User talk:Toddst1

This administrator believes the SOPA/PIPA blackout was absurd and has signed this protest against the blackout.



A barnstar for you!

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Seconded. — 99801155KC9TV (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Was there something specific that motivated this? Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The black-banner thingy. Well, not being a true computer programmer of any sort myself, yet, at least that I managed to learn a new computing trick, of great advantage, upon that particular day, upon the ways of circumvention. Autumn, or the Fall, or Winter, it was, I believe. — 99801155KC9TV (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I may have copied it from someone but glad you like it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
The question is: who were you that you're trying to circumvent something? Toddst1 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Not a block! No, the Blackout! That I learnt to use the "Escape" key! Sorry for being a little long-winded! — KC9TV 23:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 04:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Class_Avesta

This user has requested an unblock with an apology. They said they misunderstood and thought that Wikipedia was an "anything goes" but now they understand there are rules. Would you be opposed to me granting a {{second chance}} per WP:ROPE? This UTRS ticket is here.--v/r - TP 23:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. I can't see the UTRS Ticket but your judgement is fine. Thanks for checking. Please unblock. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Let me clarify. Of course I don't object to that user being unblocked. TP, please use your judgement. If your judgement is that the user remain blocked, as it appears, I am fine with that. If my message above was ambiguous, I hope this straightens things out. Toddst1 (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Ohh thanks, I got it. I was just emailing them on UTRS before unblocking them to make sure they agreed before I unblocked. They seem to be complying and so I'm going to go ahead and unblock and I'll keep an eye on them. Thanks!--v/r - TP 16:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
for speedy blocking of recidivist(s) Zymurgy (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I've done a lot of that this week. Toddst1 (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

User:AA193 continuing his revert war at Afghanistan

Hello Toddst1. On April 26 you blocked AA193 for edit warring at Afghanistan. He insists that the country is in West Asia.

More recently, he was reported at AN3 for continuing the same: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive184#User:AA193 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 72h).

Now he is back yet again. See a new complaint that was left on my talk: User talk:EdJohnston#User:AA193. What would your opinion be on an indefinite block? It could be lifted as soon as AA193 agrees to follow policy. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Churchmen, or members of the clergy, and COI.

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

Before I start, cam I possibly ask, Sir, are Churchmen, or members of the clergy of Christian churches, and other religious organisations/organizations, allowed to edit articles of their own churches and organisations/organizations (and push certain agendas and P.o.V.s, if not also impose a form of censorship and de facto effective ownership of articles), without having to declare their interests? Can they possibly be banned from those articles simply because of the C.o.I.? I am in fact referring to in fact the biggest and largest Christian Church in England and in the United Kingdom, from where I am based. I would thank you for any answer and feed-back. — KC9TV 00:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit-yes. Push POV-no. Toddst1 (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
This is complicated. Rather British (English, in fact), and highly theological. Probably takes one whole day for me to do so (and difficult too, as I am suffering from a fever from some complicated reasons; ironic, given that it is partly oral and dental). But, anyway, do they have to clearly declare themselves as members of the clergy? Details to follow. — KC9TV 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
This might be better taken to WP:Village pump Toddst1 (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I see. All-right, I thank you. Well, do forgive me, for I am still relatively very new in all of this, being a former long-term IP-only editor. — KC9TV 00:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
KC9TV, How is there a conflict of interest? Is it a conflict of interest if a computer programmer edits an article about computer programming? Should he warn everyone beforehand to keep an eye on him in case he decides to say too much about computers? The very fact that you questioned whether people who dedicate their lives to studying theology should be restricted from contributing their expertise to Wikipedia is bizarre and illogical. Should I immediately stop editing articles related to my areas of formal training too, just in case an unqualified wannabe catches me trying to be sneaky? (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC))
I am not accusing any one. No name is yet mentioned by name, and probably never will. — KC9TV 05:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Except for this allegation against User:Timothy_Titus which I found in the page history of Talk:Church in Wales? Elizium23 (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Look, these is all a misunderstanding. I am NOT accusing him, or any-one. — KC9TV 05:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The proper way to withdraw comments on a talk page is to use strikeout markup. Removing them, along with replies from other users, is frowned upon and typically considered vandalism. Elizium23 (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Thank you

Thanks very much for your prompt action here. With best wishes, DBaK (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, they're a dime a dozen. More worrying are these bozos. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Gosh, what fun! Rather you than me. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Whitespace Concern

Hi Toddst1,

I noticed the incident with User:Beyond My Ken and User:79.223.4.134 regarding Reach for the Sky.

The thread [1] that discuss his behaviour, I felt, was closed too soon because I had a few comments to make. Below are the comments:

This discussion was unfortunately closed too soon. I do realize this is an very active discussion nonetheless. I think we need to look at User:Beyond My Ken more closely. User:Beyond My Ken continues to add white space to the articles (see here at the bottom after the last entry of ==External links== and the top of the first navigational template). Obviously this is against consensus because User:Beyond My Ken has been told not to do this. Here, User:Beyond My Ken files a Sockpuppetry Investigation because multiple unrelated editors have told him to stop inserting idiosyncratic formatting. On the Sockpuppetry Investigation, an independent editor User:Viriditas says: "Many, many, many users have complained about Beyond My Ken's edits. This does not mean they are all the same users. It means, Beyond My Ken needs to stop making those edits.". Currently on the talk page of the article in question, there is consensus that white space is unnecessary, and undos of the article indicate the nonstandard of User:Beyond My Ken's formatting: removed here by User:91.10.47.34, [2]Curb Chain (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that after User:ErrantX closed the discussion there were still comments. Since you are now the final closer, I thought I would post this friendly request for advice on how next to proceed: Should I ask User:ErrantX on his advice? Thanks for your help.Curb Chain (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My apologies: Is this sufficient? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Additional_discussion_about_BMK.27s_behavior Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you kindly and I appreciate the grace. I am sorry I never realized he was "whacked". Thanks for "reopening" the thread but I do think that being "whacked" does not mean he will stop the behaviour.Curb Chain (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ihardlythinkso

On 20 April 2012, you revoked this user's talk page and e-mail access because, in his unblock request, he remarked that your block "sucks 'donkey balls'." Most editors will lash out if they are indefinitely blocked; I am sure you are no stranger to such behaviour. However, talk page access is only revoked in the case of significantly undermining "WP:IDHT" or in the event of serious abuse. We also do not revoke e-mail access in tandem with talk page abuse, but only in the event of additional abuse of the EmailUser function. Given that the unblock request was summarily declined because of his slur, which should have been sufficient to demonstrate that such behaviour is counter-productive, why did you revoke the talk page access of this account? Why did you revoke e-mail access in the absence of any actual abuse? AGK [•] 22:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Long history here. Replying via email. Toddst1 (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, and received. Given that I asked two simple questions about your actions, I am not sure how you come to conclude that I made a "presumption of wrong-doing" on your part. I will follow your lead and respond to the rest by e-mail. Regards, AGK [•] 12:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Suspected Block Evade

Hi Fellow editor, I have reason to suspect that this user is indeed this user. The reason for this is, that the same user is trying to create/edit article with WP:Verifiable issues, namely this article and this. The latter article is all information that was removed from Diet in Sikhism, due to issue of WP:OR and WP:Verifiable. What should I do next? I had considerable harasment from this user. Thanks SH 12:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Unblock appeal by Ihardlythinkso

The Arbitration Committee is considering an unblock appeal by User:Ihardlythinkso. Your insight into the reasons for the block, and views on continuing it would be useful. Please send any response by email to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback.
Message added 16:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi TopGun. Toddst1's availability is currently limited, so you may want to tell the other participants in that thread that he may not give a prompt response. Regards, AGK [•] 21:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks AGK, I just read this... I'll note it there. It is about the rollback right that Todst revoked, I think I've justified a reinstatement, so any admin is invited to comment. I'll wait for Todst's response here however. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Athens

You permanently locked the Battle of Athens. I don't think it should continue to be locked. It's been almost a month and a half. Could you please remove it? ThePeriodicTable123 (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

There are plenty of other pages for you to edit. If you want to edit that page, propose your edits on Talk:Battle of Athens (1946). It is protected for all the right reasons. Toddst1 (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

kingz kounty records

Trophy.png kingz kounty records
Can I put information about jaz-o record label? Ace2cold (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
huh? Toddst1 (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)