Bhutan GNH, Indian GNH initiatives and others. They all are later developments of the same GNH. Again: They have GNH in their name and cite the King's GNH as the origin or for their initiative. So you cannot say they are unrelated.

Also please consider Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. As an editor, I ask you to help make more balanced edits. For example, keeping unrelated critical information about Bhutan in the GNH article is unbalanced editing. If someone does not like the King's policy or Bhutan for their ethnic cleansing, they can write it in separate article about Bhutan or the King. This article is about GNH as a development philosophy. Trying to remove GNH related information and keeping negative political information can be see as biased edits that are anti GNH or favor initiatives competing with GNH or simply anit Bhutan. The edits about ethnic cleansing should go into Bhutan page. GNH philosophy is not about ethnic policy. I hope you will consider the above suggestions, when you finalize your edits. - Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.90.13.192 (talk) 23:59, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your edits are against the consensus that was reached on the article's talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * One cannot claim consensus just because one person agrees with them. I suggest that you keep it open for discussion before you quickly delete it. I hope you actually take time read the above. Objective editors do change their minds when presented with more information. I also need your help in setting up a page to become an regular editor, like you. Can you please provide me with links? Thanks

J.LeGras
How can i change my username for my wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeGrasMusic (talk • contribs) 15:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * See Changing username. However, you should write about something else.  Toddst1 (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

The Last Word; Special:Diff/762767010
Hmm, I don't think my edit was vandalism, I've actually removed vandalism... 95.49.35.135 (talk) 16:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

You say that you took down my edit on "Attack On Titan" because you thought it did not seem constructive or whatever. Let me say this: my edit filled in some details that the original plot on that page left out. And if you think I don't know what I'm talking about, I have been an active reader of the Attack On Titan manga since it began. So let me ask you this again: Just what part of my edit is not constructive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asianpeng8 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I may have been wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Sally Yates
Sorry about the mess I made, it was not my intention to remove anything at all. In fact, all I wanted to do was change one or two words, and then go and get some refs to expand the article, because what I saw didn't include all the stuff you restored. All I can imagine is that I EC'd with someone. Thanks for fixing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:35, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It *did* seem a bit out of context character for you, but I'm all for being BOLD once in a while.  Toddst1 (talk) 20:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I just figured it out. I had forgotten that I was looking at an older version of the page, and edited (and saved) it, thus deleting everything that had been added since.  My bad, and thanks again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Crossgates Mall
I'm trying to decide if you need a barnstar or a bottle of Scotch. Thank you for your leadership with this one. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer the scotch. :) Thanks.  Toddst1 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Paul Thelen
The Bio page for me was originally done by some venture capital instestor. I updated the page a few times to keep it up to date. It looks like that flagged it for a COI. While i am obviously conflicted, the material is not as it is fairly dry and factual. Do you have any suggestions on how to have this page rewritten by an editor without a COI? Paul Paulthelen (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC) February 13, 2017
 * I recommend you comment on the talk page and refrain from editing the article. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Jasbir Puar
The problem is that the section in question doesn't present the opinion pieces it cites as statements of opinion; it presents it as statements of fact (ie, saying "this is what her talk consisted of.") An opinion piece cannot be used to support a statement of fact, even outside a BLP; but using it in a BLP is erogenous enough that I felt it had to be removed immediately. Please do not restore it; as written, it's an extremely unambiguous WP:BLP violation (which is why I removed it again before coming here to explain; BLPs are sensitive enough that we have to err on the side of caution.) If her speech actually consisted of what those opinion pieces claim, it should be easy to find higher-quality, non-opinion-pieces stating those facts. --Aquillion (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. I'll buy that. Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Rodney Frelinghuysen Article
Hello Toddst1 -- I am responding to your message, which is reproduced below, regarding my edits to the Rodney Frelinghuysen page. While I agree that wikipedia articles should have a neutral point of view, I strongly disagree with the removal of my edit from the page. My edit was factual in nature and did not misrepresent any facts or statements. Rodney Freylinghuysen has not held a town hall meeting with his constituents in more than three years and has not yet announced that he will have a town hall meeting despite the repeated demands of his constituents. I cited to a reputable newspaper article for the paper of record in Morris County, NJ, which is Mr. Frelinghuysen's district. There was nothing factually inaccurate about this edit. In fact, by removing that edit, I believe that you are the one that has made a less than neutral edit on the page. Facts are, by definition, neutral. If I edited Ted Bundy's page to say he was a convicted serial killer, I do not think that edit would be reverted for lack of neutrality. The edit I made and the link that I provided as a reference are accurate and factual.

Dmoses816 (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see you're here to set the facts straight about things.  Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You then sent me to a link that says that "on Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses." That is exactly what I did -- the Daily Record is the "mainstream media" in Morris County. However, in the spirit of compromise, I will proposed the following edit, linking to the same article, "Mr. Freylinghuysen has not held a town hall meeting in more than three years."

Dmoses816 (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing you didn't vote for him. Toddst1 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

My personal voting preference is irrelevant and further makes me question the purported "neutrality" of your edit. Dmoses816 (talk) 21:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Question all you want. My point is you obviously don't understand our five pillars - especially the one about not coming here to "get that SOB".  Toddst1 (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. I have read the pillars and are quite familiar with them. I made a factual edit with proper sourcing to a reputable news outline. Understanding your concern about neutrality, I have since made it even more overtly factual and even more devoid of any opinion or statement, and have added an additional citation to the New York Times. If you believe this most recent edit remains suspect, I would ask you to further explain to me why, particularly when his page also mentions things such as him chasing down a pick pocketer

Dmoses816 (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Good. Now ask yourself why that article is subject to pending changes review - which is why I reviewed it. I've told you why I rejected it, now stop badgering me.   Toddst1 (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

It is subject to changes pending review because you are refusing to allow people to post factual statements with the proper support due to your obvious political bias and prejudice. You are censoring the free flow of public information as a result of your obvious political leanings and bias. This is not why wikipedia was founded, and you are doing a disservice to the freedom of information everywhere.

Dmoses816 (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's it. Now move along.  Go argue with the next guy that reverts your pending change  for all the right reasons.    Toddst1 (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The Pyramid Companies
Just a quick question about your removal of the Controversy section on The Pyramid Companies page. Did you remove it because it related more to the Walden Galleria than to TPC or because there was only one source? SortaScience (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed it because there was no evidence of a controversy presented. It just said the mall had a policy that any store that did not open on that day would be fined upwards of $200.  That is not a controversy.  Toddst1 (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Emily Wright
The discography section for Emily Wright was removed, a section that has been active for years. I went through and added a number of sources. Can you please elaborate how these are not valid?68.9.114.97 (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Unsourced and unverifiable. WP:BURDEN says it's your problem.  Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
Hello, I'm Nihonjoe. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''See this edit. Please do not act without good faith like this. There is no reason to be rude.'' ··· 日本穣  ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 00:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that's the truth. Get over it.   Your Jewcleanser soft block sucked as I pointed out.  Toddst1 (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hard blocking someone doesn't it make it any harder to relogin. Anyone with half a brain can get around such blocks with hardly any effort. A hard block just makes us feel better and think we've done something right. It's pretty much just a feel-good measure. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 01:02, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, you're right.  Good job with the template above.  Toddst1 (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarification
In a discussion here on your talk page you said "Jewcleanser". What were you referring to? Magnolia677 (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring to a vandalism only account that should have been hard-blocked for the name alone instead of being soft-blocked and encouraged to create a new user (and continue vandalising) which they did.   Toddst1 (talk) 01:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * For any other TPS folks (always welcome), the relevant discussion to go along with this is User_talk:Nihonjoe. Silly me, questioning a bureaucrat's actions.  Toddst1 (talk) 01:52, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Why are you being such an ass about things? Yes, the first block was a soft block. Yes, they created a new account (which I also blocked, hard this time, and I changed the initial block, too). Are you so amazing that you never do anything which could be perceived as a mistake? If you treat everyone this way, you'll eventually have no one who gives a damn about anything you say, and everyone will ignore requests you make. And my being a 'crat has absolutely nothing to do with with this particular bee in your bonnet, so stop throwing out red herrings. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 20:53, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for using the word "mistake." Up until now you've been defending your actions as justified while putting me on the defensive.  I have a special place in my heart for anti-semitic trolls and  expect our admin community to deal with them effectively.   Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * My actions were justified. They weren't what you wanted, but what you want is not necessarily relevant in all cases. I don't really object to you pointing out that the situation may have been handled slightly differently, however. My objection is to how you have been doing it. There is never a reason to be rude about something. A simple, "I think it might have been better to use a hard block instead of a soft block." would have worked just as well, and would not have been rude. I dislike anti-anything trolls, so I'm with you there. All I ask is that you try to be more diplomatic in how you do things like this. We are all on the same team here. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 22:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I saw it and wasn't even going to write, because I knew there was a context I was missing. With good people there always is.  All the best.  Magnolia677 (talk) 02:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Daniel Belardinelli and Robert Sundholm
I have read your comments and thank you for the educational materials. I was unaware of some of the policies and how my actions were being perceived. As far as the infobox goes, I had developed the original early on with verified facts and a photo but recently updated the article with new information and a photo. I removed the original info box because I made it a bit long and most of the information was already in the article so I thought it best removed because it was redundant. If other editors feel the infobox is necessary please correct the date of birth at least. My intention was not an editing war and I apologize for that appearance. I have only had time to create two articles which were both edited last night. I did my best with both articles. As far as your remarks regarding the Robert Sundholm article I would ask if you have read the attached articles as they verified what I wrote. If you still believe they do not belong in the article then I won't argue the point, but I do not understand. Camimack (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Agricultural Marketing: addition of globalize/West tag
I agree that the first two paragraphs are related to Western countries but almost all of the subsequent discussion relates to developing countries so I do not see the need for this tag. I do, however, agree with the other tag you added. It was my first Wikipedia article many years ago: lessons get learned but I have never got round to amending it. I will now do so, given that there are still a couple of hundred page views a day. As part of this I'll move the offending paras further down in the text. Agricmarketing (talk) 18:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Michel de Klerk, violation
Hi Todd, article Michel de Klerk is violated by User:98.248.33.194. You had contact with this user. Perhaps you can help. Thank you. Leuk, 23:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Email
Is it okay to respond here? Adam9007 (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course. You're also welcome to respond via email.    I'm glad to see you online, and I hope you took what I had to say with the good intent that I sent it.  You're a good editor!  Toddst1 (talk) 03:22, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My email address contains my name, which is why I'm not sure if I should reply to emails via email. I know my talk page says I'm on wikibreak, and I'm trying to keep my word. The only thing keeping me here at the moment is a GAN of Theme Hospital. It's just that Wikipedia is so much stress, I'm beginning to think my health would be better off if I quit. I don't want all my hard "work" on my health undone by being here. No matter what I do here, it's conflict and stress. CSD, BLPPROD, NPP, anti vandalism... you name it, I'm WP:INCOMPETENT and disruptive. I just can't do anything right. I can't remember when I was last properly gay here. Adam9007 (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Dude, it sounds like you've got some stuff going on - I'm don't understand much of what you said, but I get you're having issues. I hope you deal with it well.  At some level, Wikipedia is the opposite of WP:THERAPY.  I've seen both sides of it.  But at the end of the day, take care of yourself.  None of this shit matters.  Seriously!  Feel free to contact me via email.  Hint - sign up for a pseudonymous email like I did. But at the end of the day, take care of yourself.  Toddst1 (talk) 05:26, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Your ping didn't work for some reason . Which bits didn't you understand? Adam9007 (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Freider brothers
Hi Todd, how are you? I would like to write an article about the Freider brother and I will make sure the sources are properly provided. Assuming there are no more issues, I would like to provide a link at the List of Asian Jews with a proper source. I hope that there would be no more issues. Best regards.--Jondel (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Puankhequa
Toddst1, thank you for the message. I am trying to figure out how to use this system, and I am making many mistakes along the way. Your article on Puankhequa is well-written, but it is much out of date. The sources you are using, such as Liang, Dermigny, Kjellberg, and Cheong have many mistakes concerning Puankhequa. I am glad you spotted the correction of Puankhequa NOT-going to Sweden. That change at the Gothenburg City Museum's website was added shortly after I had criticized them for not providing any evidence. I can show from the historical records that he was in China consistently from the late 1740s to his death in 1788. And all historians, foreign and Chinese alike, have taken the name of his later business, Tongwen Hang, and transposed in back in time. But it wasn't established until 1760. Anyway, there are numerous errors concerning him and his family that have now been corrected, which you can find in my book (see the book I added to the Bibliography, Van Dyke 2016). Let me know if you have any questions. And thanks again for your message! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandyke555 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Jews in the Philippine
Hi Todd how are you?--Jondel (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Todd, I apologize. The List of Asian Jews is Reverted to your version. I think we can agree that Emil B. is Jewish? Anyway feel free to revert. It is good there are people like you who maintain the integrity of wiki. I'm going to keep away from wiki for a while.--Jondel (talk) 21:54, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Retirement threats
Hi,

It's not that I throw my toys out of the pram, it's because I can't deal with it, no matter how hard I try. I have great difficulty dealing with such situations in real life, and I'm no good at it here either. I fear I'll just make things worse if I carry on. Adam9007 (talk) 04:47, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok. We all have our own limits. Good luck.  Toddst1 (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Archived ANI page
Todd I had absolutely no idea I was posting on an archived page. I was just responding to a ping and didn't notice. Sorry about that. Coretheapple (talk) 20:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Take it easy with the templated warnings, please. It was obvious pings attracted the other editors. --Neil N  talk to me 20:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point - just lazy. Toddst1 (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Todd, just to be clear, did you realize I had made a mistake (that I didn't know it was an archive page) when you posted on my talk page? Coretheapple (talk) 21:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't know what was up - only that 3 editors were bickering on an important archive page where decisions are supposed to be logged. It did seem really bizarre.  Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Core made one edit to an archive after being pinged, I assume by email with a link. But regardless of that, for one edit there's no need to template someone and threaten them with a block. SarahSV (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually I was pinged on-wiki, not via email. I saw it and responded. Yes, I agree I shouldn't have been threatened, and to be frank I find Toddst's comments above totally inadequate and unacceptable. I deserve an apology for an unwarranted threat, not a "oh dear me I was lazy" comment to a third party. Coretheapple (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Let's get back to basics: Please discern the difference between a properly applied warning to stop disruptive (intentional or not) editing and a threat. If you are so thin-skinned that you can't handle being told you're doing something very wrong then, perhaps you should do something else. Toddst1 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Screwing around with ANI Archive pages is not cool - either accidentally or not. They are where records of ANI discussions and decisions are kept.
 * If you continued that behavior after being warned, it would arguably be a blockable offense.
 * What I was saying was lazy, was me not writing you a personalized note to tell you that you were doing something way careless or out of bounds and and should stop right away because of the points above. Writing such note is not an obligation, but why we have the templates.

There's plenty of reason to template in this case as well as not to template. DTTR is merely an essay. Thanks for your opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you are so thin-skinned that you can't admit a blatant error you shouldn't be an administrator. Coretheapple (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Silly me. Toddst1 (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

RFAR declined
Since Jondel has resigned adminship, your case request is moot and has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  19:12, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I'm happy he spared us the drama of a case. I'm sorry it took an RFAR to get there.   Toddst1 (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Thank you for demonstrating how "sensible" contributions of even a high ranked "Master Editor IV" can be: Btw, all the time, people throw around their threats without looking what has happened already. There is no time never for looking around. There is time only for one's own strong emotions.
 * 1) The "war partner" started with his completely erroneous contribution (which blatantly showed his reluctance to read the article prior to damaging it).
 * 2) Together with my second revert of his (20:05, 7 May 2017) I already (20:06, 7 May 2017 UTC) started a discussion on the respective talk page. Indeed, just as you did propose later in your remarkable contribution.
 * 3) On 01:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC) the war partner gives way on that talk page – completely in my sense.
 * 4) On 01:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC) you place your great threat on my talk page. Completely disregarding the started discussion.
 * 5) (Not to mention that you could have threatened the responsible war partner as well.)

But now the case as such is settled. And I wish you better luck with your forthcoming "Master Editor IV" interventions. --Nomen4Omen (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , That's all good but none of that will stop you from being blocked for continuing to edit war. Reverting to the correct version is never an excuse for WP:EW.   Please discern the difference between a properly applied warning and a threat.  Toddst1 (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Get REAL
Get REAL is my album that I am releasing this summer i do not understand why it was deleted? I feel rejected. you can check genius to see if it is real because it is..

S42669 — Preceding unsigned comment added by S42669 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And blocked. --Neil N  talk to me 01:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Oreo
Hello Toddst1 Thank you for your response re my reinstatement of the “Popular Culture” section to Oreo, which I see you removed in January this year, and have now removed again, though I’m a bit perplexed.

I don’t dispute that the items listed within the section are mostly without reliable source references (my only contribution, incidentally, was A Star Is Born; the other items have been there back to 2006). I doubt that published references are available at all for most of the items, short of finding a script from each of the movies, or anecdotes about the songs, etc. In a few cases the Wikipedia pages on the individual films make a connection to Oreo, albeit weakly. But that is the nature of each of these items; they’re mostly minor occurrences within the larger theme of a movie or song.

My reason for reinstating the section is that Oreos have an iconic status (admittedly in American junk food!), and the Pop Culture aspect is an important aspect of this. The wholesale removal of the complete section, based solely on a technicality which applies to individual items within it, seems pretty pedantic to me. Surely there can be a bit more latitude, in the interest of giving readers a true flavour (no pun intended) of the subject.

I’d be obliged of your consideration and response.

Regards Kokopelli-UK (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Because of the pop culture aspect WP:V does not apply? WP:ISAWIT doesn't carry any weight.  Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

June 2017
I'm deleting my comment. Feel free to revert the Schultz article if you'd like, it's not a big issue for me. I hope we are one good terms, but please do not threaten me when I did not violate WP policies. Best El cid, el campeador (talk) 19:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

List of the youngest mayors in the United States
I don't know what you're talking about. For starters, I was removing a name, not adding one. Secondly, I was removing because it was redundant. The exact same entry is right below it. -Americus55 (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * My mistake in reading the diff, apparently. Apologies. Toddst1 (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Alabama State Patrol
Todd, I'm just swinging by this article because of other editing concerns. The Fowler section is "the" UNDUE portion of the article. I'm seeking to put it into a less UNDUE section because it is an incidental event in the agency's history. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I saw your edit summary where you feel that I may be owning that article.  You might find  this edit very similar to your own.  Toddst1 (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Portuguese Mexican article
You deleted all the edits I had made on the said article, since references were lacking and/or not accessible. Would you care to explain? Sindu5673 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You deleted some well cited material, as was explained in the edit summary. I agree that some of the stuff should be removed, but certainly not all.   Use a scalpel, not an axe.   Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:00, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:BOOMERANG is normally not eponymous. Toddst1 (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Nice work on Linda Thomsen article
I was editing Thomsen's successor's bio (Khuzami, another revolving door proponent/icon... sigh) and noticed your edit on Thomsen's talk page. William Donaldson didn't do a great job in picking her as director of enforcement, to say the least! Donaldson of Donaldson, Lufkin and Jennrette probably shouldn't have ever been head of the SEC to begin with, but what do I know... I'm just a pink piggy on the Internet.

Your user page is very entertaining. I will check to see if you won that elected office that caused you to be identified as Wikipedia itself. I like your notable quotations list. I'm going to add myself to that category, contributors of lousy articles. I want to be there with you! I spent some time contributing to a lousy article about a kind of lousy entity, FusionGPS. It isn't easy sometimes to keep the articles and the subject matter from sullying each other.--FeralOink (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)