User talk:Toddst1/Archive 7

This page, Toddst1/Archive 7 contains archived talk page discussions for Toddst1 (talk).
Please do not edit this page.

• Current time: May 7, 2024, 00:05 (UTC)

Paula Broadwell and WP:AGF

Regardless of whether it is in the citation, it is not appropriate for NPOV. My view happens to coincide with the opinion that the biography is hagiographic, but the tone was inappropriate for an encyclopedia, where it is not out of place in the piece cited. I substituted a less loaded phrase. I would suggest you take your own advice and assume good faith. Elentiras (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

A suggestion

I don't recall interacting with you before this thread, but if the tone of your comments there is not typical for you, perhaps you should consider a wikibreak. You seem to be getting unduly personal and angry, leaving civility behind and unwilling to tolerate disagreement. postdlf (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Naw, Toddst1's logic is spot on. It has been a very heated article and he was just making decisions fast. I rubbed him the wrong way and the emotions got the best of us. I'm half to blame here and I also have a duty of care as a Wikipedian and I had an outburst as well. You have my apologies Toddst1. Let's keep going.-Justanonymous (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about that article or his interaction with you. postdlf (talk) 21:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've heard worse suggestions. My logic may be good but my presentation is probably off. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 00:27, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Khojaly Massacre

Hi Toddst1. Thanks for the information about the decision of the Arbitration Committee. And what about the non-consensus information in the article? Divot (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page and seek consensus. Toddst1 (talk) 00:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it must to do NovaSkola. Now his non-consensus information is in the article. What to do with it? Divot (talk) 00:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U

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

Well the RFC/U that you thought was "lame" was formed against me. I was wondering what the time frae of the existence of an RFC/U was, especially one that has no support other than from the two editors who initually created it. It is disconcerting for it to be hanging there as a potential threat, especially when it comes from users who seem to want to use it as a way to silence any opposition to their ideas at CfD and force through their will with even smaller participation in discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Anybody find it weird that a few hours after JPL begs Toddst1 to comment on this RfC/U, Toddst1 goes to the RfC/U and then lets out essentially a personal attack? pbp 22:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Purplebackpack89. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Johnpacklambert that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, 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. Thank you. pbp 22:29, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bottom line, dude: You need to provide diffs rather than make blanket assertions that border on personal attacks, ("emotional maturity"? Really?), and you need to address the focus of the RfC/U; considering the diffs I've presented rather than accusing me of having some vendetta against JPL. If you looked at the diffs provided, you'd find that half a dozen users have asked JPL to reconsider his edit practices; and at least one has pointed out that he has edit-warred regarding categories. Also, remember that RfC/U isn't about enforcement pbp 22:33, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

When you ask for comments, you're going to get them - you can't cherry pick them. Now move along. Toddst1 (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2013 (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.

Sandy Hook Talk discussion

Is it me or does no one seem to want to factor in WP policy? I'm trying to encourage reaching a consensus and what is allowed or not allowed in a "See also" seems irrelevant going by the comments made. Any suggestions?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:50, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Alumni

You have my total support. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

That whole discussion is absurd. Let's throw WP:V out the window because stuff exists. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Khojaly Massacre

Hi, Toddst1. On the talk page there are no answers more than a week. Can I return information in the article? Divot (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't give you permission, but it seems reasonable. Toddst1 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Sunnyvale, CA

I reverted most of the deletions that you did to notable people in Sunnyvale. I checked the individual pages for all of the people that were deleted, and all but two had clear references to Sunnyvale on their individual pages. If their own pages have references to Sunnyvale, then a direct reference on the Sunnyvale page itself shouldn't be necessary. The two I whacked were Mark Levin and Nick Lazzarini. Jokeboy (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You are mistaken in your interpretation of policy. Please see:

• WP:NLIST: "every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group."
• WP:Source list: "Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others."

As far as using the article as the source, it fails WP:CIRCULAR. Please revert your edits. Toddst1 (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not at all what he said; he said the individual articles themselves included references, not that the Wikipedia article itself was somehow a reference.

If it is a problem to not have a direct reference in such lists where the information is cited in the linked article (about which opinions differ, as I explained in our related discussion elsewhere), that problem would be fixed simply by copying the citations to the list in the Sunnyvale article, not by indiscriminate blanking. So let's stop doing that. postdlf (talk)

I was going to make the same point as postdlf - in a case where the references already exist on a Wikipedia page but not in every place, then clearly, the action as an editor that best serves Wikipedia's users is to copy the missing references, and not to delete the material altogether, since the material is clearly correct. The goal here is to make the page as complete and relevant as possible. Toddst1 correctly observed that the page doesn't meet the defined criteria. It wasn't the policy I was objecting to - it was the fix. Deleting the entries may have been easiest fix, but it was the worst and most destructive one towards the greater goal of providing relevant information. The proper fix should be "either leave it marked as unreferenced, or add references where available and delete items without references". I did go and whack the ones that could not be properly referenced. Jokeboy (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC) 23:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're both wrong. Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it (or restore it). Toddst1 (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with the present situation, in part because you don't have a good faith belief that the removed material is unverifiable: your sole complaint is that it is presently not sourced in that article. So you boldly blanked long existing content in that article because it was unsourced, Jokeboy reverted it on the good faith belief that the blanking was not appropriate, and now you are supposed to discuss how to resolve it like adults. But you don't want to discuss things, you just want to have your way. You accused me of wikilawyering elsewhere just because I raised the applicability of WP:PRESERVE and WP:BLPDEL, yet all you are doing is being completely selective in the language you are citing to try and justify blanking text regardless of whether it can be fixed, and also failing to actually read what others are writing to you. Insisting is not explanation, nor is it up to you to decide when discussion is over (the Schools Wikiproject discussion was proceeding quite constructively without you, btw).

Please read through this ANI discussion, particularly the comments of Uncle G, and you'll see at a minimum that I am not "unique" in my interpretations, nor are your edits the black-and-white policy enforcement issue you are trying to characterize them as. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You're not alone in being wrong. Now please move on. Toddst1 (talk) 04:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see how this very clear policy doesn't apply: Fix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. Preserve appropriate content. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to the article would belong in a "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the requirements of the three core content policies (Neutral point of view, Verifiability and No original research) and the writing cleaned up on the spot, or tagged if necessary.

The material in question is relevant and demonstrably accurate, trivially. You are absolutely correct that it violates policy as currently presented, and someone needs to fix it. WP:PRESERVE says you should have deleted that appropriate content only if you could not fix it. All I did was revert your edit in disagreement with your decision and in (unknowing) agreement with WP:PRESERVE. It's not my material, so it's not on me to fix them, despite your incorrect addition of "(or restore it)" to existing policy [in no way is a third party "inserting content" by reverting a deletion he believes violates policy]. If you disagree with content strongly enough to edit it (and rightfully so, right now), then WP:PRESERVE says that your appropriate course of action is for you to add the cites, all of which are easy for you to find, and not to simply delete the offending material. So what am I missing here, and why is the burden of fixing this being thrust on me, a relatively uninvolved third party who simply pointed out (however ham-handedly) that your fix wasn't the right one?

Nobody has ever claimed that "every unsourced but potentially sourcable claim must be preserved". Instead, postdlf and I seem to be saying that such material must be *fixed correctly* when the content is relevant. Jokeboy (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Postdlf's interpretation of policy

You're pretty whacked in your interpretation of policy for an admin. Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Your conduct is abhorrent for an admin. I've rarely seen such consistent disrespect displayed for other editors, or inability to even conduct rudimentary civil discussion with those with whom you disagree. postdlf (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that I've replied politely to Jokeboy above. Yes, I have told you bluntly that you're out of step after our previous discussion. Your preservationist interpretation of the three sentences in the box below is beyond tiresome at this point:

I've tried to discuss this with you as have others without making progress.

The maintenance template has been on this particular article for four years, so you need to apply context too. If nobody has bothered to fix something in 4 years (providing even a single reference), it's unrealistic to think that that situation will change in the future.

I think you need to stop demanding that others provide sources for edits not made by them. I really encourage you to re-read that section:

"Wikipedia policy is quite clear here: the responsibility for sourcing content rests firmly and entirely with the editor seeking to include it. This applies most especially to biographies of living individuals, where uncited or poorly cited controversial material must be removed immediately from both the article and the talk page, and by extension any related Project pages."

Please stop pursing this unique philosophy were every unsourced but potentially sourcable claim must be preserved. Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That last sentence is a straw man; otherwise, see response above. postdlf (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said above, You're not alone in being wrong.

Postdlf, further comments here on this topic won't be productive so please refrain. Toddst1 (talk) 04:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

pbp's continued rudeness

It seems not to have satisfied pbp to create an RfC/U against me. He has also seen fit to insult me on the talk page of Category:American actresses after I created it following the clear precedent of the CfD on Category:Actresses by nationality that such categories can exist. No one has ever given an argument that the American category should not exist while Category:Canadian actresses and several others exist. His rudeness in the discussion is very annoying. I am trying to avoid getting in a fight with him, but he seem to want to start a fight.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Q on sourcing for list items

Hi Todd. I was reading a dialogue between you and couple other editors re a list article, that out of policy you were contending the article needed its own support -- can't rely on other articles, in the list, that carry their own supporting RS(s). (Your argument made sense to me, for e.g., if the independent article for some reason went bad regarding its support RSs, then what would tie-in so that the list article item would be flagged as no longer having support? Nothing!) My Q is ... to what degree s/ the list article contain supporting sources? (E.g., is a book ref, listed in References section, enough? Or, should the actual listed item have chapter & verse footnote out of that book reference? [I'm thinking particularly re article I deal with, Chess variants, where it is essentially a list of games, and many of the listed games are wlink'd to their respective articles, but not keyed into their specific source book, even though it is listed in Ref section.]) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC) p.s. As an aside, I also agreed with you in that dialogue, that a user who restores reverted material, has to be the editor responsible to defend the restoration. (Even in this case, where they based their restoration, on breach of protocol. By restoring material and saying "hey I don't need to defend that material" based on some debatable rationale re protocol breach, is stretching things, and going into never never land, me thinks. [In other words, I think that's a lame dodge; and the policy or guideline putting burden squarely on the restorer, is good.]) Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that each entry should have a proper citation from a reliable source that verifies that the entry is a chess variant. Otherwise, it's mere assertion. For example, I could assert that Go (game) was a chess variant. I note that Gess is included in the list. I'm sure there are folks that would disagree with that opinion.

Also of concern, a quick look at a few of those variants raises concerns about the variant being sufficiently notable to have its own article. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Todd, thanks for the reply. The reason I asked, is because I valued/value your opinion. (And the reason for that, is you seem to take a clear, conservative stance. And I agree with that disposition, erring on side of caution.) When you say above "others might not agree", do you mean whether Gess is as a chess variant? Or do you mean agreeing about each list item s/ have a supporting citation? I'm guessing the former. (Yes I see there's discussion re that at CV.com and elsewheres, but the game is included in Pritchard's Classified encyclopedia, which is the best bible.) Sourcing each listed game will take time, thx for your opinion it is the way to go. Re some games not being notable enough to have their own article, I'm sure that's true, but it is a big list of games, so I frankly wouldn't know how to deal with that, especially solo (e.g., which ones? what is a consistent standard of notability measure? how should reviews be conducted? when?). One thing about field of chess variants is that there are limited authoritative sources, so that makes obtaining mutiple RSs, difficult or impossible, while same time there might be one or two respectable ones (Pritchard encyclopedias). Notability doesn't demand multiple sources in all cases, and I tend to think this environment is one of those special ones, but, in the end I don't know. (I'm not sure how the issue of "notable enough?" can be objectively discussed, it seems to be inherently subjective or gray area.) I'm conservative (like you), but more inclusionist than deletionist. (On surface that sounds contradictory, but I don't believe it is.) Any your inputs are appreciated. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Dingoes disam page

Hi, I'm kind of surprised by your opposition to it. They are random and glaringly incorrect references to this in a variety of places on WP. What exactly makes it so bad? I've seen far worse, but I know that's not reason to keep it. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

As I said, it's not much of a DAB page. It's an article pretending to be a DAB page and it isn't clear a DAB page is needed. Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

That wasn't my intention. There are books, movies, and television shows with a variety of references connected to the phrase that is continuously misquoted, isn't that what a disambiguation page is for? I think Stalwarts recommendation does make a huge difference and improves the page by clarifying what its purpose is.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 00:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, thank you, thank you, thank you! Every time you make a comment or head down a path like this, you make me a better editor. I've learned a lot about WP process and procedures lately. Best regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

daaaaaaamnnnnn

Thanks for taking care of that disruption that I reported. I looked at your contrib log and god damn man, you are an anti-vandalism machine! Gaijin42 (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Mondays are always busy days for the bored kiddies at schools. Lots of vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit war with User:Other Side One

I noticed that you have given me a warning for an edit war. May I ask why User:Other Side One has not also been given a simliar warning since he is also involved? TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. I got distracted by this pesky work thing. :) Toddst1 (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response and I know how work can be sometimes, busy.. busy.. busy. Have a nice day :0) TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Since you are an administrator I just want you to know User:Other Side One is continuing to edit war and violating the 3RR policy on WRXP. I've been staying out of it completely and not done any recent edits on WRXP at all. I decided that it was not worth arguing with User:Other Side One who seems hell bent on having things done their way on the that particular Wikipedia article. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:HOUND

I hate to say it, dude, but if I'm HOUNDing JPL, you're HOUNDing me. Please stop. You're also overlooking the fact that a helluva lot of editors have had numerous problems with JPL's edits in a relatively short (2 1/2 months) amount of time. Please focus on editor's concerns rather than using this as an opportunity to attack me pbp 01:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

When you open an RFC/U about an editor I warned you about hounding a month ago as a completely un-involved administrator and I comment on it having had no other interaction with you, it's not hounding you; it's giving you feedback - exactly what you asked for. This is a great example of why I believe you're having problems interacting with folks here. Toddst1 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Robert Morris (criminal) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Robert Morris (criminal). Since you had some involvement with the Robert Morris (criminal) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Andrew Gray (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't try discussing it here. I've G7'd it. Toddst1 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For swiftly shutting down 66.172.190.20 just as she/he/it was going on a vandalism rampage Safety Cap (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Gracias. It's been a busy day. Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disagree with your indeff block of User talk:Da Ultimate Bass Booster

With respect, that was too much for the sort of edits that took place. I believe this indeff block should be reverted to a limited block of one month. There was nothing destructive and this editor may well be able to be mentored. How can we rescue this editor?--Amadscientist (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The editor clearly knows his way around wikipedia as evidenced by this. Sure the vandalism was petty, but out of all those edits, nothing indicated that he was here to contribute to the encyclopedia. I won't object if you change it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I am speaking to you one on one. I have made no effort to request a review of your block. I can only say that what you linked does not demonstrate that the editor knows their way around Wikipedia. I am requesting you reduce the block to a month and not indef.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok. In my opinion, with a named user like that, you either block them for 12-24 hours and hope they won't resume the nonsense if you believe there is potential for good editing, or you indef them because they don't appear to be here to build an encyclopedia. You feel that this editor is redeemable, so I have unblocked DUBB. Toddst1 (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Toddst1 (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Delaware Law Weekly

Hello. I'm looking over this article, which has been tagged for notability for 5 years. You nominated for speedy deletion back in 2008, but it was removed only because it was misapplied. You may want to consider prodding it instead. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request

DileepKS69 (talk · contribs), blocked by yourself for sock-puppetry, has made a request for unblocking here. Subject to their agreement of the conditions I've laid out, do you have any objections to an unblock?  An optimist on the run! 12:51, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

He appears to be quite the prolific socker but no objections from me. Toddst1 (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again...

Hello Toddst1, I just noticed that user going by the name of RobDe68 has completely blanked out the WRXP article and put a request for a speedy deletion for that page, then they took the WRXP (FM) page and created a redirect back to the blanked out WRXP page and then put a request for a speedy deletion of that page also. completely removing all history of the 94.7FM radio frequency. I don't know what's going on but I did put a message on the Wikipedia Adminstrators Noticeboard but I thought I'd post a message to you to see what you could do to help fix this. Not sure if RobDe68 is a vandal or just clueless on how to do things properly on Wikipedia. In any case the WRXP Wikipedia article is now completely gone. Thanks. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey again, Just wanted to let you know that after some back and forth the issue finally got resolved. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 05:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Jetstreamer's talk page.
Message added 22:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jetstreamer ^Talk 22:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Block of User:Edwardx

Hi Toddst1, I noticed Edwardx was blocked for 24 hours, but am struggling to find a warning pre-dating the block. Am I missing something? Nev1 (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

First warning which after exploring the Edward's editing further, was changed to a "final" and a second final warning. Long term problem involving dozens if not hundreds of edits by that editor. Toddst1 (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, that helps put things in context. Nev1 (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Uninteresting subject header

If I told you I thought Strider was a sock, would there be any chance of getting him indeffed without an SPI? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to present evidence. Toddst1 (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Email sent. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that one has been abandoned. Toddst1 (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

School block -- so sad, so sad

That extra 43 minutes and 12 seconds on 74.43.248.161 was just going too far! I feel so for the kids. --S. Rich (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You realize that when I select 4 years, it does some freaky computation to come up with 4 years, 43 minutes and 12 seconds, right? Toddst1 (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course! I just couldn't resist – I do most greatly appreciate your contributions. --S. Rich (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Block of User:Jetstreamer

Hi Toddst1. I've just looked over an unblock request from User:Jetstreamer, and I must confess, I can't fully understand the reasoning behind your block. You blocked him for edit warring with an IP editor on Vienna International Airport (and presumably a couple of other instances as well), but given the IP's history and activity there's a good case to be made that he was reverting vandalism, rather than edit warring. If you could offer some further explanation of your reasoning, or perhaps reconsider the block's neccessity, I'd be very grateful. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You'll notice that a couple of days ago, I warned Jetstreamer about User_talk:Jetstreamer#Edit_war_on_Mariscal_Sucre_International_Airport. It wasn't your standard "don't edit war" template, but a rather more in-depth explanation including the difference between WP:3RR and WP:EW with a follow-up explanation. While the activity on that page has stopped, a very similar edit war was underway at Vienna International Airport [1] [2] when I came across him/her yesterday. Note that the block was not for violating 3RR, rather an EW - disagreement about the content of that page where the editors repeatedly overrode each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion. Normally, I wouldn't block on the second revert, but having discussed this only a little over 24 hours earlier with the editor, I would think the editor might be somewhat mindful of repeated reversion.

You're welcome to unblock the editor, but if you do, I'd ask you to keep an eye on the situation because it doesn't seem to be isolated. Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the extended explanation; I appreciate it. Given the circumstances, I can see why you took the decision to block. After some reflection, I've decided not to accept or decline his appeal; it's too close for me to call. I've reopened the unblock template so another admin can take a look. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:12, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request of User:DileepKS69

Just a courtesy note to say I've raised a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unblock request of User:DileepKS69.  An optimist on the run! 22:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

OK thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

CU on Plant's Strider

Any chance we could get a CU on this likely sock/troll? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have the bits. I do think there was sockery there. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you know a CU who would help? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Start at WP:SPI. I doubt they'll act on it because it appears that that account has been abandoned. Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I've started an SPI here, perhaps you would consider weighing-in on the socking likelyhood. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:18, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Question

Why did you delete references to travel articles on Annapolis, Ephrata Cloister, and architect John Notman that I added, with nothing but neutral commentary, as further reading to the relevant Wikipedia articles?

Dear Toddst1,

During the period 1999-2003 I was a freelance travel writer for the New York Times, and published 9 articles on a variety of subjects including the architecture of Annapolis, Maryland, and the US Naval Academy; the Ephrata Cloister; and John Notman, a very skilled architect active in Philadelphia, Princeton, Trenton and elsewhere in the mid-Atlantic States in the mid-19th century.

The articles I wrote were scrupulously neutral, and also rigorously fact-checked by editors at the New York Times. I had no stake in anything I ever wrote about beyond my desire to share information about the places in question. If I had had any such "personal" interest in anything I covered the Times would never have touched anything I wrote, much less published it. I haven't done any travel writing of any kind since my last article was published in the Times in 2003.

Today I rather inadvisedly checked the Wikipedia articles and discovered that all three of the short, non-self-promoting entries I had made had been anonymously deleted by someone affiliated with Wikipedia, which I assume to be you because of your active role in the editing of Wikipedia. I found that a short, very-hard-to-understand message had been sent to me which essentially accused me of self-promotion and promoting a self-interested agenda and accused me of citing articles in which I had a personal interest. Finally, and not least, I received a very stern warning (is threat a better word?) that I would receive no further notices concerning my asserted malfeasance.

I found the entire process -- of anonymous Wikipedia enforcers deleting very short and neutral references which I had made to articles that had once been deemed useful to travelers and students, had all been based on very intensive research, and had passed through the New York Times Culture Desk's editing process, followed by "this is your last chance" warnings -- to be distasteful in the extreme.

I'm not quite sure what motivates you to treat people like me in such a high-handed and gratuitously nasty way, but if you are able to spare the time in your busy editing schedule to provide a comprehensible explanation in plain English as to what prompts you to bully and threaten people like me I would welcome it. My e-mail address is rmruda@hotmail.com, an address I have registered with Wikipedia, which, as far as I can tell, creates a lot more transparency for me than you have provided to anyone.

I know from experience that many people take great pleasure in disparaging other peoples' work by attributing self-interested motives to them, simply because it is so easy to do. And perhaps your anonymity makes it even more pleasurable to whack people, because you aren't accountable to any one since no one knows who you are. But that couldn't possibly be the the case -- I notice that you have received a vast array of awards from Wikipedia. So your motives simply must be pure. Mine, on the other hand, must just as certainly be impure (i.e., "self-interested," as you so self-righteously assert) in your all-powerful but anonymous eyes.

As Mel Brooks once put it, "It's good to be the king." But unlike you, even kings have names.

Sincerely,

Richard Ruda rmruda@hotmail.com Rruda (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

See WP:COI. It's a bad idea to add links to external articles you've written. Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Venting

I can't believe how many times I fucked that up (see log). It's really embarrassing. God I wish there were preview capabilities when blocking. I almost blocked myself the last time for incompetence. End of rant; thanks for listening.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for all of your recent efforts and from me personally for your helpful advice that has made me a better editor! Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It' nice to be appreciated once in a while. Toddst1 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	For the old good times when we used to talk a lot about some complicated things :) Have a nice day. — ΛΧΣ21 20:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers to you! Toddst1 (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

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

--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

LaPierre article edit block, thank you!

Hey Toddst1, thank you for placing the temporary edit block on the Wayne LaPierre article. Hopefully it will provide time for cooler heads to prevail.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Probir Gupta

Thanks for tagging this article for notability back in 2008. It's still tagged; you may want to take it to the Notability noticeboard or AfD to get it resolved. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Your personal attacks

I don't normally whine when other editors attack me, as I believe that taking in more than you dish out is the only reasonable recipe for getting along. However, for wiki-political reasons I am always happy to make an exception for admins who make over-eager 'civility' blocks. This is a formal warning for making personal attacks against me. Here is why:

Your argument that it's OK to refer to groups of editors and individuals that you disagree with using derogatory terms because you're correct flies in the face of every element of cooperative editing. You truly should be ashamed of yourself for promulgating such an absurd position.

I don't care if you're pro-gun or anti gun - or pro-German or anti-German. You can't go around calling other editors derogatory names. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It is true that I referred to "the US gun lobby" as a bunch of nutters. However, that's an essentially verifiable statement about a political group which (ignoring their possible lobbying activity on Wikipedia) has nothing to do with Wikipedia. By adding the words "editors and" to your first sentence, you made it partially wrong and created the incorrect impression that I characterised a group of editors thusly, which I did not. (HiLo did that -- after a long process of taunting which you completely ignored when you blocked him. But I never endorsed that.) Also, "nutter" is a descriptive term with a specific factual content. The relevant definitions in the American Heritage Dictionary are as follows:

• A crazy or eccentric person
• An enthusiast; a buff: a movie nut.

It is true that this term can be used in a derogatory way. Such derogatory use is when you apply it to a person or persons to whom it does not strictly apply. However, it should be clear beyond dispute that the US gun lobby consists primarily of gun nuts (gun enthusiasts). Moreover, as can be demonstrated with countless reliable sources, a widespread view globally among other industrialised countries as well as a significant view inside the US is that the US gun lobby consists to a large degree of crazy, or at least eccentric, persons. (I have given you an excellent Swiss source for "foolish", for example. In view of TParis' ridiculous ANI comment "A demonstration of 'world' view would be helpful by showing worldwide opinions instead of that of Europe and Australia", I feel obliged to add that that's asking for a ridiculous standard of proof. There is no such thing as "worldwide opinions" as opposed to opinions in the various countries that make up the world. TParis seems to think that it's just the Germans and Australians who are a bit eccentric. Admittedly, though, large parts of the Arabic world probably agree with the NRA on gun control.)

It is not OK to use derogatory terms for editors, article subjects or other individuals. I don't think I have ever claimed that it is OK, certainly not recently, and you have provided no evidence that I have ever made such a claim. Yet you accused me of having made it.

You then, for no apparent reason, told me to be ashamed of myself. That's a personal attack in the sense of WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." But it seemed based on your error about the facts, so I let it pass.

"I don't care if you're pro-gun or anti gun - or pro-German or anti-German." This is where it first gets really interesting. Being German is not really something one should be proud of, but I can't help it. It's rare that someone alludes to my ethnicity in a hostile communication situation. Outside Wikipedia this has never happened. In Wikipedia it has happened about half a dozen times if we don't count situations where I was trying to mediate in ethnicity-related conflicts. It was always by the type of editors whose career ends with an indef block after half a year tops. Pretty surprising stuff from an admin, especially taking into account WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Racial, sexist, homophobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, sexual, or other epithets " / "Comparing editors to Nazis, dictators, or other infamous persons." / "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." I am not inclined to let this one pass. This was a deliberate insult, calculated to stay just below the line where plausible deniability ends. I think you miscalculated, but we don't have to discuss this out. If you are wish to escalate things further, we may get a neutral opinion on this.

"You can't go around calling other editors derogatory names." This one is puzzling. As a pure statement about my abilities this is obviously wrong. As an ethical statement it is obviously right. But it is neither. I read it as a claim that I have called other editors derogatory names, and I think it's the only reasonable reading. WP:NPA#WHATIS: "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence."

I'm not sure what you think I'm being clear about, other than your deplorable behavior. It's not OK to namecall other editors and advocating such is deplorable. You should be ashamed.Toddst1 (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Here you repeated some of your personal attacks after I warned you explicitly not to do it. This was also the second time that you linked to the same section on HiLo's talk page. Are you going to do that a few more times? I am sure you can guess what that would remind me of: [3] [4] [5] [6] Or at least that's what it should remind you of, given that surely you analysed the situation properly in the 5 minutes between this request to block HiLo and your implementation. (On the other hand, the complete absence of any warnings on User talk:ROG5728 almost suggests otherwise. Come to think of it, you seemed pretty keen on doing ROG5728 a similar favour earlier [7] -- I wonder why you self-reverted immediately. Any comment?)

I nearly didn't press "Save page" on this, but then I saw the edit comments you left on my talk page. You clearly went out of your way to leave the following there, highly visible in the page history:

• "It's not OK to namecall and advocating such is deplorable."
• "You should be ashamed." After I told you: "Your unsubstantiated assertion that I have anything to be ashamed of is a personal attack. Do not repeat it." This was so important that you spent an extra edit just to add this one sentence.

Surely you know that all sorts of things are considered worse when they are done in edit summaries, and why that is the case. This was about as clear an instance of taunting as it gets.

Please, no more gaming the system. And if you block others for breaking NPA, stick to the spirit of NPA yourself, don't try to get around it by reluctantly following the letter, more or less, when it suits you.

While I am here: You really need to be more careful to prevent the impression that you are taking sides with some of your admin actions. You protected Wayne LaPierre immediately after ROG5728 removed content, and you somewhat unconvincingly cited a BLP concern. [8] Surely you can see that it would have been better if you had made that edit yourself or explicitly endorsed it, or had genuinely protected the article on the 'wrong version'. Hans Adler 21:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

YGM

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.

List at Sandy Hook Shooting

I'm a little confused about this edit here; I assume you saw the discussion at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Summary and Proposal. Would you mind stopping by there and posting a comment to further explain what "html hacking" is? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Hey, all I was trying to do was clean up the Bolding in the font & integrate the box's appearance into the text, I have no idea what in the hell "html hacking" even is.... Shearonink (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Maybe take a look at the Casualties list in the article now, per your comments at I should have checked here first. Shearonink (talk) 06:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

If you would weigh in with any thoughts you deem pertinent re:the internal coding structure of the present 'Casualties List' at Talk:Sandy Hook, that would be great. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 01:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Shearonink's talk page.
Message added 23:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing team?

Toddst, you need to read this, User_talk:Scalhotrod#Personal_comments, this User_talk:ROG5728#Rjensen_at_NRA_edit_warring and this User_talk:Justanonymous#Rjensen_Contributions. What conclusions do you draw? --Zeamays (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I actually also had placed an entry into all the relevant party's talk pages trying to get them to come to the talk and not edit war. Here is Rjensen's talk entry. Thank you for locking the page. Too much POV pushing and edit warring. As a note, your block for the Lapierre page ended and disruptive editors will likely go there.-Justanonymous (talk)

I've tried and cannot get either Zeamays or HiLo48 to actually discuss the content of the article at Talk:Wayne LaPierre. Take a look at the most recent personal attack by HiLo48 in this edit. How is it possible to have a constructive discussion with someone acting like this? ROG5728 (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Toddst, Rog's statement is not correct. The situation is that he and the other editors I cited above (Justanonymous and Scalhotrod) have been patrolling Wayne LaPierre and other firearms-related articles to delete material not in accord with their POV. In this instance, they would like to delete a notable, well-documented addition I made. I did not engage in an edit war, but made a logical defense of the merits of my case on Talk:Wayne LaPierre. The three editors could not win their case on the merits and have resorted to personalized comments, which included accusing me of a statement I never made, and claiming I have made a pattern of trying to "degrade" certain articles. The claim to have found a pattern to my edits was particularly egregious and was based entirely on a carefully selected list of a fraction of my edits, and not on the content of the edits themselves. I have avoided responding in kind, but have asked that the personalized accusations be stricken. That was refused. Scalhotrod was admonised by an editor, User:Moriori for one of these (see: User_talk:Scalhotrod#Personal_comments. Finally, Rog continues to confuse and conflate my statements with those of HiLo (see above). --Zeamays (talk) 00:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Toddst, moments before you re-protected,Wayne LaPierre, 02-04-2013, Rod5728 again deleted the content in question. What would you advise I do next? --Zeamays (talk) 01:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Zeamays, for your sake and ours, why don't you just leave the article alone for awhile? Four different editors (Arzel, Scalhotrod, Justanonymous, and myself) have voiced opposition to your edits. ROG5728 (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

See response on talk. --Zeamays (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not part of any "team", I just happen to have a similar editing style and outlook with other editors on occasion. Apparently I was the one that poured gasoline on the fire with my comments on the Wayne LaPierre Talk page. As a result Zeamays and Admin Moriori are upset over my observation (and comment) about Zeamays' pattern of edits since the Sandy Hook Shooting incident.

Additionally, I support Toddst1 with regard to HiLo being blocked, but I feel bad about even the possibility that my comments contributed to the situation. I didn't know that HiLo had been blocked previously, but that incident notwithstanding, I still consider HiLo as someone that is capable of reasoned and civil discourse.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Order of the Sword and Shield

Do you really think it was an A7 candidate? I'm having trouble remembering the content, but it had been fairly sufficiently challenged (I believe two tags were removed by two separate editors). I feel like an AfD discussion would be appropriate for that article. Ryan Vesey 21:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll be glad to restore it. However, I was in the process of leaving a note for the editor (I only see one) who removed the CSD tag when you messaged me. FWIW, I see no assertion of importance in the article. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

So Ryan, I've restored it. Did you want to fix it? It still doesn't assert any importance. If not, I'll re-delete it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: Removal of deletion templates

Hi, thanks for your recent suggestion User_talk:Josh1024#Removal_of_deletion_templates. I'll read through the criteria again but in the case of the article you talk about (Order of the Sword and Shield) I personally though that it shouldn't be deleted under WP:CSD#A7 because I agreed with the comments on the page creator on the talk page Talk:Order_of_the_Sword_and_Shield which I though meant the WP:CSD#A7 wasn't valid. I did suggest a proposed deletion be set up so more discussion could be had and contacted the editor who added the speedy deletion User_talk:FreeRangeFrog#Deletion_Cancelled, as you can see he agreed with my judgement once I had cancelled the speedy deletion. Id like to reassure you I don't just do round removing CSD templates.

Anyway thanks for the suggestions, I have taken then in the good faith I'm sure they were intended in, and please don't see this as some kind of attack on you, because its not - I just don't want people thinking I go round causing havoc on WP.

Thanks,

Josh1024 (talk) 21:40, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

{{Prod}} should only be used in non-controversial situations - basically housecleaning. In this case WP:AFD would be appropriate. However, I still maintain that the article does not assert the organization's importance which makes it eligible for CSD. Toddst1 (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Section is "HiLo48 block review". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

and btw, trying to see a personal attack where there is none can actually be as offensive. I didn't call you or anyone else insane or whatever you read into it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, whose insanity were you referring to, specifically? Toddst1 (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"the situation". You never talk like that? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Insanity is a personal condition, but given your explanation, I'll retract my comment on your talk page. (I'll restore it in strikeout form.) Please don't see this as edit-warring, but rather a good faith attempt to retract what has been deleted. Toddst1 (talk) 03:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning: repeated personal attacks

The edit summary "trolling" was another personal attack. Stop it. Now. Hans Adler 21:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

You are no longer welcome to post on this page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

3RR in Talk pages?

Hey Todd. Thank you for the note. I did not know that article talk pages were also part of the 3RR. Perhaps it would be good if this was mentioned more clearly at WP:3RR. In any case, sorry for the misunderstanding. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You should never even pass 1RR on a talk page unless it's pure vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I still don't see how this has turned out a fair situation. The talk page still has my name associated with something I have not written (Talk:Juan Manuel de Rosas). This equates to me citing two authors for the work only one of them has done. At least that's the way I see it, and why I found it valid to remove my username from the list. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

So disprove it and/or debate it. People accuse admins of shit they didn't do or motives they don't have all the time. Discussion is your friend. Toddst1 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Request

Toddst1, would you mind keeping an eye on that article's talk page? --Lecen (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. Toddst1 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

re:Erroneous Block

Thank you for fixing the mistake. [:)]
Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Jab843's talk page.
Message added 23:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jab843 (talk) 23:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Praveen Togadia edit

Please check the talk page of Praveen Togadia, I have clearly mentioned the reason for removal and even in edit summary. I have added references and removed contents without references and removed the tags. Post my changes someone else edited the page.--atnair (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

And it is also noted my edits with citations were removed by subsequent edits by user, even though I have notified about it in the talk page. Neutrality is not there for the article and it is purely a fans point of view. for that why should I use my sandbox!!--atnair (talk) 02:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

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

I'm getting really tired of User:Cambalachero and User:MarshalN20's behavior. This post and this other one are both inappropriate and offensive to me and the other editors who only came there to share their thoughts about the dispute. Since you told me that you would keep an eye on that discussion I came here asking you to do something about it. --Lecen (talk) 05:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

What was it in those posts that you object to? Toddst1 (talk) 15:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Accusing me of bad faith is unnecessary. That's the purpose of his message. MarshalN20's ironies toward other editors are also uncalled for. The goal is simple: since neither accepted a formal mediation (and I tried hard), they should allow other users to share their thoughts. The purpose is to discuss the article's issues, not me. I don't want Cambalachero nor MarshalN20 (as he did on first message on the RfC) to accuse me of anything. --Lecen (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see the irony in my statement, and (given Todd's question) I assume he also did not notice anything wrong with either statement. WP:MOUNTAIN may be a good recommendation, but the article lacks information and, honestly, I cannot see any bad intentions from my statement (or Cambalachero's) that could even be considered "small problems".

However, that aside, (and, given that Lecen mentions it) I honestly do think that Lecen's behavior is worth plenty of comments. His most recent display ([9]), shows great issues with the editor that (by this point) are a trend. Lecen's view is way too clouded by his Brazilian perspectives (note that Lecen's contributions primarily revolve around the Empire of Brazil), and he is unwilling to collaborate with anyone who disagrees with his point of view. While nothing wrong exists with Lecen working on a subject that he loves (in fact, that's perfect) or to have a strong perspective on subjects that he cares about, he hurts the Wikipedia project by refusing to participate in WP:CONS. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

This is enough.[10] "...he has repeatedly done this with the intention of deceiving others into thinking he is actually doing something positive for the article..." Could you do something about this? Will tell them to stop talking about me and start talking about the content dispute? --Lecen (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to both MarshalN20 and Lecen on their talk pages. Toddst1 (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I came here asking for your help and you threatened with a block? Could you show me where in that RfC did I insult someone or behave in any way inappropriate? --Lecen (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What is enough? You keep doing the same things over-and-over again. Your "attempts" to edit the article only seek conflict, and your edit history further shows it (see [11]). The comments you made ("This article is getting far worse than I could have imagined" and "What an awful article") are not constructive. In fact, I believe an administrator previously warned you about making inflamatory edit summaries.

Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 20:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Folks, please take this to the article talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 11 February 2013 (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.

No, I won't move on. I came here asking for help and you threatened me with a block on my talk page.[12] You are an administrator and you have responsabilities. Where, in that RfC, was my behavior inappropriate: Where are the "ad-hominum attacks"? --Lecen (talk) 21:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say you behaved inappropriately. I cautioned you to avoid breaking the rules. Please read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. Now, please move on. Toddst1 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Qaher 313

Could you be more specific on the warning you have posted on my page? Which edits? I have returned content removal by anonymous editors. A temporary page protection (for anonymous IPs and unverified accounts) was in place but it has been expired. Sarmadys (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Adamstraw

I saw your posting on my talk page and found that you sought the meaning of 'Abey chutiye' and it is a Hindi offensive word and the equivalent word in English is 'Moron' and equivalent abusive English word is 'asshole'. I hope this helps you. Rohit Saxena

Yes. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Please tell me why there is no action taken against the above mentioned user and marked as 'unactionable' report? He is not only using abusive words but also randomly deleting contents from articles. Please see his recent edits and you will come to know that from city/town article he has removed 'Air transportation' section where the contributors have mentioned the nearest Airport in that section. He never used the neutral language in the edit summary section which is evident from almost all his edits. Even his user page description is not in neutral tone. I request you to please relook into it. Rohit Saxena

WP:AIV is for WP:VANDALISM not WP:CIVIL issues. Toddst1 (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I filed the case under WP:AIV as the user was deleting contents which were contributed by other contributors within the wikipedia guidelines. Let's hope with your warning he start following wikipedia guidelines. If he doesn't then I will report it back. Thanks again. Rohit Saxena

129.12.226.122

Thank you for your assistance in dealing with the above IP. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Idle kiddies. No problem. Toddst1 (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Please consider modifying lock on Qaher-313

I notice you fully protected Qaher-313 for three weeks... it does not seem like there was a particularly severe edit war there, or really much of one at all. Can you please have a look and reconsider? The page needs a lot of work, so freezing it in its present condition really doesn't help anything as near as I can tell.

As an "in the news item" with most of the clearly unhelpful edits by IP's, semi protection might make more sense. It was semi'd for around 3 days last week. VQuakr (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur, I have been tracking this page and moderating some of the warring as well as generally fixing things (as I am sure you can see). It seems that most of the "warring" is under control, just so long as we include opposing views in appropriate context. IMHO, a block on anonymous edits is sufficient. Enquire (talk) 05:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Protection lifted per request. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but is it possible to block anonymous (IP's) for this page? This is where virtually all the problem edits come from. Enquire (talk) 01:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's possible but I don't think it's in line with policy. Does it fit one of those critereia? Toddst1 (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I would say so. Also, WP:ROUGH seems to confirm this, more specifically Criteria for semi-protection. The disruptive edits are almost all coming from unregistered users, bursts from specific IPs, but generally from random IP addresses. Since this is very politically sensitive, I think it is appropriate to enforce editors to be registered and known to Wikipedia.

Enquire (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, since neither one of those is policy nor a guideline - rather just the way shit works, I'll let someone else deal with any semiprotection. I'll restore the full per policy. Toddst1 (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the above is a guideline, if a rough one. The policy is here WP:SEMI. On my plain reading, semi-protection is appropriate, not full protection. Enquire (talk) 05:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

To re-frame the request in the context of policy, per WP:FULL: "On pages that are experiencing edit warring, temporary full protection can force the parties to discuss their edits on the talk page, where they can reach consensus. Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others." During the time the article was unprotected, there really was not much edit warring in article space anyways (I see two examples of blanking by an IP that were reversed and that is about it). What did you see that drove the decision to lock the article for weeks? VQuakr (talk) 04:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

There continues to be an ongoing disruptive edits of Qaher-313 by both sides to the dispute and in virtually all instances, disruptive edits are by unregistered users (possibly they are registered, but not logged in for these disruptive edits). While they are usually soon reverted, this is a tedious distraction to editors. Also, it is worthy of note that there is rarely any constructive edits by unregistered users. Ergo, semi-protection, IMHO, would be appropriate. Enquire (talk) 05:40, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of reflist for Barbara Sullivan

Hi Toddst1;

My apologies! The deletion was inadvertent - I simply meant to add the new external link to her history at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I appreciate the "heads up'!!

Oafp (talk) 00:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the block of User:Kingminister. I do realize it probably should have gone to WP:3RRN rather than AIV, but I get kind of frustrated with that process with editors who won't even acknowledge warnings and just keep on reverting well past 4 times. Yworo (talk) 01:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

removal of accurate ( i did have the date incorrect) information and threatening language by another user

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

Kar..... "warned" that I would be blocked if I "vandalized" the Southwest Airlines section of the Hobby Airport entry again. I did enter the wrong date for HOU_BWI and HOU_LAS for Southwest's Airtran division. The flights begin on August 11th. This can be verified by checking the flight schedules on Airtran.com or performing a search for those dates. I do not understand the hostility of some editors. This hostile person has exhibited this type os behavior before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boko80 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Boko80. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2013 (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.

Niisapu

Thank you for blocking Niisapu. I'd just opened a sockpuppet investigation about him/her, as User:Sum Dum Hou seems to be Niisapu's sockpuppet. I think it's a pretty open-and-shut case, but SPI has a backlog at the moment, so I thought you might want to just clear it up and get it out of the way. A. Parrot (talk) 20:17, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that there's also the (already blocked) account of User:Sum Yung Goose that seems to be following the same pattern.  — daranz [ t ] 21:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

DeFacto

Hi Toddst1

Thank you for performing those blocks. There is one down side - although only 200 IP addresses are involved, Vodaphone is one of the biggest mobile communication companies in the UK (They are No 2 worldwide). If there is a complaint from them, it might be appropriate to get them to "Read the Riot Act" to DeFacto in which case we will be done with him for good. Martinvl (talk) 23:29, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Range blocks

Todd, I noticed you issued a range block per this SPI. I have a few technical questions if you have a moment:

1. I assume that the range blocks cover User:212.183.140.33 and User: 212.183.128.135; right?
2. I think I've asked this one before, but is there a way to tell that a particular IP is range blocked (without looking at the range block list and figuring it out)?
3. I earlier blocked 212.183.140.33 for a month for socking. How does it work when there is a specific block of an IP that is also covered by a range block?

Thanks for your help.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Yes.

2. I don't know. I think you can look at an individual IP's block log and check. You could always run a brief experiment such as going to a wireless hotspot and figuring out its IP address by editing your own sandbox or something. Then log in as Bbb23, and issue a rangeblock for that address +/- 1 address for say 10 minutes. Then log out as Bbb23 and attempt to edit as the IP. As an admin, you're IP block exempt (or should be) so you could then log back in and look at the block log for that IP.

3. I think they're screwed both ways. You could find out by following a variation of what I described in #2.

Hope that helps. Toddst1 (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

With respect to #2, I haven't found a way to check from looking at the block log. As for your test suggestion, I think I'll pass. :-) Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Todd, Bbb23

For the record, I have compiled a list of IPs used by Defacto. This might help if Vodaphone come back to us because other customers are inconvenienced. In such cases it might be appropriate to get Vodaphone to threaten disconnection if he disrupts. (I thiunk that Vodaphone woudl rather lose one customer than antagonise a large number of customers).

• User:212.183.140.5 (11 February 2013 - 20:08 20:42)
• User:212.183.128.207 (12 February 2013 - 11:07)
• User:212.183.140.26 (12 February 2013 – 07:21 to 07:38)
• User:212.183.140.3 (12 February 2013 - 13:00 to 13:21)
• User:212.183.140.38 (13 February 2013 - 13:26 to 13:31)
• User:212.183.128.211 (13 February 2013 - 14:01 to 14:11)
• User:212.183.128.207 (13 February 2013 - 16:20 to 16:38)
• User:212.183.128.129 (13 February 2013 - 17:41 to 19:56)
• User:212.183.128.242 (14 February 2013 - 19:25 to 19:45)
• User:212.183.128.192 (15 February 2013 - 11:29 to 12:47)
• User:212.183.128.236 (15 February 2013 - 14:03 to 16:09)
• User:212.183.128.207 (15 February 2013 - 22:32 to 23:02)
• User:212.183.140.4 (16 February 2013 - 09:32 to 09:45)
• User:212.183.140.18 (16 February 2013 – 23:37 to 17 February 2013 – 00:11)
• User: 212.183.128.160 (18 February 2013 – 14:02)
• User: 212.183.128.176 (18 February 2013 – 14:33)
• User: 212.183.128.212 (19 February 2013 – 20:31 to 22:04)

Martinvl (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Right. Take a look at the Rangeblock-Calculator.

Then break the numbers into two groups based on the third octet:

212.183.128.207

212.183.128.211

212.183.128.207

212.183.128.129

212.183.128.242

212.183.128.192

212.183.128.236

212.183.128.207

212.183.128.160

212.183.128.176

212.183.128.212

212.183.140.4

212.183.140.3

212.183.140.26

212.183.140.5

212.183.140.38

212.183.140.18

That's how I came up with the two small rangeblocks. If you throw them in as one lump, you end up blocking 4096 ip addresses instead of 192. Toddst1 (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Plant's Strider

Your input would be appreciated here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For exceptional contributions to the time-honored art of troll-slaying. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 02:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For being able to read between the lines like a pro! Thanks for affirming that the protection of productive, good-faith editors is important to Wikipedia admins. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both. There are plenty of trolls to slay and lots of ducks out there. Toddst1 (talk) 02:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Watched

Hi Toddst1! Am I being watched, or that's just a feeling? :)--Jetstreamer ^Talk 14:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Since I blocked you, your talk page is on my watchlist. I saw a lot of activity there, so I took a quick look at what you've been up to. Notice that I didn't hassle you about it. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Juan Manuel de Rosas

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

The RfC in Juan Manuel de Rosas is still ongoing. Under the suggestion of a neutral editor I attempted to edit the article. Unfortunately my edits were either removed or changed by the other two editors involved in the discussion. Thus I reverted the article back to the last stable version (that is, before my first edit). Since it seems that I'm not allowed to edit the article, neither should them until the RfC is over. I'd like to ask you to protect the article again and keep it in the previous stable version. Thank you, --Lecen (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: the changes to his edits were minor and localized ones, in fact the normal type of edits. His claim that "he's not allowed to edit the article" seems a bit contrived: nobody mass-reverted his work, he reverted himself one, two and three times. He broke the 3-Revert rule to remove his own edits, and requests himself the protection of the article, at the same time he makes threats of requestng sanctions here. Yes, there is an edit war going on, and perhaps the article will have to be protected again (in any case, I will wait until things get a bit calmer before making further edits to the article), but don't jump to conclusions about who is escalating the conflict here. Don't believe his words, and neither believe mine: check the article history by yourself. Cambalachero (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps any edits should be agreed to on the talk page before implementation, both yours and others'. I'll fully protect the page to ensure that happens.

BTW, reverting your own edits is exempt from 3RR. You should read it.Toddst1 (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Todd, it surprises me that you are justifying Lecen's bad behavior with a 3RR exemption clearly meant to self-correct mistakes. What mistake is Lecen correcting? None. He is self-reverting because other editors dared to touch his contributions. The stench of WP:OWN issues could not be any stronger.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 23:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not justifying anything. Please don't put words in my mouth or attribute motives to my actions. Toddst1 (talk) 23:12, 20 February 2013 (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.

Article unblock request

The only person edit warring in the article was Lecen, who was not self-reverting. If you look at the edit history, you'll notice that his reverts took place after Cambalachero and I edited the page; therefore, his reverts were aimed against the edits of other contributors. Nonetheless, and perhaps most importantly, it is necessary to have the article open for edits so that Lecen shows what he wants to do with the article. Instead of simply discussing matters on an abstract level, it is important to have him demonstrate where he wants to take the article. In the case that he continues to edit war, the solution is pretty simple. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

FYI

{{unreferenced BLP|Section}} just adds an article tag instead of a section tag, despite the parameter. Please use {{BLP unsourced section}} instead. Thanks for your contributions! -- Patchy1 REF THIS BLP 07:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I should have paid more attention. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 12:55, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Eos (festival)

Hey there, I just noticed that you deleted the above noted article in accordance with the A7 criteria for speedy deletion. The A7 criteria corresponds to articles that fail to indicate significance and/or importance. This article did not meet the A7 criteria, due to an assertion of significance as the largest festival of its kind in India and Mumbai. While I have sent the article for deletion discussion due to lack of notability, the application of the deletion process in this case was incorrect. It may come back to bite you if the article creator presents the article for deletion review. Therefore, I would kindly suggest that restoring the article in order for the deletion process to play out in accordance with policy may be the best course of action here. And of course, there is the IAR exception, since the article would likely end up deleted in the end anyway. Six to one; half a dozen. Just a thought to consider. Best regards, Cindy(talk to me) 21:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I doubt Akashranga123 (talk · contribs · logs) will be taking it to DRV but you concern is appreciated and noted. Having the largest party in town doesn't make the party important from a Wikipedia sense, so I'm not sure I follow your logic about A7 but I'll be glad to let the AFD run its course. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Toddst1, I just wanted to stop by to inform you that a User made a heavy revert on the article Culture of Italy that lacks consensus and also contains invalid information and just want to be on the safe side that the user is not vandalizing the page. My statement was that user Johnbod made arbitrary edits out of nowhere that included errors in facts and spelling, for example the edits that Johnbod made, stated that India was part of the Roman Empire and the correct word "colonization" was changed to "colonisation" which does not appear to be constructive, and that word didn't even show up in my word dictionary, and that recent edit was made by User Bishonen. Thank You. (Slurpy121 (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barton Business Park

It's a default no consensus, which meant that there wasn't enough comments after three relistings aside from your delete vote (the last comment isn't policy based, and Milowent was simply a comment if the article doesn't survive AFD, it can be mentioned on the town page) to determine consensus. Like I said in the closing comment, you can create a new nomination at any time without the default OMG renominated too soon after surviving AFD comments because of it. Secret ^account 03:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013

Hello, I'm Alansohn. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Christian B. Anfinsen without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry: I restored the removed content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! The removal may have been well-intentioned but removed categories supported by a source provided for that paragraph. Please be more careful when removing content or feel free to work on adding sources, which can often be readily found by searching in Google / News / Archives / Books with minimal effort. Alansohn (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice template Alan. Nowhere in that article is it cited that he's jewish. Please revert yourself.Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Correction. I searched for the wrong term. Good catch. You can still put the template somewhere else. I would think you would know what a good-faith edit is. Toddst1 (talk) 20:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Abraham Maslow said that "If you only have a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." When I have spent too much time reviewing new edits looking for vandalism, it's amazing how often edits that I was sure were vandalism turned out not to be and this process was how I learned to have much more humility when summarily removing content. Take a look at your recent edits to the article for Mayim Bialik, who is undeniably Jewish and this article is referenced up the proverbial wazoo with sources to support the claim, yet you deleted any categories that mentioned her Judaism as "unverifiable". If anyone else did that -- and I now realize that you are an experienced editor -- I would have been more than justified in tagging you as a vandal. And I'm not sure what you mean by "unverifiable" in the first place, as the word is defined by Wiktionary as "Not capable of being verified, confirmed, checked or proven"; These claims can be verified, but you might have to look for the information. In the case of Mayim Bialik the sources were all over the article. I have a few thousand articles that I monitor and they are constantly updated with unsourced material. I often am wary about the added content but I feel that I have a responsibility to see if I can verify the material, above and beyond the fact that I am required to do so by Wikipedia policy. If it can be sourced then I add the source, if it can't then I remove the material and in some cases I will tag as citation needed, but I will always try to look for sources if I have any reason to believe the new material might be verifiable. It's amazing how much quality content has been added to thousands of articles where a little research and effort on my part helped an editor who didn't know how to add a reference or didn't bother. As a Wikipedia admin, you can set an example by trying to find sources to build the encyclopedia, rather than just deleting away. Try it, and feel free to ask me for help in sourcing material where you're unfamiliar with the material or the sources. For some humility of your own, take a look through the Mayim Bialik article and follow the sources through and tell me whether or not your edit was justified. Alansohn (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN applies to the person adding or restoring - not folks who come along later. WP:V is not optional but is casually applied to those and similar categories. I would expect you to be much more familiar with that policy. Categories like those are some of the most abused aspects of WP:BLP here. Yes, I cleaned up probably 30 articles yesterday along those lines yesterday. I'm sure I made a few mistakes as you've pointed out. WP:V is not optional but is rarely applied to those and similar categories. Toddst1 (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You have to read -- and observe -- the whole policy you're citing; You can't just pick and choose which parts of the policy you want other editors to comply with, while neglecting your obligations. WP:V states rather clearly on the WP:BURDEN section you cited above that "When tagging or removing material for not having an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable. If instead you think the material is verifiable, try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." This last sentence references WP:PRESERVE, Wikipedia policy that requires editors to "Try to fix problems" as the heading of the section reads. Wholesale removal of verifiable content -- material for which a source could be found if you took time to do the research -- is contrary to the goal of building an encyclopedia and violates Wikipedia policy. The burden you cite is two-sided; The editor needs to add sources when the material is added AND you need to perform due diligence before removing material that was not properly sourced when it was added. As an admin, I would expect you not only to be much more familiar with that policy, but to be particularly careful about following it in theory and applying it in practice with every edit. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

My obvious mistake mentioned above aside, there have been lengthy community discussions about this and you are definitely of the minority viewpoint. My observations on this issue are that the folks in this discussion are kind of like the gun rights/control debate in America. Both sides are so convinced they are right and have rationality on their side that there is no room for seeing any other point of view. Toddst1 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your argument or the relevance of gun rights in the discussion here. While the Second Amendment might have been written three or four hundred years ago and the times might have changed since then -- say the evolution from muzzle-loading rifles back then to today's Uzis -- the Wikipedia policy requiring editors to try to add sources was written and agreed upon within the past several decades and seems to be rather clear and specific. Do you believe that Wikipedia's Verifiability Policy (the same one you quoted from to absolve you of responsibility for trying to add sources) does not require you to try to find sources for material before removing it or do you believe that only a minority of people observe this policy and it can therefore be ignored? As an admin, I would expect you not only to be much more familiar with all aspects of that policy, but to be particularly careful about following it in theory and applying it in practice with every edit, and that even if you believe that a requirement to search for sources and add them to the article before arbitrarily removing content is a "minority viewpoint" that you would be scrupulous in enforcing Wikipedia policy's rather explicit requirement to "Try to fix problems". Alansohn (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Defacto sock (surprised?)

In the flurry of IP socking the original account (Bill le Conquérant) requested by Martinvl for SPI never got blocked. That account is now active again. Would you be comfortable doing a WP:DUCK block? Thanks, Garamond Lethet
c 20:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I blocked BLC. I suspect he's coming in through a different IP/range. Let me know when you see others. Toddst1 (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing what I suspect is a mostly thankless job. Garamond Lethet
c 22:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

He has sprung another sockpuppet against us. This time I think that you are involved personally. See WP:SPI. Martinvl (talk) 11:56, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Within an hour and a half of me posting this, User:Reaper Eternal decided that User:WeeFreel was shouting WP:QUACK and put him out of his misery. Martinvl (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Request to create redirect at The Dating Guy

I noticed that you applied WP:SALT to The Dating Guy after the recent deletion discussion. However, per the WP:CON recently established in a virtually identical case at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 25#Futz!, this page should instead be redirected to marblemedia (where it is already discussed). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dating Guy (2nd nomination), the result was delete. How do you get Redirect? Toddst1 (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I would ask that you read the link to the WP:CON that I provided above. Put simply: the article was deleted for violating WP:N, but that does not apply to redirects. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 12:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, "Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and it is accepted as the best method to achieve our goals. Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote. Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's norms." so the consensus is spelled out very clearly:

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The Bushranger One ping only 10:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

— Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dating Guy (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BigDom 06:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

— Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dating Guy

So unless I'm missing something, you're completely rejecting WP:CON and trying to fabricate a result of "redirect." Exactly how many times do you need to be told Delete? Toddst1 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite surprised that an administrator seems to be so unfamiliar with WP:N, possibly to the point of ignoring it altogether. By the way, I don't recall there being a result of salt either (and quietly doing so well after the deletion discussion was closed - by a different administrator, no less - isn't exactly conducive to transparency). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Help closing SPI

We've had quite a bit of canvassing at the Sarkar-related AfDs, but I didn't realize how bad (and how ineffective) it was until I put together the SPI. As there's a bit of a backlog, would you mind taking a look and closing this as you saw fit? Thanks, Garamond Lethet
c 15:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning to you

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

Threaten to block me again (I'm not even talking about actually doing it) for doing something very much allowed - and even encouraged - by Wikipedia policy and I'll have little choice but to bring a formal case of administrator abuse against you. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Bring it on. I redouble my warning. Toddst1 (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think I'm not allowed to discuss an administrative action with the administrator who performed that action. Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's been explained. Move along. Now you're trolling. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2013 (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.

Dogmaticeclectic - Calling this admin abuse isn't going to get you anywhere. I'd suggest you keep well away for the time being as your presence appears to be causing unnecessary tension. I'm on top of it for you so I'd appreciate it if you would leave it in my hands. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Dating Guy

Hi there Toddst1 - Hope you're well! I've just seen a request at WP:RFPP to have the above page unprotected to create a redirect to marblemedia. I understand where you're coming from with the AfD result being delete, but I think this is a fairly uncontroversial redirect. Would you be up for letting me edit through the protection to simply create the redirect? Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ryan, Based on the deletion history of The Dating Guy and the behavior of Dogmaticeclectic (talk · contribs), I'm convinced this is a ploy to have the redirect created so that yet another an article can replace the redirect. Dog seems to have an obsession here.

At this point I suspect this may be another incarnation of the sockpuppeteer, FaheyUSMC (talk · contribs) Toddst1 (talk) 15:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother arguing about whether I would actually do that, but in such a scenario, any user could simply nominate the newly-created article for WP:SD - not even WP:AFD.

By the way, given your own history (including your block threats for following Wikipedia policy, the insulting way you wrote my username above, and now this groundless accusation) I find it quite bewildering that you were granted WP:ADMIN status.

(Apologies to the other administrator for not staying away, but I felt I should respond to such accusations, especially given the seriousness of the latter.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated for getting back to me Toddst1 - Given your comments, I'll defer to your more knowledgeable judgment on the matter. Dogmaticeclectic, I suggest you let the matter drop. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		I'm not sure I'm qualified to offer this to you but I do so anyway. Thank you for your patience and help to peacefully resolve a great many of the challenges that we're been having in some of our firearms articles. -Justanonymous (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a difficult subject. It fits a lot of the criteria around WP:NOTNAS-ETHNIC and the smart admins may choose to steer clear. I appreciate the acknowledgement. Toddst1 (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Kristijh

Hello my friend. I'm just curious why you didn't block him? Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the purpose of that would be. S/he seems to have stopped his/her disruptive behavior. Toddst1 (talk) 14:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Cowgirls

Saw your tags at National Cowgirl Museum and Hall of Fame. I tossed the notability one, as it is undoubtably notable, but I share your concerns with all the new material being added by the anon IP, whose IP does geolocate to Austin, TX. Maybe check to see if Moonriddengirl or someone wants to check for copyvio issues. At the very least, we need sources and better structure, it reads like it came from the brochure. I don't know if there are grounds to revert to the last version prior to this IP showing up, but I think it does require an eye on the article. Montanabw^(talk) 01:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

How do get it's undoubtably notable? Toddst1 (talk) 03:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I just took a big whack at the article and rewrote most of it, using the material the anon IP provided. They still have to take responsibility and source it, but I tossed all the cruft and left a summary that now probably resolves the COI issues ('cause I've never been there, among other things). I'm not going to waste my time and breath on a notability dispute, it's as notable as the other museums linked in the article and the analogous National Cowboy & Western Heritage Museum. I don't really want to spend a lot of time on this particular article, as I have other fish to fry, but I think I did enough cleanup of the nonsense and advertising that is now salvagable by someone who wants to take more time with it. Montanabw^(talk) 18:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Blank and redirect guideline

When performing a blank and redirect of an article like the one you did at sofalizing, I'd want to ask you to follow the advice at WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT and leave a notice of your action at the target article's talk page. While it's not mandatory, it will help other editors to find your change, so it benefits cooperation. Diego (talk) 13:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you....William 15:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Kristijh

Sorry for the trouble. I should have reported the vandalism on the spot. I don't know why I waited the 11 minutes. I forget. I could have been called away on an off-wiki thing.

On the upside, Kristijh got the message, and hopefully it will have the same effect as a block and he will change his ways....hopefully. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Marie Lu

Thanks, Toddst1. I'd saved the page before completing anything save the infobox... Zoidbergmd (talk) 14:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at WilliamJE's talk page.
Message added 17:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BTW I'm going out now to the doctor, grocery store and gym plus I have to pick my wife up at work. I will be away for at least 3 hours ...William 17:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have a minute...

... could you take a look at User_talk:Kt1502#March_2013? You blocked them last week and now they've requested an unblock. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 19:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left comments and asked a few questions there. Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI - I have unblocked her as she has understood the problems. I'll keep an eye on her, and fingers crossed, she will learn to write from a NPOV. SmartSE (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Good. Thanks for working that out. Toddst1 (talk) 13:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Toddst1; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

SPI

Hi, please see Walther WA 2000 and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Lbrad2001. This user is edit warring across multiple accounts/IPs. ROG5728 (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it might be worth extending the page protection at Walther WA 2000. The SPI on this editor is still ongoing, and on the article talk page at Talk:Walther WA 2000 he doesn't seem to be willing to actually discuss the content he wants added. ROG5728 (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Jajadeleradesign

Hello, and thanks for blocking this sock puppet of 121.54.54.37. Same focus on Volvo and Isuzu commercial vehicles, same obsession with Maja Salvador. More diffs are in the archive of the ip's sockpuppet investigation. This user is highly problematic and has gone through at least a dozen ip addresses, although this is the first account they've created.  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

At first I didn't see the disruption, but there seems to be some weird obsession there. The IP has a long-term block on it as an open proxy. Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The ip even had me checking manufacturers' websites as I thought some of his hoaxes might be true. He also uses multiple ip's to make chains of innocuous edits which serve to hide the falsehoods, often planting supporting "evidence" on related pages as a different user. I have been wrestling with them for a month or two now, with no letting up. Can I call on you when the next one pops up? Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if I'm around. Toddst1 (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Is it kosher to delete warnings on your talk page just cause you don't like them?

I notice that almost immediately after you left a warning on User:Franek K.'s talk page on Sep. 11, 2012 about edit warring, he deleted that warning from his own talk page and then proceeded to add the same warning onto the talk page of the person he was edit-warring with. Are either of these actions kosher?

I find myself now dealing with this same character, who (from my position) is a single-purpose editor with a Silesian nationalist point of view, who works relentlessly to insert his POV into articles relating to Slavic languages. He just added a warning onto my talk page accusing me of "vandalism"; almost immediately another, more experienced editor told him that my changes absolutely were not vandalism, and admonished him that an accusation of vandalism was tantamount to assuming bad faith. (In a situation like this, is it OK to remove the warning from my talk page or should I leave it up?) Benwing (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That was six months ago.

Also, I not have a Silesian nationalist point of view, I'm Pole and my native language is Polish. I have a neutral point of view, dialect or language, not only language. Opinions about Silesian between people are different, also between linguists (although I admit that the more linguists considered Silesian as a dialect - I do not hide this, however, not all linguists). Also important is the opinion of people using the language, the organizations of a given language, opinions by sociolinguist, opinions by linguist organizations, politicians etc. At this stage, you can not decide that Silesian is a dialect or Silesian is a language; in the current situation neutral version is Silesian is a language or a dialect. Wikipedia is neutral, if there are different opinions, should be show all. User Benwing pushing only one POV-version - a dialect of Polish, data about Lach dialect of Silesian (according to few sources, dialect of the Czech language), opinions by linguistic organizations, political issue for Silesian begins stir, so, Benwing remove this data and sources, all data that may disqualify his opinion of Silesian as a dialect of Polish. Most likely to be created page of RFC for Silesian problem. Franek K. (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Odd

I was just in the process of declining the AIV on Akerbelz ... the OP is a real piece of work, and it's them who are clearly the vandal ... see their talkpage .... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

See my supplemental note on akerbelz block. If you disagree, either let me know and I'll unblock, or feel free to unblock him yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, so he didn't report ... his 3RR is excused because the OP's is clearly vandalism/racism/fringe ... if you gave this guy 1 day, then the OP should have a couple of weeks ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah. didn't see that. I'll unblock. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers ... I think I'll keep an eye on both of them for a bit though. Methinks one of them may be pushing for an indef (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:55, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm...remember how I said one was aiming for an indef? have a look (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:36, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Confused

See my reply on my talk page (don't know if you're going back to check or not) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:54, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello

The following discussion 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.

---

Hello, how are you? I know you don't know me, but are you familiar with a user named "Ihardlythinkso"? Thanks, OGBranniff (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am fine. Yes. Toddst1 (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am having a relatively heated WP:BAIT and WP:DROPIT situation with User:Ihardlythinkso over relatively petty matters involving chess articles (just one of many types of articles I edit.) Admin User:Drmies has been involved but due to constant badgering by User:Ihardlythinkso and his chess cohort User:Quale, she told those two that she won't discuss anything further here. Would you mind giving this some thought, as I will be back shortly with more diffs of "Ihardlythinkso's" voluminous posts in different venues about this matter. Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 02:32, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, once again, thank you for your time. The WP:BAIT and hounding by User:Ihardlythinkso comes not from his direct hounding of me on my own talk pages, but his persistent pattern of going to as many third-party venues as he can, trying to smear me and portray me in a bad light, and not taking no for an answer. This pattern of behavior is similar to the behavior that got the user indefinitely blocked for almost two months last year.

I. The immediate background to this baiting by User:Ihardlythinkso is this ANI post made by Ihardlythinkso's confederate, User:Quale on 12 March 2013. I realized that I had made some inconsiderate edits and promised not to do it again. I was issued a warning also on 12 March. Please keep in mind that in one of the incidents that Quale mentioned, I had reverted and redacted the offending language less than 24 hours later, here: [13].

II. This "warning," even though I have not done anything else to merit discipline, was not enough for the vindictive "Ihardlythinkso," who then proceeds to post longwinded soliloquies in many different venues, even after having been warned to lay off, such as:

A. originally on his own talk page,

B. another on his talk page,

C. this unanswered rant on admin "Monty845's" talk page,

D. another one on admin Drmies's talk page, which she archived politely.

III. I noticed this hounding and baiting and posted about this previously here.

IV. Still not satisfied for blood, Ihardlythinkso and Quale lament their ill luck in trying to get me banned :

A. here,

B. and not less than ten minutes ago, User:Ihardlythinkso issues this combative and snide verbal blow to admin Drimes here.

V. While I have over one hundred twenty edits to article space out of four hundred, User:Quale still belittles my contributions, calling them "a net negative" and at every turn calls me worthless and refuses to explain or apologize, such as here.

What I am saying is this smacks of WP:BAIT and WP:BITE, and is very similar to the vindictive and obsessive behavior that got User:Ihardlythinkso banned the previous time. It is not a good editing environment for an editor like me, who is trying to add to articles, whether in chess or otherwise, and I want some advice as to what to do. Admin User:Drmies says she's out of the picture as far as this situation. If I post a "Request for Comment" would you second such? Or really what should I do? Thank you. OGBranniff (talk) 03:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Without commenting on the merit (or possible lack thereof) of your argument, I'll comment that there is a long history of problems with that user. He's been indefinitely blocked before. If you can succinctly make a case for intervention, you might want to approach SilkTork (talk · contribs) who unblocked him in May of last year. As the last admin that blocked him, I'm going to abstain from involvement. Toddst1 (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, and thank you for the advice. OGBranniff (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

1) "He's been indefinitely blocked before." Do you think you informed OGB of something he doesn't know already? Isn't it obvious why he selected you to canvass? OGB has also repeated in multiple locations on the Wiki about my block from you, Toddst1, including to another admin he's also canvassed for the same purpose. 2) "As the last admin that blocked him [...]". Implying there might be another admin that exists, who's ever blocked me? When there hasn't? 3) "[...} there is a long history of problems with that user." And I can have an opinion about you as well, Toddst1. (I'm sure you know what it is.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 21:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

4) "[...] you might want to approach SilkTork who unblocked him [...]". You make that sound as if the unblock decision was that of Silktork's, when I know you know it wasn't. Also, the edit sum on Silktork's unblock states: "ArbCom unblock". Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Your stated opinion of me is ''"I valued/value your opinion. (And the reason for that, is you seem to take a clear, conservative stance. And I agree with that disposition, erring on side of caution.)"[14] Thank you for the complement. I'm going to abstain from involvement. Toddst1 (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Toddst1, that was regarding your opinions on WP documentation requirements for articles comprising lists. And yes, I respect your opinion on that policy. That opinion doesn't necessarly extend to other aspects of your Adminship, especially when you continue to make derogatory and misleading comments about me here on your Talk. (Chalk up a 5th, taking my compliment of you out of context here, attempting to make me look like an inconsistent nincompoop.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

You were more charming in your other phase. Either way, I'll say for the third time that I'm not getting involved so you can move along. Toddst1 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Todd, I wasn't thinking or guessing you were prepping to "get involved". I was responding for the record to things you wrote here, which were misleading. And sincerely, I like to return being "more charming" re you too, but that is a two-way street, you know. Cheers. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

New Section

You know, as long as we are here, meaning me, and you User:Ihardlythinkso, I would like to have a rapprochement with you, if you are interested. I think you and I could get along well in the future, and I would be prepared to forestall any "Request for Comment" and apologize to you about the "hard on" comments, etc, as long as certain conditions of mine were met. Let us face it, any future "Request for Comment" concerning these issues most likely would not go all too well for you or your buddy "Quale." Let me know if you are interested, OGBranniff (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

OGB, I promised admin Drmies I wasn't going to annoy you with any further questioning (which I'd already decided to do even prior to Drmies's instructions). Since then I've had no direct interface with you, except where I have kept it on the very positive side of things. You see some sort of ongoing problem between us that you've been hankering to do something about, but I don't see it the same as you. (The time for the apology you referred to, has long since past, and I wouldn't accept a "conditional" apology, anyway.) Just so you know what to expect from me, I intend to keep any & all interactions with you positive, per Drmies. The roadmap to "getting along well in the future" is simply for you to turn your best efforts to improving articles, and that too, is the only way real mutual respect can be either created or maintained. I don't hold any grudge against you, in case you were wondering. If you have something further for me, the place isn't Admin Toddst1's Talk, but respective user Talks. Otherwise, I'll see you in the articles, should we happen to share an article(s) common interest. Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2013 (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.

problem in wp..voting

A huge problem in wikipedia is voting. ideally, editors would think "what is the best and most logical edit". But no, we vote, which is the sock problem. If we only considered ideas, socks would not matter or be an issue. Bamler2 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We go by consensus, not voting. It's a subtle but important difference. Either way, you can't change that aspect of how things work. Toddst1 (talk) 15:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course you can change. In America, blacks used to sit in the back of the bus by law.

One possibility is for really good writers could be able to interject good advice. WP is highly geared to voting. The sock issue proves it.Bamler2 (talk) 15:34, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok. It has been explained to you. You cannot and should not unilaterally change policy here. Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

But of you are wise, you will see the light to the issue that I point out. I may be handicapped but I have some insight and know some great facts,like Albert going to the south pole, which an editor thought was vandalism. This shows how great WP could be if a reader thinks "did not know that, only was inWP" See, that is why it is a travesty when William the editor calls for a block. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You should realize that you're not far from being blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

please

Please tone down your aggressive edits in ani and here. Thank you.

Unlike William, I am signing off for 24-36 hours voluntarily. Do not be a bully while I exercise such restraint. I have a little hope that you will not be that bully but will reflect and contemplate.Bamler2 (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Besides, blocking would be illegal punishment because there is no danger to wp articles or to WP.Bamler2 (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You are confusing my comments as an uninvolved administrator responding to complaints about your behavior on ANI with bullying. You've been warned about WP:NPA and calling me a bully falls into that category. You really need to re-evaluate how you are interacting with folks here.

Folks can and frequently are blocked for disruptive editing. It is perfectly legal. Toddst1 (talk) 15:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I said that I think you will not be a bully. I did not mean to say that you are a bully. They do exist in Wp. Bamler2 (talk) 15:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

if

If you can think of a way to have less voting and more wise consideration of WP, this would be a great outcome to recent ani stuff. Think hard! I am willing to help with ideas.Bamler2 (talk)¿ —Preceding undated comment added 16:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sports articles

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

For this edit[15].

Former players who are still alive are considered referenced for birthdays, places of birth, by the article having a link to Baseball reference, NFL.com, PGA Tour.com or other WP:RS. This isn't my belief only but held by the wikiprojects that maintain these articles I have created both golfer and baseball player articles. Jim Duckworth, Gerry Schoen, Soo Young Yoo to name a few. I'd say the overwhelming majority of baseball and golf articles don't IC dates of birth.

There's an WP Golf editor named Tewapack whose fastidiousness attention to golf articles is well known to anyone works on them here. Does he IC birthdays etc? No.

You uncategorized the article without first thinking- Where did that come from? Are other articles IC like that? Who the editor was who put the category in? I'm not an IP and I've got thousands of edits in my history just on categorizing people by town, city, whatever. I created the category People from Barbertown, Ohio.

Oh and you can probably trout me back because I reverted all the way back to my edit. Because I didn't know you made about a dozen edits....William 01:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

All claims must be verifiable whether or not there's an nfl/mlb bio. There is a lot of stuff in that article that is not verifiable. I've tagged them as such. Toddst1 (talk) 01:20, 27 March 2013‎

Help with user unwilling to corporate

User:dan56 Has been repeatedly reverting my edits on Are you experienced based on his on personal analysis on what the album is. I posted refs that were listed as reliable sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources Allmusic(as long as it doesn't use the sidebar) Billboard, and a publication. Yet the user is still refusing to accept these sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Are_You_Experienced#Researching_genres. I went as far as trying to resolve the problem on another users talk page User_talk:Freakmighty yet he still wants to edit war or get other users to edit war for him. Will you please ban this guy he has caused me a lot of emotional distress and i don't know what else to do. PS i wrote this ahead of time cause I knew he would revert it.--75.65.123.86 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Johntabios sockpuppets

Firstly, thank you for sorting out the sockpuppetry, at least for now. Secondly, 149.3.141.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is another sock of Johntabios; I reported it nearly two hours ago when it had only made a couple of edits but it has not been blocked yet, even though it has now vandalised after its final warning. 10metreh (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked at 21:12, 29 March 2013 by Favonian. Toddst1 (talk) 21:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Aha, thanks. It hadn't been blocked when I started making the edit. 10metreh (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

An item of clothing worn on the feet

Not sure if you might have already seen it, but you may be interested in this page (again, unfortunately). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Harassment

Hi, Todd. While patrolling new pages, I ran across an article that seems to have some issues. At one point, it had some verbatim copyrighted text pasted into the article so I tagged it as such. The article's author then began harassing me with several edits per minute on my talk page. You can see the section here. Ultimately, I'd just like for the editor to actually work with me and come to some sort of conclusion so I'm not really looking for a block because I'm not sure that a block will fix anything. I was going to take it to ANI but I think that will just fan the flames. I thought perhaps an admin could warn him that this kind of behavior is not OK and he would stop. I might be wrong, though. Do you have any suggestions? OlYeller21^Talktome 15:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

More harassment, plus unsolicited medical advice, at User talk:Cullen328#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San Francisco Soccer Football League. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, fun! Guess I better see where else he's leaving messages. OlYeller21^Talktome 16:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNATS

Re this AfD specifically, I guess it could perhaps be reclosed as no consensus, but I felt the arguments being placed in favour of the article being kept were in line with Wikipedia policies and outweighed the argument made for delete. Re PearUp, I revised my close to "delete" and provided a rationale. LFaraone 03:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Your deletion of BlogFrog

I suggest restoring BlogFrog. It had potentially useful content before it was converted to a redirect. —teb728 t c 21:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Toddst1 (talk) 21:27, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've restored it, took out the obvious copyvios and marketing hype but there's not much left. Toddst1 (talk) 21:40, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Urgent advice needed

Hi mate. You've been involved in a couple of recent things I've brought up but I have one that really isn't appropriate for ANI at this stage. Thought you could provide some advice/take some action as you see fit (I saw you were online and contributing to ANI).

Frances Hugle was a computer scientist who pioneered a bunch of things in the 60s. Her daughter (User:Cheryl Hugle) edits here (with a declared COI) and last year got into conflict with a bunch of other editors about what should be included in her mother's article. Today she showed up after a 3 month hiatus to start this thread on the article talk page.

Effectively she has presented a bunch of general statistics related to cancer, found a three-person anomaly that she suggests relates to them being in the presence of a particular person (her father) and has suggested that the anomaly constitutes/represents the murder of her mother.

She now claims that my suggestion she remove such un-sourced and WP:OR speculation from the article talk page (which I framed as a suggestion rather than a warning/demand anyway) is an attempt at censorship.

All I can conclude is that she wants her "research" to remain on the talk page in the hope that some of those who read the article will click-through to that discussion and "learn the truth" aout her mother (her want to publish "the truth" has been a constant point of conflict). She also claims that because those involved are dead, making such accusations causes no harm. I'm not sure if she has any siblings or whether they are on the other "side" of this family conflict, but surely such suggestions constitute a BLP violation with regard to any living relatives. And surely, either way, WP shouldn't be playing host to a private family conflict that involves accusations of murder and cover-up.

You advice/action would be appreciated. Stalwart111 02:02, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake - her hiatus has been from that article but she has been editing elsewhere since. She posted the same claim at Talk:Integrated circuit. Stalwart111 02:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

See User_talk:Cheryl_Hugle#Righting_great_wrongs Toddst1 (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That's as much as I can ask for. Thanks for trying. Stalwart111 08:16, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not correctly characterized here. But, regardless, this false characterization has been used to reprimand and threaten me.

This after I shared remarkable facts about the death of a founder of Silicon Valley.

I have made considerable contributions to Wikipedia on a subject not previously well understood and some have written to express their gratitude, even stating how odd that I was so chastised at every turn when no one else was in a position to compile the info.

"will click-through to that discussion and "learn the truth" aout her mother"

No, the info was intended for editors, not casual readers.

I came to share something that I felt would interest other editors. Period. It is time to stop jumping to conclusions about other people's motivations, stop alleging what could clearly be seen to be false with just a little more attention especially before threatening.

I have made exceptional contributions! If you don't believe that then look at the IC inventor discussion where it has now been finally acknowledged that Fran did invent a thin film IC in 1956. I am sorry that these facts are unwelcome. But, in all fairness, they are facts and they are critical features of this history that we are all trying so hard to tell as well as possible.

I could go on but this type of misrepresentation is terribly upsetting. Why engage in it?

"WP shouldn't be playing host to a private family conflict that involves accusations of murder and cover-up."

? This makes no sense. Frances was a founder of Silicon Valley (sources supplied in article). Her contributions are something worth recording. Other aspects of her life may also be interesting. That is all. No one is having a family conflict.

In my personal case, yes, I would like to see a more complete treatment but ONLY because these are historical facts of interest... wide interest. Yet, I have been very careful to operate (I hope) within the rules of Wikipedia... and consequently MUCH is not being shared. On the other hand, when legitimate sources are discovered, I have shared them, or attempted to at least. And, not in the article due to COI, but on the Talk pages as I have been instructed to do.

These sources are legitimate, relevant, etc. My explanations are not meant to 'conflict', they are truly meant to inform. I cannot understand why this is so hard to discern.

I hope a balanced review of my contributions ensues before a culture of slander decides the outcome of issues obviously not well understood.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

IP sock

Re: the block of 177.97.73.64. More specifically, it is a sock of Special:Contributions/Leandro Rezende Carvalho61. Just so you know if it were to popup again. Nymf _{talk to me} 06:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

blanking

Since this situation is being investigated by WMF, and there have been allegations of "borderline illegal" activity, and there is potential media attention, could you please blank/delete/whatever User:Colin/Introduction to Psychology, 2013. Colin°^Talk 22:01, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to decline since Philippe is on it. If he thought it would be appropriate to blank it, he has privileges that I don't.

I recommend everyone walk away from the issue and leave the evidence to speak for itself. WMF press relations is not our business.

I doubt anyone on the planet would think you are guilty of any type of crime involving cyberstalking. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Well can you ask Philippe to consider whether the press might not use the list wisely. Colin°^Talk 22:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You can ask him yourself. Here's his info: User:Philippe_(WMF).

If you're concerned about Stephen's accusations of cyberstalking, then I certainly wouldn't remove that page. Doing so could be considered an obstruction of justice, but I think such accusations of stalkiing are wildly far-fetched. We're a wiki and we self-police. I'm an admin who's blocked thousands of users and people love to throw accusations around. See the first bullet of Wikipedia:NOTNAS

Just take a deep breath. Everything will be fine. Toddst1 (talk) 22:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• … and even if it isn't fine, you've done your part and more. So relax a little. People are (finally) taking it to the university and the department head. At least two editors with "(WMF)" in their account names have participated in the discussion. And this is the sort of thing that interests the educational outreach folk. You're not carrying the burden alone. Go and do something else entirely. RIGVIR (AfD discussion), Mycoplasma infection (AfD discussion), and Snare technique (AfD discussion) seem to need attention. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Colin°^Talk 08:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

General question with no audience in mind

Did the entire wiki toss their bottles from the prams today and go fucking nuts? Toddst1 (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Given that at least one person, possibly many more, did not, the answer is, logically: No. Uncle G (talk) 08:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of three Michelin starred restaurants in the United Kingdom

Hi Toddst1

I hate to sound like a sore looser, being the minority at this AfD. Most of the comments were from non voters or were withdrawn and the bulk of the keep votes were I like it votes. LFaraone closed it with no explanation. I need an informed opinion in such a discussion to decide what to do next about the undecided copyright issue since the expert's opinion was that there is a real problem! Perhaps you can give a second opinion/recommendation for improvement on the way this was closed. 10x ? CPVIO (talk) 23:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Since Toddst1 mentioned this to me, I'll reply here. I closed the article as Keep because it was encyclopedic. I accept User:Moonriddengirl's experience and the comments she made in the AfD, but the overall consensus seemed to be that the article should be kept. If you disagree with the outcome of the discussion as to whether the article was encyclopedic and worth keeping on those grounds, deletion review is acceptable. If you continue to have concerns as to the copyright status of the article content, the copyright violations noticeboard seems more apropos. LFaraone

Worth noting that CPVIO has been blocked as a sock. Toddst1 (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I noted :) LFaraone 03:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Sorry. Won't happen again. I'm new and wasn't aware. Maxschweitzer (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

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

TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Roger that. Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: AFD Closures

Makes sense. Y Done. LFaraone 03:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

The following discussion 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.

---

Man, I think that you make a wrong decision. If 3 veteran users in wikipedia, like me, STATicVerseatide and InedibleHulk (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:InedibleHulk&diff=548345194&oldid=548342562 ) say to a rookie user in Wikipedia with some articles deleted by no relevance, that he is wrong, I don't see the point to revet our editions. I don't want to be in a war edition, but if a rookie user insist and make the same mistake 4 times, I can't do much more. We can put the afd, but I think that it is a waste of time, when the redirect to brodus clay I the correct decision. And please, don't treat me like a vandal. I tried to talk with the user and explain by his edition is wrong and I was supported by two active members of the wikiproyect. I'm a Wikipedia user since 2007-2008, so I think that I know when a redirection to an article is better than a entire article. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Your "editions" were to form an ad-hoc ochlocracy and WP:BITE the hell out of a new user, WP:OWNing the article for all you could. You're lucky you're not blocked already. Toddst1 (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? I don't bite anybody. I tried to explain to him why I reverted his editions. I explain to Miss X-Factor, the creator and he understand it when I explain him the rules. I explained the rules to this user and now, you're punishim me and the other veteran users. If thee veteran users says that the article is better with a redirect (we are not talikng about afd, we are talking about a redirect, an article when the carrer of the tag team is also expplained), you prefer to listen a rookie that don't know how works notability in wikipedia. Why don't you don't to him that he also can be block? --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Todd tell me if this is notable. They have been a team since October 2011, this will be their 2nd appearance at their companys biggest Pay-Per-View & not only that this year they will be competing at the show. The champion of their division isn't even on the the show. & Miss X Factor was probably tired of you because this has been going on for about 2-3 weeks now not only in this edit war but in another with the team of The Chickbusters, 2 girls that used to be best friends, on screen & off, but broke up after one went pyscho. Back then they were jobbers, now they are the top 2 women in their division & they are feuding with each other right now. --DJ8946 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said on the article's talk page, I'm not weighing in on that issue. Take it to the talk page please. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 5 April 2013 (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.

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Solarra's talk page.
Message added 15:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 15:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Michael Barker

Why was the Michael Barker (drummer) article fully protected? Currently the prose does not reflect what is written in sources cited, which consider Tristan Barker a "prolific internet troll" and state that his father "support(s) for his son's antics online." News.com.au I agree that the inclusion of the content in the personal life section is questionable, however incorrect information should be corrected or at least removed for now. YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 15:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It was protected to stop the edit war. I think I'm a step ahead of you on the rest of the stuff. Take a look at the article talk and article. Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

DJ8946

User:DJ8946 has recreated The Chickbusters after the recent consensus to delete it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chickbusters. At Talk:The Funkadactyls, he said that even if it was speedy deleted, it would come back. He's promising continued disruption. The edit war on The Funkadactyls is just an example (which at first glance seemed to violate 3RR). Not only that, but he continues to undermine consensus and refuse to read/understand WP:N along with other guidelines. I think it is time for administrative action so he can reflect on exactly the type of editor he wants to be, because as of now, it doesn't seem like he's chosen the right path. Feedback ^☎ 01:38, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I read the pages & nowhere did it say anything about professional wrestling let along the pages are notable. --DJ8946 (talk)DJ8946 (talk)DJ8946 (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The Funkadactyls

Someone has redirected the page. Once again. --DJ8946 (talk)DJ8946 (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Diff please? I don't see it. Or are you just trolling? Toddst1 (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I was on of the memebers of the teams page & I was about to click on a shortcut to the teams page & it said Brodus Clay. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --(talk)DJ8946 (talk) 14:14, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually if you go to Naomi Knight's page go to the botto where it say WWE personnel. Then go to tag teams & click on The Funkadactyls. You'll see what I talking about. --DJ8946 (talk)DJ8946 (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

RE

Next time before you drop a standard warning template on my talk page you might want to read the reversions right, because I was not the one to remove the template, as I had no reason to. Go ahead check, I will give you the chance to personally apologize to me. STATic message me! 16:55, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Your correct that I misread the reversion history. Toddst1 (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

You're right

I did need showing WP:BLANKING as I was wrong. The irony that you just undid your own edit on my page. Thanks Widefox; talk 15:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

We could edit war over it. :) Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

RE: sockpuppet account 83.70.170.48 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I apologise if this is completely the wrong thing to do, but I am still shocked that I managed to get my entire company blocked from editing WP without an account. I really am surprised and worried about this though. The IP does not appear on the archived report case for Kci357 sockpuppet investiagion ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kci357/Archive )

The only time I've edited ABS was on a talk page to correct an obvious typo by Kci357 (he forgot to include a space in a URL ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acrylonitrile_butadiene_styrene&diff=next&oldid=531935363 )

Most of my contributions at that IP are on talk pages, or correcting/typo, or giving more info on Irish-relevant topics. I am not pushing ABS safety. I was on WP to find out its components since my job involves knowing about chemicals for clients.

If there is any way I can convince you that I'm not a sock puppet please let me know. (I somehow doubt there is, but really... I'm surprised one typo correction is deemed enough to block an IP from posting) And if this is completely the wrong thing to do... well, there's a reason I didn't create an account until now and why I don't edit articles in big ways.

Check that IP on wikiquote to see a greater history of contributions. If this -was- a sockpuppet account, Kc357 started using it 9 months on 2 wikis before being banned. Thank you for your time. Adderkleet (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that you are a sockpuppet, but I am very convinced that Kci357 has edited as an anonymous IP from your company. You and your work colleagues are more than welcome - encouraged even - to register accounts and edit freely - except for the individual responsible for Kci357. Behavioral evidence will show the difference. Toddst1 (talk) 18:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Little question

Toddst1, is there any chance for unblocking User:Orijentolog? Three and a half years have passed, and in meanwhile I've made 22,430 edits on various projects. And yes, I was ******* and I confess it. --109.165.139.214 (talk) 02:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

P.S. It's interesting that User:Paradoxic is considered as "confirmed sock", but I've never used it. However, it doesn't change fact that I've done crapy things. --109.165.139.214 (talk) 02:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Stanbridge Earls School

I have just received an edit-warring notice via you. Unfortunately the editor I have already reported for Vandalism has piped me to the post and done exactly what I warned him might happen if he continued censoring the page! He seems to have a very personal agenda with the site and constantly removes material not to his liking. He only edits on this page Stanbridge Earls School and I request that you read the detailed thread at my Talk Page, which will help you to see what is going on. Manxwoman (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, s/he is clearly a WP:SPA but that doesn't mean EW is ok. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I absolutely agree about what you say concerning EW, but the EW was his/hers and the reason (if you would care to look at the thread on my Talk Page) was for reasons of censorship and putting forward a POV. I went to great lengths to advise the editor and then when he said that he would "revert our disagreements up to a higher level", which I agreed with, he still continued to change the sense of several edits to his POV. Manxwoman (talk) 23:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've watchlisted that article. If s/he removes material like that again and I notice it, I will block him/er. Toddst1 (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'm grateful. It was getting quite stressful! I have also requested a Wikipedia:Third opinion on the Stanbridge Earls School TalkPage Manxwoman (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Snappy

My preference would have been to get them to back off the problem behavior, which is what I was attempting to do. Since Snappy was somewhat forthcoming and admitted the misuse of rollback, and neither party was without blame, I was hoping to avoid giving Snappy his first block. He had managed to be here 7 years and 75,000 edits without one so far, and the reverting had stopped by the time it got to ANI, so it didn't seem that he was likely to continue reverting. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that. I also think you misread the Ip's actions when you said "I would also note that IP hasn't tried to communicate to Snappy outside of a template." as evidenced by this and quite a few other edits. Toddst1 (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• • Ah, I did miss that, thanks for pointing it out. The one I did see was a template that was more "tit for tat" than sincere. Right or wrong, I usually try to avoid a first block when possible, in part because (my theory) someone is more likely to cooperate with instructions to prevent that first block, they will be more responsive to "you will be blocked" if they never have blocked before. The clean log is something to protect, and once it is gone, it is gone. Again, just my theory. I also understand a degree of "ownership" when you are the one that just recently created the article. Doesn't mean they any rights to do so, but I do understand the knee jerk reaction to someone doing questionable edits to your new project, so I'm prone to try just a little extra communications to get them to back down a bit. I'm not mad or meaning to bitch at you, I know you did what you felt was the best solution and it was obviously within the lines, I was just hoping for a solution without blocks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Toddst1 (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Tag dates

Hey, saw your Stanbridge Earls School edit and was wondering: are tag dates are not supposed to be "updated"? Thanks, – 29611670.x (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No, just the opposite - it's useful to show how long the problem has existed. For example something tagged {{citation needed|Date=January 2005}} is likely to never be cited and should be considered for removal from the article as unverifiable. Caompare that to something tagged {{citation needed|Date=March 2013}} which unless a BLP or something along those lines, isn't as critical to be removed. Make sense? Toddst1 (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Got it! Thanks. – 29611670.x (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Toddst1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 18:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC). 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.

Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:41, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, ignore it it has already been filed.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 19:44, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Help, User:Stgw (talk) is repeating the error of Escape the Fate genres

Help, can you block this user User:Stgw (talk)? He has changed the genre of each album of Escape the Fate, but I've reverted the article. Genres that should have been there from the beginning in the article should not be replaced. Can you help me please? Thanks. User:Zuagery (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC + 7)

Talkback

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

Talkback

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

Blocked IP

Hello Toddst1, I have a question about your block here. Another admin and I ran scans and it doesn't appear to be an open proxy. I'd like to convert the block to a {{schoolblock}}, but I want to get your input first, of course. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Better yet, I've unblocked it. Geolocate still shows a proxy server, but appears not to be open. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the quick reply. :) ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Google Glass

I deleted that section because I felt it was irrelevant to the topic and of very limited interest to anyone. --129.10.114.102 (talk) 22:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take it to the talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Why did you give me a last warning if I'm discussing it with you? --129.10.114.102 (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Because you are blanking well-sourced material without consensus. You need to self-revert and gain consensus before continuing. Toddst1 (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it's well-sourced does not make it useful. I could find good sources that 2145+3682=5827, but that would not make a useful addition to the Mathematics page. --129.10.114.102 (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to unilaterally decide what is useful. Toddst1 (talk) 23:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What I mean is that you can't use the fact that it is well-sourced as a reason not to remove it. Anyway, I will start a discussion on Talk:Google Glass. --129.10.114.102 (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Glasshole for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glasshole 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/Glasshole 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. M0rphzone (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Help

Hello, I wanted to ask you a question, I edit information on certain pages with references is erased repeatedly for no apparent reason or without references, so I wonder if I can explain my case and help me to say objectively user has reason and exercise relevant control. Kodosbs (talk) 00:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Sondra Peterson

This article's talk page could really benefit from some trout and words of caution. Jes saying.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

User:NaymanNoland

Hi, Toddst1. I am taking a look at your block of this user for edit-warring and I am not convinced it was a good block. It appears to me that this editor was acting in good faith in addressing an issue with BLP implications. As you are probably aware, there is an ongoing controversy involving public criticism of Wikipedia by Amanda Filipacchi. In seeming response to this criticism, User:Qworty has engaged in disputed editing in the past 48 hours involving removal of information from the mainspace articles on Ms. Filipacchi as well as Ms. Filipacchi's three novels, her father, her father's company, as well as her mother, Sondra Peterson. While I assume good faith with respect to Qworty's motives for these edits, and while some of the individual edits may be within policy, their overall effect has been extremely problematic and I can readily understand why NaymanNoland would have thought it in the best interest of the project to reverse them. in that light, I wonder if this block was necessary or at least whether it should be shortened to "time served." You thoughts would be appreciated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You may be right. I was looking at this edit in particular. I'll unblock. Toddst1 (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The block of Seanharger

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

I would like to see his talk page access revoked as well, because personal attacks on talk pages is the root of the problems, as the sockpuppet stuff was figured out by me. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 00:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to reconsider the block of Seanharger

Hi.. Toddst1. I believe Seanharger has been treated unfairly in his account blocking on 30th April. The blocked editor has not himself applied for unblock and I was not aware if someone else can appeal on behalf of blocked editor. So I thought to discuss this on your talkpage. He is blocked for sockpuppetry and making personal attacks. According to my understanding of WP:SOCK, this user has not involved in sockpuppetry. The alleged sockpuppet IP 184.21.73.166 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has clearly identified himself/herself as Seanharger. So it does not come under sock puppetry, it is just case of editing user's own talk page without logging in. I believe that WorldTraveller101 has jumped the gun and accused Sean of sockpuppetry. Now Sean is not an active editor on WP (less then 100 edits), so its possible that he may not be aware of WP policies fully, especially about making personal attacks. So he made a personal attack on worldtraveler, possibly out of irritation for being accused unfairly, for which he should be warned of course. And he also mentioned about creating a new account. Immediately then he is reported on vandalism noticeboard. Which resulted in him leaving the WP, as he requested his talk page to be deleted. I am not commenting on the merit of his edits. Those may or may not be vandalism. To me, it is case of worldtraveler attacking Sean, as is obvious from worldtraveler's statements like I must let you know that you will not be spending a single second of your life editing Wikipedia ever again, requesting him to lose talk page access as well, probably the lamest sockpuppetry attempt I've ever seen on Sean's talkpage. --Vigyani (talk) 05:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the sockpuppetry is really rather trivial and I agree it sounds like s/he accidentally edited while logged out. However, this edit is fairly definitive. Toddst1 (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Although I'm usually the first to say "someone else's incivility may explain your own, but never excuses it"...I do have to say that based on the situation, WorldTraveller was unneccesarily aggressive, and misapplying WP:SOCK to the point of hounding and NPA. The way I read the message you linked, Sean was saying "fuck off ... I'm cleanstarting to get away from the likes of you". WorldTraveller was the aggressor, and pushed far too hard (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

yeah, his abusive statement is definitely violations of policies. I had just thought thought that he did this, when provoked ( sockpupptery allegations). Anyhow if s/he wants to edit again, he can always come and appeal for unblocking. On another note, I had a question. This user world traveler held a previous account User:ConnorLax101, which was blocked twice (once by you) for edit warring. In both the old and this new account he is editing the same articles. So this is not really a WP:FRESHSTART. Is it then case of Sock puppetry under 'Misusing a clean start' to avoids scrutiny? Further I doubt that User:Kairportflier is also an old account of the same person (blocked 4 times by you). --Vigyani (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Worldtraveler does have a history with WP:HOUND. See User_talk:WorldTraveller101/Archive/April_2013#Please_withdraw_your_threat. I was thinking about Kairportflier. Toddst1 (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Here is what I think is more appropriate: On second look at it, the reason was good for blocking him, but I believe that he should've been given another warning or a brief 24 hour block. I personally did not advocate for an indefinite block, although his personal attacks and comments can be quite troubling. Bwilkins, I apologize for being so harsh, so I'd like to see him unblocked so a) he can get a legit second try at Wikipedia and earn apologies from me and anyone who took it an extra step too far and b)so he can have is say, which is very important. This doesn't excuse his behavior [or mine, since I way too harsh on this one. I apologize, though enough was enough.) I am know requesting for him to have a second chance. Also, why did this conversation turn to all of the wrongs I've had instead of being about how to make things right, so let's unblock him, delete the block stuff from his page, and let him start again. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 15:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's what's actually more appropriate: unblock Seanharger and indef-block WorldTraveller for baiting, harassment and hounding - ho drove the user to "suicide by admin" - in effect driving him off the project. I have suggested such at ANI in the thread that WorldTraveller thankfully opened earlier, that looks like a good case of WP:BOOMERANG when taken in toto (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Need to ask you a question privately

Hi Toddst1, I have an urgent question for you (or any admin) that I can't ask in public. How can I do this? Is there private chat here, or an email address I can use? Thanks NaymanNoland (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi NaymanNoland, you can send email to any WP editor whoever has provided their email ID (which I believe all admin must have done). To send an email, click on 'Email this user' option in the 'Toolbox' on left side of WP interface. --Vigyani (talk) 16:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'm clearly being thick: I can't see that option in the toolbox - not on this page, nor on five others that I've checked. What am I missing? NaymanNoland (talk) 17:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

see this black circle in here--Vigyani (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Right - that's where I've been looking. Might be that my iPad's browser is hiding the link? I'll wait until I'm on a full-sized machine. Thanks!NaymanNoland (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Or, um this should work? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89

User:Purplebackpack89 has gone on what seems to be an all out attack on me. He has accused me of "edit warring" for reverting his removal of an article from Category:American men novelists. The clear directive is "do not empty this category while it is under discussion", but there is no similar rule against expanding it while it is under discussion. Maybe I am over reacting, but I do not think I should be placed up for a ban by this other user in reaction to complaining about direct personal attacks. This interchange is very disturbing:

I brought up very specific complaints about personal attacks. This diff [16] is not civil dialogue at all. People should not be summarizing edits with personal attacks, as was done there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

JPL, you need to let it go immediately, rather than continuing to berate Milowent here at the same time you complain about him to a third party while deleting comments you don't like on your talk page and creating another edit war over a category. What your doing is a textbook example of not being able to take criticism at all. You cook lots of omlettes at CfD, it's hardly surprising that you've broken a few eggs, Milowent's being one of them. pbp 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Why should I sit back and let someone insult me like that in an edit summary? In the past you told me to disengage from this user, and I have tried, but he seems to want to start a fight.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, there's a lot wrong with this, but let me quickly note two things right off the bat:

1. JPL BOLDly added a number of authors to a category at CfD. I reverted him per BRD on two, something perfectly acceptable since I didn't empty the category. If JPL undoes my edits, it's still edit-warring, something he has repeatedly done in the context of categories
2. The edit summary in question is by Milowent, not me, and is several days old. JPL started an ANI against Milowent, and kept bringing up the edit summary over and over again. I asked him to stop bringing it up, noting his other behavior in the last few hours with diffs (which he conveniently didn't paste). He is misleadingly blurring the distinction between Milowent and myself, and now posting at a number of edits criticizing Milowent and me (who, I might add, pointedly disagree on a lot of issues) as if we were the same editor. pbp 18:22, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Proxy block

Hello, back in December 2012, you blocked 152.26.230.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for being a proxy. However, my analyses cannot reveal any type of open proxy operating on that IP. It appears to be a transparent ISP proxy for tunneling or filtering their customers' traffic rather than an anonymizing proxy. Could you comment on this block? Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

This IP has been unblocked. Thanks for pointing it out. Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Hi, if you could spare a moment, please take a look at this. Thanks. ROG5728 (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

IP 50.8.27.98

Heya! I've been trying for some time to get some admin intervention against the editor at 50.8.27.98. They are also editing from 173.11.226.201, which you blocked per my AIV report earlier today. Seems my requests are either being timed out too quickly by Helperbot, or via other mechanisms. Not sure. Kind of embarrassing because I submitted both IPs for AIV and Helperbot claimed an admin had already resolved my issue. Problem was, the admin had no knowledge of his alleged resolution: here. I'm sorry I said I would "pester" you, buuuuut...  :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I've re-reported this IP user to WP:AIV. I'm hoping another editor will issue a block of equal duration. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

St. Joseph's Seminary --> St. Joseph's College (Mountain View, California)

Hello, I wanted to give you a head's up that I changed the name of the article you created about St. Joseph's in Mountain View to conform with the official alumni site for the school. While it was informally known as St. Joseph's Seminary, it's official name was always St. Joseph's College. Lahaun (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for making the correction. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

See also entry

Hi Todd. Small comment on the see also section to the Cleveland kidnapping article. I think that it is acceptable to have a reference to the movie in question there. True, it is fiction. But fiction and fact sometimes are similar. In this case (and I just saw the movie, which is why I'm so aware of it) the two are eerily similar. It seems to me it meets the criteria for a see also ... which I've now read three times. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. I've manually undone my deletion. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. It's such a pleasure to manually stumble across civility at the project. Thanks for leading the way in demonstrating the best in sysop-modeling of civil behavior. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Shh. Don't let it get around. I have a reputation to protect. :) Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah -- excellent point. ;) Epeefleche (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

1-bit architecture

I want replace the call for discussion with a more informative, not personally addressing and neutral title, like "1-bit architecture", and remove my name from the calls for discussions. Additionally, your name from the section could be removed either. OK? Tagremover (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. I don't really feel strongly about the whole issue at all. Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I mainly have some not so nice discussions with Guy Macon since his first talk.[17]Tagremover (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That discussion seems ok to me. Maybe it's time to take a step back and reply later. It seems like things are a bit inflamed right now and it might be easier to sort things out in a few hours. Just a suggestion. Toddst1 (talk) 15:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Now, i would like to, but he don't stops accusing me.[18] Also reverting several edits from me, including this reply on the talk page[[19]]. I also need my very long talk on WikiProject Electronics addressable with sub-sections. Please help. Tagremover (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sock Drawer

Here's another one for the Kinellawarren sock drawer: 207.219.69.128, adding self-referencing material on Mark Bourrie. I suspect we'll see a sock storm on the pages of those Kinsella perceives to be enemies for a little while. You might want to watch or lock pages that Kinsellawarren might go after.Spoonkymonkey (talk) 20:11, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Definitely possible. You can tag them with {{ipsock|Kinsellawarren|blocked=yes}} if you see others pop up. Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Toddst1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 04:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC). 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.

Jasper Deng (talk) 04:59, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

clarification request

Talk:List_of_Intel_microprocessors -- the indentation makes it appear "Your" refers to GM but the context makes me think you're referring to TR? NE Ent 11:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. I've clarified. Thanks for pointing that out. Toddst1 (talk) 13:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Proxy block

• 24.172.90.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Hi, there does not appear to be an open proxy on this IP. Instead, it appears to be an email server for Carolinas College of Health Sciences and is potentially NATing for the students. Could you re-check your work to see if there is an open proxy still operating? Thanks. Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Reaper, I've unblocked this school. I've obviously fouled a few of these up. Feel free to unblock any others I may have done like that. I believe I was misinterpreting the NAT proxy results as an open proxy from the tool I was using. I don't think there are too many of them and I won't be making any in the future. If you come across any others, please unblock them as you have my explicit permission. Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! (If you were using the whatismyipaddress.com proxy checker, then that is why you could have messed up the block. That tool regularly gets proxy analyses wrong.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ugh...I think I've removed all the errant blocks now. You only blocked the UK division of PKF International, Rolls Royce, Chicago Public Schools, New York City Public Schools, and more as open proxies. ;) Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Amazing that none of them requested unblocking. Thanks for the help. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Chuck Lynch

Much improved :-) I especially like the termination of the second paragraph. NtheP (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That was one of the worst bits of self-promotion I've seen stick here. I don't think my small addition decreased the WP:V of the article and at least that part is true. Toddst1 (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: AfD Participation

Regarding my improper voting: Thank you for bringing these rules to my attention. I will be sure to comply, and I apologize for any problems I may have caused.

Regarding my alleged bringing in of other Wikipedia users to help my case - I apologize for not being aware that Wikipedia hates democracy, or at least mobilization of interested parties. In the future I will be sure only to bring in people willing to vote in accordance with the wishes of the establishment. I may not understand the logic of a community-based encyclopedia in which dissenting voices are silenced and relegated to the shadows, but that is surely a failure on my part and not reflective of the overly-bureaucratic rules governing every aspect of daring to try to contribute.

Best, Adamc714 (talk) 02:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Stanbridge Earls School

Thank you very much for your edits at this page, but if you look at the extensive section on the Talk Page you will see a WP:3O agreement to hold THIS particular version until the outcome of the DfE final visit. It has been a nightmare just to get this version set (as you can see) but please bear with us for the moment. Personally, I have NO problem with how you re-titled the section(!) but I think it maybe wise to hold off just for now. NOT an instruction, just a request! Manxwoman (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on that. I'll step back. Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have lost handfuls of hair over this. I wish I hadn't started on it! Manxwoman (talk) 21:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

ha ha

all is well! thanks for the laugh NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad some humor is appreciated from time to time. Toddst1 (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

yeah, but you've used up your quota for the next 1032 years.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Accusation of Wrongdoing

I would appreciate it a great deal if you would assume good faith on my part. From what I can gather that is a rule that this community lives by and I feel as though I got caught in a person battle between you and another user despite that foundational principle. That personal battle has nothing to do with me and I ask you to leave me and my reputation on Wikipedia out of it. Thank you! Jcs7708 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

You pass the WP:DUCK test as a WP:Meatpuppet. Your actions speak for themselves. As far as your accusations of "person battle," well, you obviously aren't dialed in to your friend's history of disruption and my administrative action to deal with it. Without that knowledge, you are confusing the interaction with some type of personal issue. Goodbye. Toddst1 (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Project Qworty

Hi there. You've been in discussions on my talk page regarding Qworty, so might wish to contribute ideas, etc., to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NaymanNoland (section: "Project Qworty"). If you haven't read today's Salon article addressing this disaster, it's here: http://www.salon.com/2013/05/17/revenge_ego_and_the_corruption_of_wikipedia/ NaymanNoland (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's interesting how the media has their thongs/bloomers/diapers in a twist. Wikipedia isn't perfect and maybe you get what you pay for, but the hypocrisy of the media around this issue is exploding like ... well, the food-poisoning metaphor I was going to use is rather unsavory. Toddst1 (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I find myself mostly on the side of the media with this one, although Wikipedia seems to have come to the same conclusion. So we're all in agreement. The project seemed like a good idea a few days ago, but I'm going to leave it to others. NaymanNoland (talk) 05:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been away mostly for this and I'm going to leave it there. Best. Toddst1 (talk) 05:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Cobalt Business Park

Hi, I'm just trying to find out why this page has been deleted. It is marked (from what I can see) as something to do with no real significance.

However, it is the UK's largest office park. There are a large number of other business parks that appear to have been left without removal, yet the largest of all is deleted? I'm just trying to find out what was wrong with the page as I'd updated it a couple of times in respect of organisations that occupy the park (such as Proctor & Gamble, Hewlett-Packard, North Tyneside Council etc).

Thanks in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdshaw (talk • contribs) 12:39, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

It was deleted under WP:CSD#A7. Size doesn't matter as far as importance, nor does WP:OSE. Toddst1 (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Chuck Lynch

Hi Todd,

Reach your comments about Chuck Lynch's wiki page. He is a former athlete and i'm not sure why you are saying his page is not adhering to wiki policy? He is not self promoting, just explaining in an encyclopedic way what his history is. Like any former athelte or coach who has their own page (see Danny Ford his former coach and other clemson football players) I don't see what he is doing as wrong. All data is accurate and the references provided are solid. Can you please explain why this is an issue? thanks so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.218.206.52 (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belair National Bank

Todd, I saw that you had commented on this AFD and the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citizens National Bank (Laurel, Maryland). The nominator did not add them to the log, apparently, so I went ahead and added them to today's AFD log. I also combined them, since the rationales were the same and each had only one identical vote - yours. FYI. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Toddst1 (talk) 19:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 controversy

Thank you for your follow up.

I was engaged in an edit battle with Tiller54. I hope you will hear me out.

Primarily, I would like to point out that Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 is still a biased article. User:Tiller54 had it pointed out earlier that the majority of the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013's text favors one party over other candidates and nominees. I also expressed this concern to User: Muboshgu, but it seems this section has been ignored, removed, or relocated.

Second, User:Tiller54 has had previous complaints regarding the removal of posts for partisan motives as mentioned on Moboshgu's talk page User: Muboshgu. This complaint is listed as, tiller54 is removing for partisan purposes.. please check the nyc campaign finance board for confirmation of my valid candidacy. Again, this editor, User: Muboshgu, seems to have passed over a valid complaint.

In addition, there is background text, some of it outdated, regarding Republican candidates on Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013. Yet, background text regarding other candidates, be it Democrat, Libertarian, or Independent, is considered partisan? No, I don't think so. You can't have it both ways.

Third, Tiller54 and User: Muboshgu say that Robert Sarvis is a non-notable candidate because he is not listed in polls. Sure, that's true; Robert Sarvis is not listed in the polls. But, third party candidates are often excluded from polling, so this isn't a fair basis. What makes a candidate notable in the State of Virginia is not polls, but if he or she is recognized by the Virginia State Board of Elections (VSBE). Candidates in the State of Virginia have until the deadline in June to submit the 10,000 signatures necessary to be on the ballot as a gubernatorial candidate. So any statement about who is a notable candidate and who isn't is speculation until declared by the VSBE. Robert Sarvis has been recognized by the VSBE in the past as a candidate for Virginia's State Senate District 35, and will probably meet the requirements in June... especially considering there were over 50,000 Virginians who voted for a third party candidate in the 2012 Presidential Elections. In addition, the reliance on polls is skewed, because many of the current polls show that there are more undecideds than those who have chosen a candidate. So to say Robert Sarvis is a non-notable candidate at this time is disingenuous at best.

Therefore, I do not believe background information and a biographical statement regarding a declared candidate in the Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013 is cause for removal, especially when other declared candidates on the same page do.

Thank you for your time and understanding. Reallibertyforall(talk)

Please don't add information about yourself or organizations you are affiliated with to Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest, Libertarian Party of Virginia

Hi User: Toddst1,

Thank you for informing me about my conflict of interest on Libertarian Party of Virginia (LPVA).

I am not a candidate. I have never met any of the candidates. Nor am I involved with projects and products they are involved with. In fact, I am an expatriate of the United States. Therefore, I do not believe I am affiliated with the people, places, or things I have contributed to.

I am, however, displeased with the bias towards one party over others on Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013. I have mentioned my arguments in Virginia gubernatorial election, 2013's talk section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reallibertyforall (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

All the info provided on Libertarian Party of Virginia can be found on their website. http://lpva.com/ User: Reallibertyforall Antarctica4Liberty 17:43, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Farhikht's talk page.
Message added 22:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Farhikht (talk) 22:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

About User Farhikht

Hi! This user reverted all my edits. I don't know why. I only want to edit the page of Iranian presidential election, 2013 correctly. He only reverted this like dictators. You can see this page now. It's not correct. In inbox, the persons who have major chance in pools must be first not alphabet. I also add this to user talk but he don't know. He only says I WILL REPORT YOU!!! He said I don't know policies if he knows!!!. Please warns him.

Kristijh

I deleted last edited Earthquakes in 2013 by 202.51.191.91 at 10.47 - 28 May 2013 for the vandalized page so I do not understand why do you blocked me.

Look at the changes Earthquakes in 2013 made by 202.51.191.91 at 10.47 - 28 May 2013 and you'll see why I deleted it edited

Please unblock my ip 188.26.1.158. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristijh (talk • contribs) 06:40, 29 May 2013‎

Is that a school IP? It appears to have been blocked as an IPsock, which would be correct. Toddst1 (talk) 12:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You know better

The following discussion 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.

---

Please feel free to not alter my edits. I responded exactly where I intended to, and your change made it appear like I was responding to someone else. If you'd like to change your own level of indentation given my current edits, I would be alright with you adjusting the level of indentation for my last response since it is a response to you. --Onorem (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - appeared to be an error. Putting a space between the posts would make it easier to read. Toddst1 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Easier to distinguish between 2 different replies maybe, but not easier to read when who the response is intended for is obscured. --Onorem (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Either way, no intent to offend. Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

You could have fooled me. WTF? --Onorem (talk) 20:25, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it's time for you to take a break. Accept the apology, assume good faith or otherwise go away. Toddst1 (talk) 20:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith...then you shut down the discussion as "roadside carnage"...so who needs the break? --Onorem (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Stop drama-mongering and go away. You are now at the point of harassment. Toddst1 (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Last comment

I am not trolling. I am disagreeing with you on a subject that you aren't willing to discuss. I won't respond or reply again, but you are abusing your position and it's sad. I'm fighting with a tin sword because you have the power and answer to nobody, so have fucking fun with it. Fuck you. - Onorem (talk) 20:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Note for the record: No administrative actions were taken by me in the kerfuffle that Onorem accuses me of abusing power in. I did, however apologize, clarify my apology and ask for the invective to cease. Toddst1 (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2013 (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.

Apology

My opinion on the issue remains mostly the same, but I definitely took pretty much the most uncivil route in expressing it. Sorry for being an ass. --Onorem (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Comments like this one are inappropriate, particularly from an administrator. In the future, I hope as an administrator that you will choose to either try to deescalate any tensions that may exist or stay out of the matter altogether if you have no involvement in it, such as in this case. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see you being thumped like a narc at a biker rally, but things like that certainly happens pretty frequently at ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 17:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. I'll ask you again to please stop your personal insults as you did with this comment. Referring to an editor as a "troll" without providing any support for the allegation is a personal attack. As an administrator, I would hope that you would set a proper example by treating other editors in a civil manner, and deescalating any tensions that may be present, rather than increasing them. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Because of this edit summary and this edit summary, this is your third warning. I also see that you removed your second warning and then restored it, which is certainly your prerogative, but the record will indicate your ongoing pattern of posting hostile comments. I am not the only editor who has warned you about this inappropriate behavior, and I don't know why you continue to do it, but please stop. Thank you. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 00:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you even know what trolling is? WP:NOTHERE is starting to emerge. Toddst1 (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

“Dynamic IP”

Hello! Where did you get evidences that it is a dynamic IP? I see only

155.109.189.76.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer cpe-76-189-109-155.neo.res.rr.com.

, whois also does not inform about type of allocation, and observational evidences suggest that this IP does not change frequently. BTW, I would ask you to watch my talk page for several days. I have a feeling that something nasty is going to happen. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Try this. Toddst1 (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

To my understanding (which formed when I defended an IRC network from floodbots and other threats), a truly dynamic IP is something which changes with a reasonable frequency, or at least on each DHCP request. Many IP ranges are dynamic in theory, but IPs change very infrequently. For example, one of my current ISPs changed my IP only five or six times for 5 years, and I am easily able to keep forward DNS records pointing to it. I’d prefer to term such IPs practically static, although they can be technically dynamic. In any case, observational evidences should have priority over a third-party information. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

See sticky dynamic IP addresses. Toddst1 (talk) 15:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

For some inexplicable reason, Incnis Mrsi continues to instigate problems where I'm concerned. I'm not sure what his obsession with me is, but he really needs to move on. Although he has attempted to make it very difficult to find his many prior talk page threads, as Drmies pointed out, once you find them it will show that he has a long, ongoing pattern of battling many edtiors and hurling uncivil comments. I would also refer you to this discussion from his talk page. And this discussion on Drmies' talk page. By the way, I find it ironic that he said, "I would ask you to watch my talk page for several days. I have a feeling that something nasty is going to happen", since he continues to talk about me following his bogus warning to me, yet I moved on from it. Hopefully, he will finally do the same. The strange part of all this is that I never even crossed paths with Incnis prior to that warning he posted. In fact, I had never even seen his name. I also find it interesting that Incnis posted this comment on Drmies' talk page, yet did not notify me that he mentioned my name in this thread. For the record, if Incnis is so interested in knowing if an unregistered editor has a static or dynamic IP address, all he needs to do is go to the bottom of their contributions page or talk page, and click on the "Geolocate" link. I will also point out to him that his theory that "IPs change very infrequently" is false in many cases. My IP address typically changes an average of every two to five days, although it's sometimes up to about two weeks. However, there are a few times each year when my IP provider keeps it set for up to two months or so, but never more than that. I checked my records over the past year and the longest I ever had a particular IP address during that time is 42 days. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Some questions editors may wonder about: Why does Incnis care so much about whether my IP address is dynamic or not? Why would he go to an admin's page to start a discussion about my IP type (or any unregistered editor's)? Why is it of any concern to him at all? He obviously thought carefully about it being seen as inappropiate or potentially igniting further problems, as evidenced by his request to Todd to watch his "talk page for several days" because he has "a feeling that something nasty is going to happen". So one would certainly question his purpose. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 02:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

76.189.109.155, what a real Wikipedian could do in this situation is to drop the stick. Or WP:NOTHERE, which started to emerge two days ago, now slightly emboldened? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear about a couple things. First, I was the one who moved on. But you continued making comments about me in various places. So who had the problem "dropping the stick"? You are the one who started this thread about me (without my knowledge). So for you to claim it is inappropriate for me to reply is utter nonsense. From now on, if you're going to go to an admin (or anyone else) to talk about another editor behind their back, expect a full response. As expected, you answered none of the relevant questions and of course cannot deny any of the evidence I presented. It is rather interesting that you don't want to tell us why you are so interested in whether my IP address is dynamic or not. Or why you were concerned that "something nasty" was going to happen as a result of your starting this thread. In terms of your hostile claim that WP:NOTHERE applies to me, I suggest you re-read this comment from admin Drmies, in which he described me as "a valuable contributor" in this discussion where he reprimanded you for your inappropriate behavior towards me. I hope you've learned a lesson from this situation. Now we'll see if you decide to move on. If you do, you won't hear from me again. If not, you will. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

The only, medium-valued, edit to anything but various talks for 2½ days of… enough shown. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I take your reply to mean that you do not intend to move on. As I said, if you want to continue your perplexing obsession with me, that is your choice. I'll remind you of your comment about dropping the stick. Perhaps you should take your own advice. ;) You started this inappropriate thread about me without my knowledge. I replied (with substantiated points). And now you're offended that I replied? It's sad and remarkable that you cannot see the problem with your behavior. Please take Drmies' advice. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Posting on talk pages and deleting pages

I am happy to discuss your changes first on your talk page before considering other actions endorsed by Wikipedia policy. In the last two days you have consistently gone to many of the pages that I have visited and either deleted content with pithy explanations or completely deleted the page altogether. Your last redirect/deletion referenced the inappropriateness of "fan-pages". Please show me that link, and while I review, consider the following sites that appear to fit your definition of "fan-pages":

2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season New Zealand national rugby union team (sevens) 2013 Women's Cricket World Cup 2013–14 Duke Blue Devils men's basketball team 2011–12 Los Angeles Lakers season 2013_New_York_Giants_season

Additionally, I looked at your "Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not" link and have a couple of questions based on what is stated there.

1. "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not try to advance your position in disagreements by making changes to content or policies, and do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point."

You appear to be carrying a grudge and disrupting Wikipedia to make your point. In fact, I feel like you are waging a personal battle against me.

2. "Wikipedia is a volunteer community and does not require the Wikipedians to give any more time and effort than they wish. Focus on improving the encyclopedia itself, rather than demanding more from other Wikipedians. Editors are free to take a break or leave Wikipedia at any time."

I do not believe your efforts focus on improving Wikipedia. Instead, by looking over your historical postings, it appears you consistently go to talk pages instead of adding content or making helpful suggestions.

3. "Do not use Wikipedia to make legal or other threats against Wikipedia, Wikipedians, or the Wikimedia Foundation—other means already exist to communicate legal problems.[6] Threats are not tolerated and may result in a ban."

You have already posted two threats to my talk page.

Finally, I note on my talk page another editor posted some helpful comments that add context to some of my "notes to editors" instead of maliciously redirecting pages. Thank you for your time. I am putting the pages back up and posting the issue on the talk page as is my understanding of Wikipedia policy to do so. gounc123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gounc123 (talk • contribs)

Have you even read the discussion on ANI about you? Toddst1 (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Glock

I see your edits, and subsequent self-revert, on my talk-page. Are we in agreement on this editor and his unsourced edits, or have I missed something?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 18:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

We're in agreement. They were sourced but fraudulently. See details at User_talk:Thomas.W#Edit_war_on_Glock. Thanks mate. Toddst1 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I had already established that! Trust me! --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What? Trust an admin? That's heresy! Just ask my fan club - you can start with the hit parade above. Toddst1 (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

OK. It's probably the wine talking, anyway. (Mine, not yours). --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 19:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Blocks

I've declined a request on one of your recent blocks. [20] On the flip side, Jennie seems to "get it" although she hasn't requested an unblock yet.[21]. Kind of refreshing when someone isn't hostile after a block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 22:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of blocks, I'm not so sure that your removal of DanielTom's talk page access was a good idea. As frustrating as it may be, it could be considered an involved action. IMO, saying that Drmies should be desysoped, while absurd, isn't such a personal attack as to warrant talk page revocation. Totally up to you; I'm not crying foul over this quite yet, but it might be a good idea to consider restoring talk page access. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. I'll stop short of invoking Poop_target. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Whatever DanielTom had to say, he can say it, as far as I'm concerned. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree with that Drmies, but as a young noob with some rather pompus conceptions of adminship, he's not going to endear himself to any admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Speaking of blocks, one of your more recent blocks, Jennie--x is requesting an unblock. She has been clueful, polite and sincere the entire time, and guessing you might unblock her yourself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ - © - @ - Join WER 20:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice in re: Editor vendettas

Hello. There is currently a discussion at noticeboard of discussion regarding Editor vendettas. The thread is Editor vendettas.The discussion is about the topic Editor vendettas. Thank you. unc123 (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The thread is actually at ANI - see WP:ANI#Editor vendettas. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Bait v. DENY

Yeah I regretted posting that after saving the page, since I believe everyone that has read that could discern the validity of what he said. Disc Wheel (Malk + Montributions) 22:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Block evasion by Thenightchicagodied

By ip 173.119.121.76 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)). See this new edit. Blocked user: Thenightchicagodied (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Probably not a school

• 2001:558:6045:23:640E:B9BC:1EA2:F727 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This looks more like a student bored at home than a school. It appears to be a home IP; in any case, IPv6 addresses aren't normally shared by multiple users. The vandalism does look childish, but again, it doesn't appear to be from an actual school, but by some student who doesn't have enough homework to do.--Jasper Deng (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You may be right. I've removed the school references on the talk page. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 13:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Sobha Developers Limited

Noticed, you deleted Sobha Developers Limited for posting unambiguous advertising content. Fully agree on the content part. However, as an administrator would recommend you revising the page to a previous neutral version which exists instead of deleting the page altogether.Also,I don't know if it was you who posted on my talk page but just to clarify, I do not have any relation to the IP address responsible for this modification - 99.149.85.229 and only operate from my registered login Girish K. Unnithan 03:50, 31 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girish.unnithan (talk • contribs)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sobha_Developers_Limited the official Wikipedia page of Sobha Developers Ltd has been deleted under the criteria for speedy deletion. We understand that there has been a violation of standard Wikipedia guidelines and we apologize for the same. This hasn't been done intentionally and we apologize for the same.

There is a page for the same brand which has been on Wikipedia for a period of 2 years which was removed and the new content replaced it.It has passed all your guidelines. We suggest that you upload the same immediately so that there is content for the brand on Wikipedia. We will ensure that all your guidelines will be followed herewith for all updates in the future. Requesting you to reinstate the old page for the same brand as soon as possible. We also request you to help us with the areas where the tags were generated so that we could do a better job in the future.

A brief on the brand: Sobha Developers Ltd, a Rs. 20 billion company, is one of the largest and only backward integrated real estate players for over 2 decades in India and middle East.

Looking forward to a positive response from you on the same. Kindly reinstate the old content as soon as possible.

Thanks and regards

Deepak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deepakhmwiki (talk • contribs) 05:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what an "official Wikipedia page" is and I didn't see any neutral version. Do you have a connection to the company? Who is "we?" Toddst1 (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

When I tagged the article for copyright violations and advert content I was impressed: I don't think I've ever come across a lengthier promotional piece, and was unsure how best to proceed with removing it. I was delighted when someone proposed it for speedy deletion as spam, and thank you, Toddst, for deleting the article. That the whole business reflected months of COI involvement, with the article treated like a company press release, is evident. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems equally likely that there's a connection with this IP [22], whose edit history was remarkably devoted to the same article, with the same intent. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you remember where the copyvio was lifted from? Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

It was cobbled together over such a long time that I suspect multiple sources came into play. I recall that a lot of the intro was lifted, perhaps from the company website, and I'm certain that the individual biographies were copied from their bios on the same; I think some or all of the board of directors' bios were copied from here [23]. Beyond those parts I didn't dig deeper--it was really an epic company press release. I was thinking of bothering Moonriddengirl to ask her how much had been copied, and whether it was flagrant enough that the entire piece would be eligible for deletion under the copyright rationale. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In reference to the Sobha Developers Wikipedia page, I apologize for the content which is being listed as "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". It's disheartening to see the deletion of Wikipedia page of Sobha Developers which was active for more than 2 years, which has served as information source and provided ample scope for user generated content. Still a rookie in Wikipedia will henceforth ensure adherence to Wikipedia guidelines and will be clear, will be as concise as possible—but no more concise, will emphasize the spirit of the rule, will maintain scope and avoid redundancy, will avoid overlinking, and will not contradict each other. Request you reinstate the old page and going further, will seek your approval and guidance before editing any content on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman2k13 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Why do I sense a heck of a lot of conflict of interest and WP:MEAT in the midst of this WP:SPAM? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Subtle, eh? Toddst1 (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not above shopping this one around; brought it to a noticeboard a few weeks ago, to no avail. Like the Sobha page, an admirably long-term COI piece, in this case a largely unsourced autobiography. Probably most of the content can be verified, but, well, you'll see. I started to trim the intro, and will one day return. Or not--for the same expenditure of effort one could write a whole new article. In the meantime, feel free to have a go at it. 99.149.85.229 (talk) 13:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

I appreciate your message on my talk page. WilliamTaylorSimpson (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Query

Hi mate! Any particular reason for this revert? I was just trying to remove the stray brackets and move the multi-issues template above the infobox. Did I break something I'm not seeing? Stalwart111 22:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm an idiot. I misread the diff. I've self-reverted. Without my coffee this morning, I thought you removed the maintenance tags. I see that I was clearly wrong. Thanks for pointing it out. Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem mate! Cheers! Stalwart111 22:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Oxford Law Society for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oxford Law Society 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/Oxford Law Society 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.

Second Disruptive Editing Warning

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at User_talk:68.50.128.91. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. IP templates are not included as things that cannot be removed from user talk pages at WP: Blanking. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! For advancing to the 324th position in most edits!

	An Offer You Can't Refuse
	To Wikipedia (according to the Billings Gazette) GuyHimGuy (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

DanielTom

FYI, I've also revoked their talk page and email access since that was ultimately the problem. De728631 (talk) 14:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Katy perry sales are wrong she sold 11 million albums and 75 singles according to wiki

but in the new form of the page they deleted this info why >>> ?? don't tell me you need resources for this ????

77.44.232.141 (talk) 20:07, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hammer flies into midnidght. Toddst1 (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

HTML5 in mobile devices

Ok. You removed an external link http://html5test.com from the page HTML5 in mobile devices. Maybe to add this? http://html5test.com/results/mobile.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ander-EM (talk • contribs) 20:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You should ask this question at Talk:HTML5 in mobile devices, not here, so I have copied it to there and added a reply. - Pointillist (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Toddst1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC). 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.

WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 00:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on List of HTC phones

Um, those undoes are all my own edits.... 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  17:43, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well quit edit warring with yourself.  :) Toddst1 (talk) 18:19, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Kinsellawarren account

216.191.220.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is one Kinsella uses most often. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep. It's tagged as such. Let's keep an eye on it as protection expires. Toddst1 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Unilateral change

Toddst1, just wanted to reply here to your remark there about unilaterally changing policy. I understand WP:PROPOSAL to be about new policies and guidelines or major changes to them. I thought my change to WP:WIAPA was very minor and in the spirit of what was already there, and thus appropriate for WP:BRD. See also WP:PGCHANGE. You might disagree, and that's OK. No harm done. Hopefully we are both happy that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Anyway, I look forward to any ideas you have about how to improve the proposed change. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Moved to talk

I've moved your VOA comments to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Urchin Software Corporation as they were not related to the AFD discussion. The question is probably more appropriate for User_talk:Tyros1972, but I'll leave that to you.

I agree with you that that was an unfair characterization of your actions. However, it was that AIV report that I followed to Angelfish and Urchin. Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think moving it back was at all constructive. Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Urchin Software Corporation, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your account being blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 20:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what AIV means but I am speaking in the message you removed about my experience related to the notability of the subject. As you can see, he tried to make me blocked after having voted. I find extremely mean from him and now you to constantly trying to accusing me of having a link with this company (I started to clean the stuff, adding some sources, so why do you include the COI template??). The guy is blocked and I started to clean his stuff!! --DeansFA (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:AIV. I was mistaken - it was a previous report from Tyros that I followed. Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Template on my talkpage

You have added a template regarding my ISP on my talk page. Was here some reason you have done this? It appears to be a flag that increases the WP:witchhunt certain editors is attempting on my WP editing. It has already resulted in and editor using it as an indicator of something I have done incorrectly.[[24]] I doubt this was your intent to punish me? Without any explanation of reason, that I can even dispute, it would seem inappropriate and I am asking that you consider removing it (TW). My edits have always been in the best interest of WP, IMHO. I do not edit under other IPs, as far as I am aware of, despite attempts to discredit me during several content disputes. Since I started last fall I have always used this IP although, apparently it could change at any time, I would declare this on my user page (in the spirit of WP honesty) if I ever became aware of it. My assigned IP currenly has a reputation, in edit searchable history on WP and I would like to maintain that. Thank you. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 13:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

[Here's] another one from the same editor. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 13:27, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

You may remember there is an active discussion on ANI about your "Almost continuous tirade of abuse and accusations". The discussion there includes yours being a static IP and possibly blocking it for a year because of your disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 14:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing my attention back to that discussion. I have closed it with positive action. Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello

There is no edit war from my end. You seem to have your information backward. Whatever misinformation you have received regarding the Muawiyah I article, let me clarify it for you. I EDITED that article and cleaned up many of its loose ends. Another WP user (MezzoMezzo) just came out of nowhere and deleted mostly CITED entries (some of which were in the article for a few years now). Let me introduce myself: My name is Flagrantedelicto and I am not exactly a newcomer to WP. I have edited a few articles already. There is already a formal requisition for mediation in the Muawiyah I article to fellow WP editor Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider, which has been acknowledged and accepted by editor MezzoMezzo. I don't know what you know of this article, but your sudden appearance out of the blue is unexpected. I am one of the editors of the Muawiyah I page, in case you were not aware. Your warning should be given to MezzoMezzo in all fairness. You should also check with WP editor Sayed Mohammad Faiz Haider of the situation, as he is fully aware of it. There has been an ongoing discssion regarding the Muawiyah I article of which I don't know how much you are aware, but I do expect you to give an equal warning to MezzoMezzo. I shall seek temporary protection for the article in its current state as you advised. --Flagrantedelicto (talk) 00:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You are free to warn anyone you think might be edit warring. You can use {{uw-ew}}. Toddst1 (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Los Altos High School - Sticky K

Hi Toddst1,

First of all, thank you for being an admin for Wikipedia. Really appreciate you keeping the peace on this amazing website.

I recently received a message from you about my addition of Rod Kashani/Sticky K as notable alumni on the Los Altos High School page. You claimed I was not writing from a neutral view point. I do not know Rod Kashani personally but was aware he was a Los Altos High School alumni through a friend. I did not write any subjective language in my post but merely stated the facts as I saw them. He is a well known artist in the electronic music space who is on a reputable record label that makes millions of dollars annually. He like most well established artists, has songs on Spotify and iTunes.

I am new to Wikipedia and not sure of all the guidelines. Still, I do not understand how I was not writing from a neutral view point. Can you please undo your change or let me know how I can publish undisputed facts on Wikipedia.

Thank you for your time.

senorstanleySenorstanley (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and apology.

First, thank you for your suggestions concerning Carry on Wayward Son, and also the article for Robin Sachs, for which appropriate citations have been added. Also, sorry if I seemed a bit heated on the talk page for the former. I admit I'd had a bit to drink at the time. Sdr (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, and a hopefully quick question:

When should one add a "citation needed" or the like, and when should information simply be removed? Clearly for living persons, anything unsourced should be zapped if it could possibly be seen as negative in any way, but for all other articles, there seem to be conflicting opinions in various places. You seem comfortable with this area, so any advice would be appreciated. Thanks. Sdr (talk) 04:49, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally if it is controversial, it should be well cited. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Anything that's not cited can be tagged with {{cn}} and/or removed. There is some judgement required. Also, unreliable sources that are user generated, like IMDB or Wikipedia itself are effectively not reliable sources, so they can be challenged as well. Toddst1 (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

For Diogo

The following discussion 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.

---

"I sympathize with DanielTom's assertion that another Wikipedian lives in the same house. With millions of people editing, there must be some occasions where two different people living under the same roof each edit under a different username. What sort of evidence could a person in this situation provide to support such a claim? And who bears the burden of proving whether this claim is true or not? bd2412 T 03:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)"

"But what are the chances of the account going straight to ANI and trolling? --Rschen7754 03:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)"

"In the same anti-authority voice as DanielTom? About zero. Toddst1 (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2013 (UTC)"

They are twin brothers living under the same roof, and sometimes even sharing same computer. They look alike, talk alike, and many times think alike. So your "about zero" comment isn't grounded in logic sufficient to warrant the confidence you give it, Todd.

How about giving Diogo, Daniel's brother, some fairness, rather than pure speculation, and removing the sockpuppet tag, which has no basis other than your speculation and logic above? (This is not about Daniel, it is about his brother.) How about give the guy a break and if you hammer Diogo for his Wiki-life, let it be for a real demonstrable reason, rather than your speculation, when you didn't even know he could prove via his i.d. & Email address he is an independent person?

Thanks for your consider Todd, if you will. Sincere, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we've wasted enough time there. Toddst1 (talk) 14:47, 26 June 2013 (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.

Admin date

User:Toddst1/infobox/adminstats currently counts the time from your account creation. You became an admin 14 March 2008.[25] PrimeHunter (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Time flies when you're ... well... Toddst1 (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Are you going to correct it? It's not a big deal but users could potentially be confused if they think ListUsers shows when a right was assigned. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:09, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Brain fart. I completely misunderstood. Of course I'll fix it. Toddst1 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Duklja protection

Hi Toddst1,

You protected Duklja in 2010 for edit-warring. I was wondering if we could try opening it up again to see if the IP warriors have abandoned it by now? Cheers! Crazynas ^t 18:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Toddst1 (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Crazynas ^t 20:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

AN notice

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for raising this. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Good job with the current proposed ban. While you were creating the first proposed ban, I was also creating one. Then, when I saw yours, I just dropped mine. I decided mine was way too complicated. I think your second one is right on the money.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help there. Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Rev deletion on ProtectMarriage.com

Hi Toddst, I saw your revision deletion of this edit on ProtectMarriage.com. The edit summary is simply "Undid revision 562185092 by Binksternet (talk) - Bigots protect bigots.", which doesn't seem to meet RD2. Could you explain (or review) this deletion? Thanks! Prodego ^talk 20:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It seemed pretty obvious that that was a purely disruptive smear directed at Binksternet. I suppose you could interpret it as "ordinary incivility" but I see it as more than that. Feel free to undelete if you disagree. I can't see what the benefit of doing that would be though. Toddst1 (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Sock trolls and sleeper accounts abounding

The proverbial feces has hit the fan at Talk:Pink Floyd regarding sock-troll-time-wasters. Can you please provide some assistance per WP:DUCK. Thanks and cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much Todd! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For all the good work you do protecting the project! Thanks much, we all appreciate your efforts! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 22:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Toddst1 (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Another Kinsella sock

Kinsella is back as 216.191.220.178 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Take a look at the history. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 15:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Whacked. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank You

	setting me straight
	Thank you for setting me straight let's just be friends Digifan23 (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Missunderstanding

i'm a not a sockpupet of WilliamT569 (talk · contribs) (while i understand why though i was) it's the truth and how can i clear this up? Digifan23 (talk) 01:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I've remove the sock tag. Toddst1 (talk) 14:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank You Digifan23 (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Memorex, protection of

Hi Toddst1, You protected Memorex in 2010 because of edit-warring. Think we can try opening it up now? Cheers! Crazynas ^t 09:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that seemed a bit excessive. I suspect it was an error. Toddst1 (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Would appreciate a look

After your conversation at User talk:Digifan23#Unblocking? Digifan23 tried to do the right thing at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#TV Land, but I had to shoot him down for lack of talk page discussion. If you've not looked at his opponent IP editor's talk page and editing history — 76.92.148.191 (talk · contribs) — DF appears to be trying to deal with one of those editors who are interested in adding fancruft information to WP but not particularly interested in sourcing it or talking about it and who have already been blocked for six months for apparently just that (though it was kind of hard to tell for sure from the block notices), only to come right back and do the same thing. Dealing with an editor of that kind, especially an IP editor, is hard for even an experienced editor, much less ... well, you get the point. I hate to see someone who's now trying to do the right thing be so frustrated. Is there something you might do? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I left a note. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Involved much?

The following discussion 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.

---

Toddst1, you've got to be kidding me if you think you get to close a sanction discussion that you opened. When you propose sanctions on someone, you don't get to close it. Hard to assume good faith when you pull a stunt like that. Closing a discussion might not require the tools, but imposing a sanction is an admin's responsibility and I don't want to have to take you to Arbcom for violating WP:INVOLVED. Relevant quote from WP:CBAN: "If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly."--v/r - TP 21:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

as if there was any question about its outcome? You asked for it to be closed. Let someone else wade into that manure pit. Toddst1 (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

TParis, you are at wikibreak currently. Could other Wikipedian deal with Toddst1 and his procedurally inaccurate actions? Repeating involvements of TParis on behalf of the known unregistered person, his harassment and almost random threats to his opponents, can ultimately lead to serious questions about TParis’s conduct. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

My action there has been reversed. Procedurally, I believe TP was correct. It is awaiting impartial closure. I will be surprised if the outcome comes out differently. Toddst1 (talk) 14:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me rephrase my statement above about TP. TP would like the thread to go away, but there is an active proposal that has received community. It must be either rejected or accepted. Toddst1 (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2013 (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.

Using of Subpage Question

So I'm in the process of re-writing & properly citing the Comparison of Android devices page (see here). Would it be against any policy to break up the table into subpages, e.g. Comparison of Android devices/Phone/Asus, Comparison of Android devices/Phone/HTC, Comparison of Android devices/Phone/Sony, Comparison of Android devices/Tablet/..., etc? Thanks. 「gu1dry」⊤ • ¢  22:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that could be easily considered as advertising for whomever had the comparison. It seems pretty far from encyclopedic. Just my opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 05:42, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Imposed sanction.

On the 4th July you imposed the much discussed sanction against 76.189.109.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) ([26]).

Are you aware that the sanctions were deleted within one hour ([27]) though not by 76.189.109.155? This badly need closing as 76.189.109.155 is still disruptively editing (he even altered two of your edits at the ANI ([28] & [29]) in order to deflect attention to the proposed sanctions.

I have refrained from commenting further at the ANI in order not to unnecessarily inflame the discussion (though it's probably barely noticeable). Hence this post here. I B Wright (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Certainly, Toddst1 is aware of the former. I spotted the IP tampering in Toddst1’s boldface, but I didn’t intervene because sanctions do not ban 76.189.… from discussions where he is a subject. I do not think that 76.189.… poses now a serious threat, but should we ask a bureaucrat to produce an official closing statement? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

He knows about WP:INVOLVED and that it was improper for him to close it. Like I have said, there are administrators around here who don't think the rules apply to them and others who will just stand by idly and let them violate WP policies. How else is Mark Arsten still an administrator after this[30]?...William 19:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Todd, things got heated in that debate about the IP. I'm sorry for any of my comments that were rude toward you.--v/r - TP 14:41, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

A good move… will I become the next? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:46, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it.--v/r - TP 15:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks TP. I think most of the folks involved in that fiasco crossed a line or two without intending to, myself included. The acrimony was pretty intense and we're all human. Best. Toddst1 (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

IMDB

It's ok to list IMDb in External Links sections, just not as a reference to specific facts in the text. More than 4,500 articles in Wikipedia do so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Good point on your first sentence. I'll self-revert if you haven't already. WP:OSE on the second. Toddst1 (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Admin sarcasm

The title of the organisation that allows you to behave in the nineties sysop manner without exploring consequences is the Wikimedia foundation. Not the [Wikipedia Foundation] as you have claimed here. Please try and make responsible edits in user talk space if you expect editors to hold you in high regard. Badanagram (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Sorry that was mean spirited of me :- again. . Badanagram (talk) 12:47, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Came back just to post on ANI? Nice. Toddst1 (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Badanagram

Hi Toddst1,

I've become increasingly concerned about the situation here, where you've indeffed an editor of seven years' standing. The block notice is anchored to no specific reason aside from a generic "misusing multiple accounts", despite the policy requirement to do so. No diffs were provided. Were warnings issued? Has the user got a history of problematic behaviour? Why was the block indefinite? Was this requirement of the blocking policy satisfied: "Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these."?

I see that you've contributed recently but have not returned to the editor's page either to respond to his/her entreaties or to address the appeal, made nearly 40 hours ago. Admin policy states that "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." The editor is clearly distressed about it.

I don't really understand the issues involved, and I've taken an interest only after an observer communicated their concerns. The editor is behaving as I would if falsely accused. Please note one of the userboxes on the editor's userpage in particular.

There seems to be a range-block you've made caught up with this issue—it appears to need reviewing.

Can you sort out these matters as soon as possible? Tony (talk) 09:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Seven years standing, so what? Does a long account’s tenure offer an immunity against persecution? The only thing I deem bizarre is a red link at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Badanagram. If an account with noticeable content contributions is accused in puppetry, then we should proceed to an official investigation, right? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tony. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I don't watchlist every blocked editor's page (but I do most). There's an active unblock request open so another admin will review the block. I'll reply on User talk: Badanagram so it will be available for anyone who comes by. Toddst1 (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Do not ignore the question please: “multiple instances of IP sockpuppetry” requires at least two IPs with identifiable WP:signs of sock puppetry and, preferably, a couple of links showing a coordination between them and the account in question. You didn’t provide either. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry mate, you left me no option but this one. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me that you used your privileged position in our great community to avenge a critical user. There is not even a minute piece of reasonably recent behavioural evidence against Badanagram. I do not think you actually are short of technical possibility to go online and account for your wrongdoing. Unfortunately, the community deems that if you drove out a dozen of trolls and blocked a thousand of spammers, then you have a value sufficient to block NAT gateways in godforsaken Myanmar on pretexts those falsity is obvious to yourself. I regret about my conduct during the 76.189 crisis that contributed to your impunity illusion. I believe our community is a right one. It is just painfully slow, like Burmese proxies. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:25, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

First, all this does not now have much importance for Wikipedia: a damage is already made, and my diatribes will not improve anything. And second, I’m not the supreme judge of Wikipedia. My opinion about competence and intentions is only my opinion. So just drop it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Snarky comments separated from legitimate discussion

Not really. Admins can do whatever takes their fancy on Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not true. I'm not allowed to tell you to piss off even though it might be highly appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think any editor should be persecuted, actually. Tony (talk) 10:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree and I don't think you should beat your wife either. Toddst1 (talk) 15:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:JamesBWatson#Blocked_proxies, Though I notice that the above discussion might have something to do with all this. --regentspark (comment) 20:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Another Kinsella sock?

A couple of attack edits on Kinsella's "enemies" and a strange edit on Warren Kinsella by this IP 99.232.60.240 Spoonkymonkey (talk)

I'm taking off for vacation in about 10 minutes and won't have time to deal with this. Toddst1 (talk) 03:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Uninvolved review requested. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Unblocked

Hi, Todd, I hope you are enjoying your vacation, which means that you are not reading this until you get back. :-) Two admins (kww and TP) wanted a CU done before unblocking anyone. T. Canens did the CU and found the accounts most likely unrelated. Therefore, I unblocked Badanagram and the two IPs. I also removed the SP tags. You can see all this at ANI and on Badanagram's talk page, but I thought you deserved a personal heads up on your talk page.

I'm sorry for the unwarranted abuse that's been heaped on you in your absence, although many editors came to your defense. I guess it comes with the job, but the attacks are tremendously mean-spirited. Best regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice and for your cool head. I'm glad the IP block got worked out. The aggression against administrators has really gotten out of hand lately. Toddst1 (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

GabrielVelasquez

Your block of User:GabrielVelasquez says "prolific sockpuppetry" (besides personal attacks) but I'm not seeing any SPI on him. I'm asking because someone suggested that another editor is a sockpuppet of GabrielVelasquez, so it would help to know what other sockpuppets GabrielVelasquez had, if any. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

See the ANI discussion that was specifically provided for this purpose. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

L.A. Reid

Hi Toddst1, how ya been? Say, I notice you hit the L.A. Reid article with multiple tags. Though I have contributed to the article in the past, or more accurately often deleted unsourced or poorly sourced material, I have been away from the article for six months or so. Could you bring me up to speed on your thinking on the article re: the tags? Thanks and as always, hope you are doing well! Jusdafax 06:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi JFX. Yes, it's been a while.

Yeah, there are a few problems there. I think this paragraph, quoted in its entirety is a good example:

Reid flies home to Blue Ash, Ohio every year to take his mother Emma to dinner [8].

Most of the article is in pretty good shape though.

I followed a trail of abject garbage created by Republic Records Publicity ‎ (talk · contribs) and his/her many socks to L.A. Reid and that article which is in much better shape than the others. Toddst1 (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

With your approval then, I'll pull the personal section out that contains that paragraph/line about his mother. I have taken it out before since it is a magnet for attackers and adds little to, and detracts much from, this BLP. Someone has it in for this guy, and as the talk page shows I have been weeding out the obvious trash for years. On the other side, there appears to be an attempt by RRP (a paid editing service, I suppose, though I have not looked into it, and socking complicates the issue) to puff the article. I will come back in a few days and see if you think it has improved enough to pull the tags. Thanks! Jusdafax 06:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't need my approval but you certainly have it. I left a note on the talk page as well. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just spent a couple hours on it, mostly taking out junk. I daresay the article can use more work but see what you think. Jusdafax 11:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Big improvement Jusdafax. Nice work. Toddst1 (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I am not done yet. By the way, I am having some problems with User:GageSkidmore who just accused me of article ownership. Could you look in and make a call on the issue? I'd be much obliged. Jusdafax 00:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. GS has desisted. Jusdafax 06:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP2E

I just ran into BLP2E - what an amazing outbreak of common sense on Wikipedia! I ran into a related problem earlier this year. A couple of editors told me that a series of 25 crimes occurring in several different US states and foreign countries over the course of a bit more than a year was a single event. I was just gobsmacked but it didn't much matter to me in the general course of the discussion, so I ignored it.

I'll likely add something to BLP2E, but feel free to revert. Short and sweet can be the best way to go. Sometimes writing down an additional argument explaining that 1 + 1 does not equal 2,345.75 simply confuses things.

All the best.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Smallbones, Thanks for the kind words. It seems common sense is in increasingly short supply around here lately.

If you look at the talk page and especially the history, you'll find that the essay was not without controversy. Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think your concern is better addressed in Wikipedia:What is one event. Toddst1 (talk) 22:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I self-reverted and added a "See also" link to Wikipedia:What is one event? Thanks again - common sense interpreting Wikipedia policy - what a wonderful idea! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:18.101.16.234

This IP is from the pool of MIT VPN addresses, so your earlier message probably won't get to the right person, FYI. There are at least 10,000 people with access to our VPN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.101.16.234 (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

But it appears only one edits wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 19:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey

Hey Toddst. I was reading my archives and I felt like passing by your talk page to wish you a good end of summer. Happy editing :) — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy editing to you too.` Cheers mate! Toddst1 (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Just saw your message in my talk page.

Yes, i was almost in a edit war on Maratha Empire thus i requested the page to be locked, and the other guy, who was reverting as well, would finally discuss on his talk page. That's it. OwnDealers (talk) 05:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

And thanks for protecting Chuck Yeager, the person who removed the sourced text kept claiming that Bharat Rakshak is a linkvio, even though other 3 sources have confirmed the same information, although Bharat Rakshak is not a linkvio either, it's used in over 700 pages of wikipedia, as source. This guy has failed to explain his point and started removing the discussion[31], which means that he has failed to prove his point. So kindly revert the page back to this version [32]. Thanks OwnDealers (talk) 06:35, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Appam

The ip has again reverted the content. PalakkappillyAchayan 18:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Long block

Isn't a year a bit long for a second block for petty vandalism from an IP? Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Depends on the circumstances. Toddst1 (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Tagging

With regards to this, feel free to contact Amalthea, who will vindicate my case, but 1) That is a retired account, so even if you were to open SPI (my apologies for the typo in this edit summary), it would result in stale. 2) In light of this, since those two user pages are effectively mine, and since there are no violations of WP:SOCK at present, nothing to prevent me from blanking them is enshrined in WP:UP. Please leave the matter as is. GotR ^Talk 21:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Legal threat

IMO, this edit constitutes a legal threat. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Greenville, SC History Edit Neruk (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Todd,

I was the one who deleted the history text from the Greenville, SC page. The text reads, "The area now known as Greenville was given to the nobleman King Benjamin Norwood IV.[7] The era of King Benjamin's rule was fraught with corruption. King Benjamin Norwood was a notorious opium addict and had several mistresses.[8]" This seemed off to me because I knew the names of the eight proprietors of the Carolina colony and knew a Benjamin or Norwood was not among them. Furthermore, it seemed odd for a nobleman to use the title, "King." I looked into the sources and found them completely extraneous and unrelated to the topic of Greenville or Carolina. They are actually Mormon sources. The historical accuracy of Mormon texts aside, none of the referenced literature actually mentions Greenville in the way noted in the paragraph.

I motion to delete the text again. It is simply inaccurate and misleading. A quick Google search shows that it is already being repeated by Internet denizens who trust Wikipedia to have the right information.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks,

Neruk

Admin sins

How many admins does it take to screw up a light bulb? Cheers.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I wish the clue phone would ring. Toddst1 (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

See my latest comment at the report. I had written "fucking weird" but wasn't sure if Rschen would appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Neptune technology group page

todd, im fairly new to wikipedia, i came back to review the neptune page and it had been deleted.

before i added a little info about roper buying neptune i saw there were notes in the past saying information needed to be deleted and referenced a big writeup on the company in what appeared to be a promotional approach, of which it was deleted, but there was still some basic info about the company that remained since 2007. i added ropers purchase in 2004 in a very small informative way.

im just curious why the entire page was deleted, instead of what i had added if it wasn't in line with wikipedia..

meterguy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.36.175 (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neptune Technology Group. Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Cavatelli

You reverted my edit. "Cavadils" (or "cavadills"... spelling can go either way I guess) is a very common term for (or mispronunciation of) cavatelli. Is there no way to add it back in a way that suits you? – JBarta (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Use WP:RS. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

That's wonderful. I'm not quite sure where you'll find a reliable source for that, but there are certainly plenty of references to the term on the internet. I suppose all you'll need to do is choose one. Thanks for putting it back in. – JBarta (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN. Toddst1 (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on The Biggest Loser UK (series 5)

Hello sir. I think you got it wrong. From your message in my talk page, there was no edit war going on The Biggest Loser UK (series 5). The IP, 95.35.60.55, was vandalizing the article. You can see it in his edits such as this. Comparison between his edits and the reverted edit I made shows that he is an vandalizer. The he way he was vandalizing the article was the same way the other IPs were doing. It can be found here. I have been monitoring them since last year (see my talk page for more information about this). The IP has also vandalized other articles, you can see it in his contributions.--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 05:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see obvious WP:VANDALISM. What am I (or you) missing? Toddst1 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay sir, I will explain it to you. Since last year, numerous IPs has been vandalizing multiple Biggest Loser articles. I have constantly been monitoring their activities. They keep distorting the pages by adding edits like that this one. See the first four sections? They are vandalism edits. Compare it to the remaining sections found below them, they are the legit sections and all information found in those sections are relevant to the section. And those were the original entries of the article before the IP vandalized it. See the activity of the IP sir (see it here IP 95.35.60.55's activity), his vandalism edits are repetitive. One example is this one. Compare it with this version before he edited it.

You can try to look over the patrol page I made sir. Numerous The Biggest Loser articles have already been protected due to their activity. I have also listed the IPs vandalizing numerous Biggest Loser articles sir, you can see it there. You can also read the history behind their activity at the top of the page. People will not find their vandalism as obvious since they are adding 'same type of information' but however irrelevant to the page. And they are vandalizing it in bulk edits. I hope I have explained it well 'cause I am not really good in explaining. :)--AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 05:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how adding that content constitutes vandalism. I see the page has been repeatedly protected though. How is it vandalism? Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The content is irrelevant sir. For example, the show has already finished and the tables in an article are already completely filled. The thing they do is add non-relevant contests sometimes replacing those 'legit' with 'vandalism contents'. If you could also thoroughly differentiate, the contestants in the table they added are contestants that are not part in that particular season/series, and version. Just from the way those IP add those contents... repetitive activity. If you can hop from protected article to another protected article, you can see their repetitive activity. They are given vandalism warnings too. However, once they receive a warning, they use another IP. I hope this is clear enough for you sir that this is not an edit war. :) --AR E N Z O Y 1 6A•t a l k• 06:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Another Plant's Strider sock

I'm pretty certain that this account fails the duck test. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

William313

The IP User:76.92.148.191 that you have blocked for 3 years, the account User:William569 that is currently blocked for two weeks, the account User:WilliamT569 that you thought was Digifan23, as well as the account User:WilliamT29 that is running loose are all sock-puppets of User:William313, a user that was blocked by Fastily in 2011 for delibarately introducing in (daytime television articles) content that try to pass as genuine, but are in fact bogus and false. Although his first account was created in 2011, he has edited on and off as an IP since at least late 2009, long before I even knew about him. It was Ckatz who educated me about this user [33]. Because just as what happened between you and Digifan23, I thought that Ckatz was being unfair to this user when in fact we were dealing with a subtle vandal.

Whether you want to block his socks or give him more rope is your choice. I have retired from Wikipedia in March 2013 and will have my account completely deleted this week through the right to vanish process. So whatever you want to do with William313's socks makes no difference to me. But in any case, this could be useful to you should ever be exposed again in the future about a situation regarding this user. Regards. Farine (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

ePSXe

Dear Todd. It's not edit warring when I restore unvandalized content. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You were edit warring. Get over it. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I wasn't. The vandal was and 3 other admins agree with me which is why 2 of his IP addresses were blocked for vandalizing. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You can believe whatever you want. You need to stop reverting on that page. Toddst1 (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:82.166.140.117

Todds, you recently blocked the IP for a legal threat against me. Is it possible to unblock the guy?

I do not think it was a credible threat anyway. The IP user (a new a user) asks for a reproduction of a painting to be removed from an article of Aristarkh Lentulov as a forgery. Apparently there is an article in Haaretz that alleges that the painting is somehow related to criminal rings and forgery. Getting the relevant part of the article requires a paid account that I do not have, but the user seems to have. Obviously if there is a controversy around the painting I would either remove it from the article or write a couple of sentences about the controversy. In the middle of the conversation the new editor got an idea that I might be connected to the criminal ring and threaten to report me to Interpol. Honestly, I do not mind to help police but the only knowledge I have about the painting is the source of the commons image, a reasonably respectful site of a Russian museum. They seem to think the painting is genuine. I am sure that as a new user the IP was not aware of WP:NLT and I would rather work with him or her on the article then see him or her blocked. Is it OK if I unblock the IP or can you unblock him yourself? I left a similar notice on AN/I Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update

Hey Toddst1. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

ANI notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Rocking charis

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Rocking charis, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Rockin' Chair. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. MadmanBot (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Bosstones may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• }

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Family (Think About Life album) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Stone") and "Sofa-bed", "which sounds like TV on the Radio with a clearer sense of melody."<ref>[[[[Ben Rayner|Rayner, Ben]] (June 14, 2009). "Ben Rayner's Reasons to Live", ''[[Toronto Star]]'', p.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Rocking chairs

I'm not sure what you did to the rocking chairs dab pages, but somehow there's two of them now (identical). I've G6 tagged one, explaining what I think happened and what the best way to fix it is. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Your proposal makes sense. I'm not sure what I was thinking - a redirect would have been better. Thanks , Jackmcbarn. Toddst1 (talk) 13:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Grand Marais Light

Could you kindly review your recent twinkle edit, please, to Grand Marais Light? Jonathunder (talk) 02:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Grand Marais Light. Thank you. Jonathunder (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

When you like your photo better than someone else's, unless the old one really sucked, it's polite to discuss the change before throwing someone else's away. Note that I had nothing to do with the old, scenic photo. Toddst1 (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for userfication

Ahoy Toddst1

Cobalt Business Park

23:54, 10 May 2013 Toddst1 (talk | contribs) deleted page Cobalt Business Park (A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (organization) (TW))

Could I please have a userfied copy of this page? As I live in it's region I could probably get the parts that are required to bring it onto its feet. Thank you kindly. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 17:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done See User:Matticusmadness/Cobalt Business Park. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Reaper Eternal's talk page.
Message added 22:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Toddst1, you recently sent me a message and removed my citation from the iPhone 5S and MixBit Wiki pages

I just wanted to know which terms of use I've violated because I haven't seen anything inappropriate in that. I just added some little more and useful information for new features and cited the source. Please, If you could tell me what I've violated then I'll try not to do it from next time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndixit92 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Violating Terms Of use

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Ndixit92's talk page.
Message added Ndixit92 (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Robert Goddard Montessori School

I'm confused by your message and your edit summary: why do you say that RGM is a private school? The infobox's School Type parameter reads "Public Montessori", its district is marked as Prince George's County Public Schools, and the school website mentions its affiliation with Prince George's County Public Schools. Nyttend (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I goofed. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Why have placed blame on my talk page?

The following discussion 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.

---

Please supply some diffs where you consider my edits as a personal attack on any person. You have posted this warning template[[34]] on my talk page. I have only followed proper and formal Wikipedia procedures, as I understand them to open a discussion with this harassing editor. Have you confused me with somebody else? Was the wrong template used? Please supply diffs where I was incorrect and the policy that I have violated. Thank you.

BTW: My I address changes each time I log in. Despite what Rogers says about being static the process is the same for dynamic IP editors. This is the reason I indicated it as such. I could demonstrate for you but I try not to keep changing IPs to avoid confusion and I feel it would be an excuse to be used against IP editors. Static I addresses cost big money in Canada. There is no attempt to deceive or create confusion on my part and I noted it [[35]] on my previous IP talk page at one time just before the sockpuppet accusations started. 174.118.141.197 (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Responded on confrontational IP's talk page where it belongs. Toddst1 (talk) 21:08, 18 September 2013 (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.

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Talk:Intellectual_disability.
Message added 18:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- thewolfchild  18:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Here...

...you can this back. For the second time, stay off my talk page. - thewolfchild 19:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Second time? What are you talking about? Toddst1 (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

First time (it hasn't been that long...) - thewolfchild 20:30, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry I didn't remember it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. - thewolfchild 19:49, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ruth R. Benerito may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Ruth Mary Rogan Benerito''' (born January 12, 1916; died October 5, 2013<ref name=nytobit>{{cite news|last=Fox|first=Margalit|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Elite Traveler magazine

Hi your last edit had the summary: "Rm off-topic / trivia. We don't list what magazines have reported on. (TW)". The Wikipedia article states that the magazine "caters to Ultra-High-Net-Worth consumers" but does not mention what "ultra high net worth", a financial jargon, entails. It uses a citation entitled "Private Jet Set Kicking the Bucket List". The report you removed was entitled "the new jet set" and contained specific, non-obvious demographic information about private jet demographic, which may be the intended readers of a magazine that calls itself "Elite", a subjective adjective which calls for some qualification. Income and net worth information explain ultra-high-net-worth within the context of the article. If demographic information is irrelevant, why should the article mention who the magazine is for in the first place? Shawnc (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I found a direct citation about the magazine's reader demographics from their own website. I trust that this information is relevant in conjunction with the Forbes article. Shawnc (talk) 07:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Toddst1 (talk) 15:05, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

thewolfchild's inappropriate behavior

Posting here as this editor does not wish me to post on user talk:thewolfchild:

Referring to you by terms you use to describe yourself is not a personal attack. If my username was "Todd the bumblefuck" it would not be a personal attack to be referred to as "the bumblefuck." Referring to Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) as "Bugs" is not a personal attack.

In your case, you've labeled yourself a child: thewolfchild (talk · contribs) Referring to you as "the child" is not a personal attack.

Now, enough of your edit warring on this page, re-posting warnings here and accusations of administrative abuse. If you continue to think I have abused my administrative privileges with respect to dealing with you, for fuck's sake, take them to ANI with diffs as I have asked you several times, or take a hike and knock it off.

If it is not abundantly clear at this point, please do not post on this page unless you are notifying me of an ANI discussion regarding me. Toddst1 (talk) 19:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

QED. Toddst1 (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Wolfchild, once again, please do not edit this page. You are well past the point of harassment. Toddst1 (talk) 04:13, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request interaction ban. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Common Crawl

Hi, I see that you recently performed a speedy deletion of Common Crawl under criteria A7. I believe that "Common Crawl makes available a 100 TB web archive of web page data from 2008 to 2012 of about 6 billion webpages.[3] Web crawl data is kept in the Amazon public datasets S3 bucket and is freely downloadable." (found in the Google cache) is a credible claim of significance: to my knowledge, no other organization provides a dataset of comparable purpose and size. Could you restore the page? You are welcome to nominate it for deletion through the usual process if you still contest its notability. Thanks! --A3 nm (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

done Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --A3 nm (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Five themes of geography

Since you are here and SPI is backlogged: Bhill579 (talk · contribs) vandalized Five themes of geography yesterday, I warned him, he stopped. Minutes ago Bhill123 (talk · contribs) was created and continues, Diff of Five themes of geography. SIMNAME/IDENT  Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me². Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:57, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Mark Arsten blocked the latter. Sam Sailor ^Sing 19:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Bhill579 doesn't seem active. If he starts up again or uses another id, I'll block them. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

A little bit extreme

That's what I think of a five-year block for something that could be no more than a typo. Would you like to rethink it?...William 14:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 165.234.180.57 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log): In isolation, of course such a block would be considered extreme, but in the context of that editor's long block log which includes three 1-year blocks, an editing history filled with unconstructive editing, and that this was the first edit after the release of the latest long-term block, not at all.

The duration of blocks should be related to the likelihood of a user repeating inappropriate behavior. Longer blocks for repeated and high levels of disruption is to reduce administrative burden; it is under presumption that such users are likely to cause frequent disruption or harm in future.

I'm curious: How did you came across that block? Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Where is WP:AGF? This isn't a clear cut of vandalism in any way and yes I'm aware of this editor's history. You should take off the block and let him the editor clearly hang himself.

How did I come across the block? Your contributions log of course. I was wondering if you're still away....William 17:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

So you're going to let the block stand? If so, I may bring this to this to the attention of another administrator or ANI....William 18:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll do better than that. I'll unblock and let you keep an eye on the schoolip. Thanks for your commitment. Toddst1 (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Your recent test edits to Samuel Chase were not constructive. It was vandalism and was reverted. Entry of false information is not helpful. If you want to experiment or make a test edit, please use the sandbox. These pages are patrolled by robots and human editors like me. When you make an edit please leave an accurate edit summary, and not a misleading one. You can be blocked for this. Further vandalism will get you blocked from editing without further notice.
This edit seems atypical for you. If I have made an error, please let me know. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:25, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the misunderstanding. It did look like vandalism, but I certainly accept the hearty defense made in your behalf. Happy admining to you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Toddst1's revert obviously is not WP:VAND, please read it, 7&6=thirteen. But in this case it would have been a good idea to look at the page history before reverting. I reverted deeper. Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 18:46, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sam Sailor, Not to belabor the point. The content looked very strange: see WP:Duck test. The intention — whether this was "deliberate" — would be in the heart of the editor. I had already followed up with "This edit seems atypical for you. If I have made an error, please let me know." So I am well familiar with WP:VAND, and trust your instruction was a rhetorical device. FWIW, I accept that this was an imperfect revert. Mea culpa. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your magnaninity. Shit happens. That's why they put delete buttons on computers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:32, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:03, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

ChAO$(musician

Since you are around, could you investigate if the above new article relates to the blacklisted Chaos (musician) and advise if any CSD would apply? Best, Sam Sailor ^Sing 20:13, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know of any blacklist, but I don't see any assertion of importance of that musician and have deleted it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

+1. Cheers, Sam Sailor ^Sing 21:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Why did you say I was engaged in an edit war?

If you read the Talk page, you can see that I am trying to clean up the article and working towards reaching a consensus on various aspects of it, including the citations and maintaining a NPOV. Why didn't you say anything on the Talk page of the article before posting something accusatory on my Talk page? --Aragorn8392 (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Because you appear to be engaged in an edit war. WP:BRD has only 1 R in it and only 1 B. What your intent is is irrelevant.

I posted on your talk page about your behavior. Your behavior has nothing to do with the content of the article and should not be discussed on the article talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I have read up on a lot of WP policy, but I did not come upon a reference to WP:BRD before, though I have spent a lot of time on Talk page discussions. Might you try posting on my Talk page about behavior and policy before threatening ban? There are many rules, and it would be nice if BRD was under Article Policies on Talk pages, as it is such a hard and fast rule. Anyway, thanks for telling me about BRD, but maybe also calm down a bit on ban-threatening? --Aragorn8392 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's be clear: Nobody threatened to WP:BAN you. I or some other admin will prevent you from continuing your edit war (aka block you from editing) if you continue to exhibit that behavior. That in no way is me being other than calm - that's just the way it is. Toddst1 (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about blocks

Hey, Toddst1,

I have a Admin question for you that I hope you can answer. It was prompted by running into Guardian of the Rings, or actually, one of their earlier sock accounts. But I'll generalize it so it's not specific to their situation.

Suppose there is User ABC who does some light editing for a month or so, then something happens (a dare, a bad day, too much alcohol, whatever) and they blank some pages and receive an indefinite block for vandalism. Eight months later, they create a new account User XYZ and edit productively, with no problems, for five months before it is discovered that they are the same account as User ABC and they are blocked as a sock account.

So, my question for you, as an experienced Admin, is under what conditions can someone who has been blocked as a sock return to editing on Wikipedia? I ask because it seems like there is a cycle of once someone gets labeled a sock, they just create a new account to get a fresh start, get discovered eventually, blocked and then create a new account...rinse and repeat. I'm sure that some very decent current Editors today had their origins in an earlier account which received a block but these connections have not been discovered.

But assuming that this is not the right way to handle a sock block, what would be a way that someone could return back to good standing? Because I see Editors getting unblocked for a variety of bad behaviors but I don't see any who have been blocked for sock accounts being unblocked.

Sorry for the long scenario and thanks, in advance, for your assistance with my Admin questions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

That's a fantastic question, and I believe you'll get different answers from different admins.

My interpretation of policy is that if an editor is indeffed, then the only way for that editor to have legitimately resumed editing is to own up to the problematic behavior that led to their block(s) on their talk page and assure the community it won't happen again (maybe even with an explanation of why), followed by a request for unblocking.

Anything else constitutes block evasion and such a situation is explicitly called out as a situation where an editor is NOT eligible for a clean start.

Where it gets really interesting is how to handle such a situation where the new account has been a constructive, conflict-free contributor. I tend to be more on the "no-screwing-around" end of the spectrum of admins who would block such a user if sockpuppetry was apparent. Most folks nowadays want to see an SPI conclude that the editors are the same, but it wasn't always the case and it's not clear that admins closing an SPI apply consistent outcomes.

Hope that helps. Toddst1 (talk) 20:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

MEETS Cable system - don't delete pages you don't understand

Hello - You deleted the MEETS cable system page - clearly you don't understand the value of this data or any of the other cable systems that are documented within Wikipedia. There's are 100's of such pages and they provide a valuable source of information for many undersea and terrestrial cables around the globe. In many case this is data that is only available on Wikipedia.

Kindly restore the page (hey - you deleted it with the "speedy" option - which is doubly unwelcome).

Yours,

Martin.

Mahtin (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not smart enough to understand pages with big words like those. Toddst1 (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) I understand it was promotional, non-notable, and might have even been written by someone with conflict of interest. I would have rightly deleted it too :-) ES&L 01:32, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I should have known "this is data that is only available on Wikipedia" and should be kept. Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

AIV

Hello Toddst1, I understand that the user probably was not going to be blocked, but I had to give it a try. But I would seriously like you to come up with one single blockable offense I made in the situation, because there was none, and to make that sort of comment sounded extremely disrespectful to me. I work really hard fighting vandalism and building articles on here, and a deserve more respect than that from a user that I thought I respected such as yourself. STATic message me! 03:15, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I never said anything was blockable - in fact quite the contrary, but cherry picking interim edits in a series (here's the full diff [36]) is a WP:DICK move. What was it you were trying to say? Toddst1 (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I went through the page history to see where the report was declined, I only saw that edit and did not view the other edits (I assumed they were to another case). My mistake, but you original message did imply something completely different, which I am sure you could understand my disdain for. Sorry if I came across as a "dick", but if you only saw this, when you did no wrong doing at all in a complex situation like that was, you would be peeved off too. However, your edited message was proper and a fit conclusion as the report was as stale as last years bread at that point. STATic message me! 05:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

DogmaticEclectic

I'm surprised you unblocked DE and I just wanted to check with you to see if his/her topic ban was still in effect. They mentions on their Talk Page that he/she wants to return to editing Microsoft-related articles and I believe those fell under their topic ban. Cheers! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

My intent (and what I think I did) was only to unblock. I realize there are many folks that may find this surprising, but I'll be quick to reblock quickly if problems recur. Toddst1 (talk) 20:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

YRC

Hey, Todd, I saw that you revoked YRC's talk page and email access (I have his talk page watchlisted after helping him with some post-ban trolls). I did see your block summary, but are there any more details about this you're at liberty to share? It just seems sudden. Thanks, Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Peruvian IP hopper

He won't let up. Maybe consider protecting the page indefinitely, or at least until this most recent rush of disruption subsides. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

old schoolblock causing problem at 66.94.192.6

I recently noticed 66.94.192.6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which had a {{schoolip}} and {{schoolblock}} on the talkpage. A whois check listed it as belonging to an office address for Family Video. I changed the first to {{Shared IP corp}}, but your block notice still has it showing erroneously at Category:Shared IP addresses from educational institutions. Could you either change your notice to {{anonblock}} or remove it entirely? Thanks.--Auric talk 21:48, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've done so. I'm not sure what the info I had when I tagged the IP as such, but Family video is the ISP and behaviorally it sure does quack like bored schoolkids. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

My guess would be kids using a parent's office connection, but thanks.--Auric talk 22:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And since it looks like the petty vandalism is continuing, I've re-blocked the account. Toddst1 (talk) 13:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Editor Retention

Hi Todd, I wanted to let you know that the block of User:Indigo Tourism is being discussed at Editor Retention, and ask if you might wish to join the conversation. - Khazar2 (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like you to reconsider, and lift, the ban on User:Indigo Tourism. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Indigo Tourism (talk · contribs) is not banned. S/he may request unblocking, which I (or any other admin) would almost certainly grant if s/he indicated that the account was to be renamed and used within our policies. However, I have no indication that Indigo Shire's Tourism department has any interest in editing anything on Wikipedia besides promoting tourism to their area. Toddst1 (talk) 12:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Clash of Clans

Why is this page "pending changes" and indef. semi-protected at the same time? --George Ho (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Because I wasn't paying attention. Thanks for pointing it out. I've dropped the PC. Toddst1 (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

A longer block?

Hey Toddst1, I was thinking that User: Shoka1234 deserves a longer block due to this comment, the user was blocked for personal attacks and harassment before, and frankly the user frequently violates WP:V and probably deserved a longer block then 12 hours from the beginning. Telling two editors to quote, "kill themselves" seems like it definitely jumps a boundary to me. STATic message me! 04:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

lol you nerdy little morons are just mad because you know i'm right. It was certified 2 days ago but now you're butthurt because you see that it's directly on the website. And I won't get unblocked because all the admins suck each other off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoka1234 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

You may have a point, Vape. Toddst1 (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Also just want to apologize, for coming at you so hostile time before this that we discussed. I was in a stressful situation with that user I reported, which affected my response. I do respect you as an editor and administrator and have always noticed you do a lot of good around here. Cheers, STATic message me! 07:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries mate. Thanks for the kind words. Toddst1 (talk) 12:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Help Overcoming Initial Article Annihilation

Several years ago as a novice wikipedia contributor, I opened an account and started developing an article about a subject that was both my research work and one in which I had an admitted pecuniary interest. Perhaps my first error was using the wikipedia editor directly to develop my article rather than writing the article and submitting a near final draft. Even before I'd learned enough to properly wiki-cite or reference my work, the wiki-lawyers descended upon me in droves. At least I had an AfD trial for a day or two, but by then, there was really nothing that I might have done to overcome my initial blunders, and while I had an important contribution to make, both my account and the subject article, subject matter which I am both uniquely knowledgeable about and in which I continue to have a pecuniary interest in, are now subject to prejudice if and when I'd care to resubmit a draft. Furthermore, during the AfD trial, at least one contributor had advanced scientific training, and given the quality and quantity of peer-reviewed scientific journal articles which have been published one the subject matter since my feeble first attempt, I had hoped to elicit his help in reviewing and resubmitting an article under same name, but I don't know how to find the original AfD trial manuscript to identify and approach him. The AfD was entitled 'IsoSproutPlex,' and you were the admin who ultimately approved the deletion. I need help and don't want to take the same "bull in a china shop" approach that I took last time. What would you recommend I do? How can I find the original AfD manuscript? Thank you RGK (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I've restored the article to User:/Toddst1/Sandbox/IsoSproutPlex so it can be worked on. I'm glad to help you with this. First off, there was no AFD. It was speedily deleted as advertising without an AFD. I'm traveling right now, so have limited time but feel free to edit that page at will. Probably good to review WP:COI and WP:Advertising before you start. I'll be home later this weekend and will pitch in too. Toddst1 (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I have to take that back. That was a clear copyright violation of several websites including [37] and I had to delete it again. May I suggest you review Wikipedia:FIRSTARTICLE and start a brand new article at Wikipedia:Afc? Toddst1 (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks anyway Toddst1, SODZyme = IsoSproutPlex, so maybe that was a version of an article that was speedily deleted, I cannot remember. My preferred starting point was not that article anyway, but an article I had developed under User:Robert Kavanaugh/IsoSproutPlex that was deleted by another admin whom I've recently asked to restore the deleted content to my user area. I don't have a wikimedia markup version of that user area article so I'm hoping he'll restore it. I'd very much appreciate your help and input, so I'll write more here when the draft is either restored or I have to fumble through a new, scratch version. Anyway, I found the name of the another admin whom I'd fiercely debated over the merits of my original article, it wasTim Vickers. I'll want to solicit his aid and support after updating some important new references in a sandbox version. Thanks again Toddst1. RGK (talk) 16:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Brotherhood of Eternal Love

I'm unsure of whether "pending changes" prevent further sockpuppet, COI and POV edits, but this page has been infrequently edited recently. Are there any bad IPs willing to do the same thing others did? --George Ho (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Can you rephrase please? Toddst1 (talk) 19:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This page has been protected long enough from sockpuppetry and content disputes, and I don't think many IPs will do the same things that cause the page to be semi-protected. Lower to "pending changes" to allow IPs to edit? George Ho (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sure. I can do that. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

At least level-2 is better than unprotection, right? I've not thought about PC2, but this is more a brilliant idea than either PC1, semi-protection, or unprotection. George Ho (talk) 22:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

He's Back

Our "friend" (whom you thought was me) WilliamT29 (talk · contribs) is back making disruptive edits I warned the right way (by talking it out on his talk page instend of templeting him like you suggested) but I might need your help I just want to get blocked for trying to the right thing...again. Digifan23 (talk) 07:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

sigh he's not listing to us could you block him please you do you want me to report it to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism‎; or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or something else Digifan23 (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

WilliamT29

WilliamT29 is the same as blocked user William569, who is a sockpuppet evading a previous block. See here. Regards! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

They've returned under several names, and their sockpuppet case is not being looked at. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 00:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Blocking question

Does editor User:UTChattanooga deserve to be blocked for his comments on my Talk Page? If so, I would be obliged if you would do it. (I had reverted his edit to Red coat (British army)) Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 04:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

On its own, I'd say that was a seriously dickish personal attack and I've left a 4im warning on the user's page. I'll look further into the matter tomorrow but as it stands, any further bullshit would be grounds for an indef. Toddst1 (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to trouble you - another attack on my Talk Page from User:UTChattanooga just occurred. Regards --Greenmaven (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Clearly WP:NOTHERE and appropriately blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: paid editing-

Re: paid editing- Nope, just spent time researching him to write an article. read quite a few of the articles written. Wasn't close to done but accidentally hit save. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aluer11 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced

Hi Todd,

On this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrestrial_fibre_optic_cable_projects_in_Africa) you placed a notice about "misplaced WP:ELs strewn throughout article". Can you help me understand what I'm doing wrong with external links or perhaps give me an example of how one of the entries might be done better? Thanks. Also, you placed a note about the article needing "more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources". I wish there was a reliable independent source of information on terrestrial fibre projects in Africa. The references you see are about as authoritative as it gets to my knowledge. What should I do? Stevesong (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

See this info on where to put external links. If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a primary heading at the end of the article. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Question

The IP user you referred to in a recent block log for another IP user does not in fact seem to be blocked as you stated (unless there is some range block I'm not aware of or something). Furthermore, I'm unsure as to any possible connection between the IP addresses - you seem to have connected them based on a single edit but such an edit is all too common around here (again, unless there is something I'm not aware of, such as deleted contributions). Could you please look into this? (As someone who thinks the Wikipedia community can be far too strict at times, I really don't want to see yet another user treated too harshly.) Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Good point on the block expiry of 108.27.128.140 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) before blocking 108.14.181.206 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). They're both dynamic Verizon IPs from Queens making the same edit to an article with a very short history. There is no doubt that they are connected. Toddst1 (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI closure

Good job. I particularly liked the brevity of your closing statement. Often less is better. Regards.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

User talk:190.84.80.134

This user appears to have sources for his edits. Not sure why you blocked. John Reaves 02:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

S/he should understand now. I've expanded the comments at the talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I've unblocked. The user was correcting a mistake in the article. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 09:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. As a fan of Hägar the Horrible, Wikipedia:Verifiability and particularly WP:BURDEN must be optional in your book. Toddst1 (talk) 23:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Toddst1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 23:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC). 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.

Not terribly urgent - from before. Go Phightins! 23:28, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you get it? Go Phightins! 17:57, 17 December 2013 (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.

A new mail from me. - Jayadevp13 06:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi. Thank you for your attention to this matter. While nominating the article for GA, the instructions were to purge the talk page. I think I made a mistake. Thanks for correcting me and your polite message. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 07:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Note that you can WP:Archive a talk page if it is clear where the archive is and that older messages have been archived. Toddst1 (talk) 07:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure I'll keep that in mind. Thanks again and I'm glad that we met! --Seabuckthorn ♥ 07:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act

Hi. Thanks for your attention. I have updated my comments on the talk page. I would really appreciate it if you could help in restoring the content of this article and also invite a list of critical comments for me to address them one by one and also incorporate the relevant changes through consensus. --Seabuckthorn ♥ 19:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious

brevity
Thank you for quality articles, biographies, buildings, Murder of James Craig Anderson, for teaching, for your "willingness to help out editors in difficult and thankless situations", for brevity, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (15 May 2009, 22 June 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you. That's very nice of you! Toddst1 (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair Warning

The static IP tag will be an issue, there is a reason I didn't add that because in the past when it was added by myself and others it caused a lot of craziness so if you haven't already you may want to watchlist that talkpage. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It's never ok to remove those things, btw. Toddst1 (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I am aware lol but last time a nameless administrator told me I was I bully and it was a worthless template. I just didn't want to start the batshit craziness again! Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a position I'd take, so I hope it wasn't me. WP:REMOVED is pretty straightforward. Toddst1 (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

It was a current candidate for Arbcom but I kinda created that situation too by accusing them of Socking as an IP..sucha mess lol, either way thanks for shutting down the Dramah board and appreciate keeping the eye on things. Happy Holidays. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

For removing nonsense from TP. RashersTierney (talk) 21:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Pertaining to my "disruptive" edits.

Hello.

Please stop reverting my edits. The first time I understand, because it wasn't in writing. But the second time, you can clearly see from the bio that they are signed to both Island and Republic. I cited it and everything. You also said that I put personal opinions on the wiki. I see no such thing. So please before you revert my posts, actually take time to get your facts straight. This will make people not get mad at you. Cinnder22 (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC) Toddst1... Cinnder22 (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit

I have noticed that you blocked by User:Toddst1 for one week for edit warring on Bukharan Jews. I feel that it is excessive: he involved the new user into discussions on the talk page and he was trying to get 3d opinion on various forums. Is it possible to shorten his block. Maybe it would be more appropriate to protect the article for a while and give users chance to settle their arguments on the talk page? Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:01, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Replied on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just going to ask why Coolforschool received a 36 hour block while Ubikwit received a two week block when they were both edit-warring. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit originally got a 1 week block - same duration as his last EW block - this is his 4th. JamesBWatson doubled it to two weeks and removed talk page privs later for his post-block behavior.

Coolforschool had never been issued an EW warning at that point, so I issued one. He was later blocked for 36 hours for continuing the edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Help Requested

Could you take a look at the request I posted on Talk:WKSI-FM page, please? Thanks. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done Toddst1 (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. Much appreciated. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Talk:Bay of Bengal Gateway for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Talk:Bay of Bengal Gateway 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/Talk:Bay of Bengal Gateway 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. Toddst1 (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI 12-16-13

Thanks for coming to my defense. I don't know what that user RayBans77 is on about. Since that's his only entry, he's obviously a sock of some sort. Whatever. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	he's dead, Jim Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Toddst1 (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Benhen1997's talk page.
Message added 03:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ben^Yes? 03:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unblock request of Notabede

Hello Toddst1. Notabede (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom you have blocked, is requesting to be unblocked. The request for unblock is on hold while waiting for a comment from you. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The conditions the user has agreed to are at the bottom of this section. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

And while I'm at it, do you have an objection to me unblocking Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per their unblock request? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

All good and done. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you please reblock Dan56 as he is continuing to genre war on such articles as I'm Your Baby Tonight, Love?, Irreplaceable, he hasn't learnt his lesson. 86.142.52.51 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2014! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Cheers to you! Toddst1 (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Jayadevp13 is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Also have a very Happy New Year! - Jayadevp13 06:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Ravishyam_Bangalore

Any thoughts on the unblock requests of Ravishyam_Bangalore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He's taken back the legal threat and says he won't break policies going forward. Since you blocked and had a lot of thoughts there as he was attempting to request unblock in the past, I figured I'd get your input/insight on the request. only (talk) 17:12, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm concerned about POV pushing on Aadhaar and related articles, which seems to be this user's focus, but I won't object to an unblock. Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have unblocked him and have warned about adhering to NPOV. I'll do my best to keep an eye on it as well. only (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

"Unactionable" report at AIV

Hello, Toddst1. I fully understand your reason for this edit. However, I was able to sort out the problem, which I wouldn't have done if I had not seen the report before you removed it. That encourages me to think that, even if you are unable to deal with a report in the normal way, if there is a problem, it might be better to leave the report, in case someone else can do something about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Friginator

Hey. I have a major issue. I tried explaining in the edit summary why I removed a few usernames from that section on User talk:Frigjnator.

First, this one isn't very important but it is suggested to move the section to an archive of past discussions because the section was made a long time ago (1 year).

But the reason why I removed these few usernames is because they were used by some people outside Wikipedia who could likely harass me. I may be at risk of harassment and I even tried requesting a rename for all those 3 usernames but it didn't work. I know I'm not allowed to edit, but I am extremely nervous about this and it is scary. Can you restore that one edit I made? I don't want those names mentioned due to privacy. Please. Also remove this section after you read it. Thank you. 174.236.232.208 (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

He presumably means User talk:Friginator. --David Biddulph (talk) 22:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand. You're listed as a sockpuppet of TheMetallican (talk · contribs). If you didn't want to out your IP addresses, you shouldn't be editing. Mind you, editing as a sock is a problem too. Toddst1 (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: The usernames appear in the Google search results. If they find out these usernames were used, I could get be at risk. Those usernames should be kept private. But anyways, when ClueBot moved sections from a year ago to an archive, for some reason that section wasn't moved. If you feel I won't be harassed, please explain. I feel like this could invade my privacy 174.236.232.208 (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Please stop evading your block. Toddst1 (talk) 00:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

seattle hempfest copywrite

Todd, I am the copy write holder, I updated our web page with the required verbage to allow the use of the material. This shows that I am authorized as how else could I go in and edit our webpage?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonwhitson (talk • contribs) 02:43, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I'm new to this... I did add the release on our web page to allow our history to be added to wikipedia. Hope I did it right. How can I add images? I appreciate the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonwhitson (talk • contribs) 02:37, 29 December 2013‎

you can verify that I added the required permission here http://www.hempfest.org/about/history/ thank you!

You also have © 2013 Seattle Hempfest on that page. Toddst1 (talk) 02:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought adding the text allowed you to use it? What else do you need? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharonwhitson (talk • contribs) 02:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read your talk page. I left you detailed instructions. BTW, you should sign your entries on talk pages. See details on how to do it here.

I know this must seem like a lot of bullshit, but it's how we keep all this working. Please be patient. We're here to help. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being patient while i learn this. I will review late and get this right. Thank you todd Sharonwhitson (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries. We were all new here once. I remember how frustrating it was. OTRS is the way to go here. Toddst1 (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Your block of 68.231.15.56 today

Hi. You blocked 68.231.15.56 today. He has returned as User:S-d n r and once again reverted my correction of his edits at 2014 in the United States, and has started a complaint against me at the Administrators' noticeboard. He accused me of "having him blocked" even though I had no contact with you about him. Would you care to visit the discussion to assert that I had nothing to do with his being blocked? If you wish to comment on why you chose to block him, it might be useful for other editors following the discussion. Thank you. — O'Dea (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I think our friend from Tuscaloosa took care of it. Toddst1 (talk) 06:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Brian Jared Smart

Why did you strip every single case number out of the Brian Smart story? It is one thing to remove the links but please restore the case numbers asap.....WPPilot 07:13, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Didn't realize I nuked those in the process Let me fix that. Toddst1 (talk) 07:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

PLEASE you have ruined the whole story.....WPPilot 07:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's continue this on the article talk. I've reverted. Toddst1 (talk) 07:21, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok I am done with this, I think it is now to standard, arrgg, its all fixed and the legal system links are all intact, so if you want to have a pass go right ahead, I am done on that story for a while, it reads better and is too the point. Cheers. WPPilot 05:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yozer1 block length

(cc'ed from AE - you may want to respond there)

Ahh... Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Discretionary sanctions it appears to me that 48 hr block followed by an escalation to Indef violates the standard escalation procedure, which limits to one-year. Am I understanding / reading that right? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:10, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Toddst, I'm guessing you're not familiar with the bureaucracy around arbitration enforcement actions. Just FYI, the maximum block duration is one year; by convention, indefinite blocks are allowed, but the rules about appealing and overturning AE blocks only apply for 12 months (thereafter, it's treated like a normal admin action). Also, AE actions have to be logged on the relevant case page. I've logged your action at WP:ARBAA2 and clarified the bureaucracy for Yozer1. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I've changed it to 1 year. Toddst1 (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Lloyd Bryan Molander Adams

Todd fist I thank you for looking out for all - but here I not sure why you deleted the whole page for Lloyd Bryan Molander Adams - you stated a copyright issue on some material - what materials was suspect? And please explain why was the whole page take down - can you please restore it? I can assure you there is no copyrighted material that was used in creating this page - I was provided source info. Additionally, I did spend significant time creating and researching links and citations as suggested by some helpful wiki freinds and now they are gone? Can you please restore this - I thank you in advance for your efforts - peace Honeyofbak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeyofbak (talk • contribs) 07:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain how it is different from http://www.linkedin.com/in/lloydbryanadams ? Toddst1 (talk) 12:29, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Todds1 - thanks for your assistance - I will be working on making sure the article is compliant in all ways - happy new years! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeyofbak (talk • contribs) 18:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)