User talk:Toddst1/Archive 4

This page, Toddst1/Archive 4 contains archived talk page discussions for Toddst1 (talk) in 2010.

This page, Toddst1/Archive 4 contains archived talk page discussions for Toddst1 (talk).
Please do not edit this page.

• Current time: April 26, 2024, 15:38 (UTC)

The contents of this page may change. This is the version displayed at: April 26, 2024, 15:38 (UTC)

Matthias lauk

Hi, sorry for re creating an article which you had to delete, twinkle was laggy and in adding the {{db-a7}} recreated the article. Thanks and happy new year. -- Île flottɑnte~Floɑting islɑnd ^Talk 17:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Lahs08

As someone who has been watching this account for a long time (because of their vandalism), I can assure you they were never an admin and I'm pleased you did not restore their editing privileges; they were trying to use another avenue of an unblocking reason to draw you away from their previous edits. Nate • (chatter) 00:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, Toddst1! Don't worry about it, it looks like that both of us, Prodego and i forgot to place that. Those socks are:

• User talk:88.207.23.213
• User talk:88.207.51.221
• User talk:70.107.83.197
• ...

Of User:Rave92. He is blocked for reverting Montenegrin language in the Montenegro related articles. As i know, you are the blocking admin of that. And for the Montenegro, as far as i know, Montenegrin language is not ISO-recognized language, it is in process of recognition. As Montenegrin is still officially Serbian language version, it was agreed that Serbian is written in articles. That's why Montenegro wiki is denied. That's all i know! If you know more, tell me! :) All best, Tadija (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I placed notification about sock now.. :) Tadija (talk)

And i also propose protection of those too. Wanna talk to Moreschi, but it all the same.

Kolašin‎; Žabljak‎; Tivat‎; Šavnik‎; Rožaje‎; Plav‎; Cetinje‎; Mojkovac‎; Budva‎; Bijelo Polje‎; Andrijevica‎; Podgorica‎; Berane‎; Morača‎; Nikšić‎; Danilovgrad; Plužine;

I think that short semi protection will be good. All best, Tadija (talk)

As we speak... Tell me, do you have some advice? I am quite bored to fix those...

Special:Contributions/88.207.49.39

Tadija (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the lot for 3 months. Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I will revert those 6... Cool, hope that will fix the problem! Be good. :) --Tadija (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

He, he... well, my friend, i am off for today... Special:Contributions/SS.Nolimit. He is not. Is this possible? One after another? Maybe tomorrow i will have energy to revert those again... --Tadija (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

unblock on hold pending comment from you

See: User talk:SS.Nolimit. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Commented on User talk:SS.Nolimit: Let's wait for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rave92. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

On this same topic I wanted to give you a heads up that I put Rave92's second unblock request on hold pending the outcome of the SPI. CU seems to think unlikely but let's see what happens. Better to have a more accurate blocking reason than abusing socks if they are indeed not socks. Valley2city^‽ 22:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Frances Schumann Howell

Hi Todd:

Revised the article on Frances Schumann Howell. If there's anything more you'll need please let me know. As I'm her grandson, I may be a little biased but her notariety and sources will all check out triple. If there's anything more, please let me know via the article page before any deletion occurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctcost (talk • contribs) 00:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you haven't established her notability yet. You need to use our style of specific Wp:Citations. Hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Understandable. Might take a week or so to get together all the sources. I forget what's totally apparent to me needs to be referenced clearly for others. Also, will need to brush up on wiki coding. It does seem that one could contact these references directly and get the information provided but, I am in your sandbox, so I play by your rules! Thanks for all the help and I'll try to get it all together as fast as possible! Best. ct Ctcost (talk) 06:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

user:tomasGerbs page

Question about User talk:TomasGerbs....I'm not used to posting on a page then having all the content purged as user maybe/is sockpuppet. Is it normal to wipe good-faith edits to those pages? Not bitching, mind you (as he seemed to be quite the douche bag), just asking. School me. Appreciate it. Thanks! --averagejoe (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to remove most things from their talk pages. The exceptions are {{sharedIP}} templates, declined {{unblock}} requests (for the duration of the block) and proven {{sockpuppet}} tags. Removal of other comments on their talk page is considered acknowledgment that they have been read. Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand editors are allowed to edit/purge/what have you on their own pages. My question is with regard to *your* removal of my edits on User talk:TomasGerbs. TomasGerbs can edit whatever he wants on his page, but why did you remove my post on his page when you posted the block notice? Again, not bitching, just trying to understand process and rationale. Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I see. I misunderstood the question. Admins will frequently blank a talk page when the editor has been indefinitely blocked or issued a defacto ban. At that point, the block notice or sockpuppet notice is really all that matters. No offense intended towards you. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

None taken. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers!--averagejoe (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hedi0058

(reposted from User talk:Smashville) It's a little extreme to indef-block the user, isn't it? He was ready to discuss and could have simply been told to stop. Though there was a WP:COI, I as a neutral editor (per the policy) agreed that the links provided a useful secondary reference for the visa-free blocks on many passport pages and helped him add it in a more neutral way (previously he was shoving it into the intro). You can see our exchange on his and my talk. —what a crazy random happenstance 15:02, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Extreme? No! Have you even looked at the contribs? What's your definition of an advertising-only account?

However, given the pledge to stop, I've unblocked with a stern warning. Toddst1 (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand why you blocked him, it was border-line spam, but there were benefits to the links (as per our discussion) and it seemed a little heavy handed to block a coöperating newbie (seems WP:BITEy). —what a crazy random happenstance 03:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate you bringing this to my attention and I respect your opinion. However, I disagree. Toddst1 (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Last Stop

Hi Todd,

I noticed that you deleted my entry for Last stop for being self promoting. As a producer on the film, I guess that sounds about right. I did find the entry entered by someone else under the upcoming horror 2010 list, but it had the wrong director and the wrong star. This is the only thing that prompted me to post. I wanted to correct that and I added the main page with the basic info and the synopsis because it was all the information I had for the film and I was not sure what else I was supposed to add. i just didn't want the link to go no where if people were interested in what the new Mena Suvari movie was going to be.

If there are some notes you have that would make this entry less grandstanding, please let me know so I can change them. I certainly did not mena to get us banned from wikipedia.

Seriously, I was just trying to contribute to what was already there.

Yikes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojorising74 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

71.185.204.252

Not sure why you blocked Special:Contributions/71.185.204.252, the edits were not vandalism. Some (like this) were unreferenced; others (like this) appear to actually be updates with references. I was just in the middle of declining the AIV report when I noticed that you had blocked this IP. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I looked at this edit which was after final warning. Those numbers are not in that citation. The editor was blocked for disruption rather than vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Restore

Can you restore my account page because I am not blocked. Rave92^(talk) 22:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies. I should have caught that. It should be fixed now. Toddst1 (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Leavitt article protection

I don't really care either way...I'm not planning on editing the article for content, but I'm curious. I'm not seeing the excessive BLP violations in the Jim Leavitt article. 32 total edits on the day he's fired. One adding a stupid nickname. The rest arguably good faith edits early in the day that at worst weren't sourced. Is there an oversight issue or something?...because I'm not seeing the need for full protection from the page history. --Onorem♠Dil 01:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there does seem to be a case for reducing the protection to semi protected Todd and a couple of people are mentioning that, there is a consensus edit request on the taklkpage, could you have a look at the situation there please. Off2riorob (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You both make good points. I've reduced protection to semi. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad to help!

I tell you, I love my new DirecTV service. Boomerang has been airing these little gems; I haven't seen them since I was a kid which prompted me to check the article; glaring was the lack of Banana Buggy mention. If I didn't have so many other plastic kits waiting for assembly, I'd drop $75 in a heartbeat for that resin reissue. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Dickson Tavern and Kidder Wachter

I believe two more sock/meat puppets have cropped up in relation to the Kidder Wachter architectural firm: (Bluethirtytwo (talk · contribs) and Bobhenderson7878 (talk · contribs)).

Also, could you take a look at the Dickson Tavern, I tried to turn it into a somewhat better article, but it has since by reverted (kinda shoddily) by Bluethirtytwo, citing it to be incorrect and irrelevant. Any advice would be most welcome. ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 21:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

another held unblock

I am holding the unblock request of User:Andyjoe7and8 pending input from you and User:VirtualSteve as blocking admins. He seems to have stopped socking and has not requested unblock since August, so I was thinking of unblocking per WP:OFFER. Your input would be appreciated. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Entry

Hi Todd, I belive you were the one who sorted the unblocking of my account so I could impliment a username change, thanks for that. Did you read the reply on my user page that suggested passing the submission info for the article that I had COI on, to another editor to allow them to judge if it is notable enough to be subbmitted and edit it to an acceptable level, if so would you be interested in recieving the info or could you suggest another user that would? Thanks Tench1970 (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've done similar things in the past, but I'm kind of a tough judge about these things. I suppose if you wanted to create a shadow copy of the article in your userspace (like in User:Tench1970/Sandbox) you could drop me a note and have me take a look/make changes/etc. before moving to the main article or article space. Toddst1 (talk) 14:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike Stathis

Todd, you deleted the article I created on Mike Stathis for being promotional. I have no affiliation with Stathis but have heard references to him and was surprised a wikipedia entry did not exist for him. I created a couple sentances on him, and used references to amazon.com to support the books he wrote, so I assume that is what made you delete it. Sorry about that. I re-created the article on him without references behind the books. We can discuss notability further on the talk page if you like: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Stathis&action=edit&redlink=1 Thanks! williameis (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Take your pick: WP:CSD#G11 or WP:CSD#A7. Maybe more A7 than G11, but I'm not sure why we need an article about an WP:NN author with nothing but spamlinks to amazon. Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on his talk page before deleting the article again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mike_Stathis Thanks williameis (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't recreate the article with spam links or without asserting (better yet demonstrating) notability. Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Need an admin on AN/I

If you aren't too busy, can you help on the user:Bowei Huang situation? We need an admin to merge his two accounts if at all possible. A drive-by admin blocked his old account leaving his new account unblocked therefore erasing his old history, which is what BH wanted, but which is unacceptable. No one else will help us. Auntie E. (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No! Please don’t mark the case as resolved. I haven’t finished discussing with you yet. Let me discuss and explain further. What about all the stuff I’ve written in the case? I hope it is not a waste of effort. Hello! Didn’t you read my comments on 00:59 11 January 2010 and 02:10 12 January? Haven’t you read them? Why haven’t you answered, replied to, or responded to those two comments? Why haven’t you answered my questions in them? I think you should read them again. Can you please do that? This time, can you please answer, reply to, and respond to my comment?

I did not say that the reason I did that was to hide my past misdeeds. I did not say that! I did not even say that I had a lot of past misdeeds. I did not even say that! I was just asking if that was the reason for all that or not. Please do not misunderstand me!

The reason I changed username was NOT because I wanted to remove records of edits because I have made many edits in the recent past before the username change that were bad, wrong, or unacceptable. That was not my reason!

Why didn’t you even answer my questions in that second comment? Why haven’t you even answered my question about what those edits were?

If you think that I have made many edits in the recent past that were bad AND that that was the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits, then can you please show those bad edits to me and everybody else? Show them! If you think that that is the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits, then can you please prove it? If you accuse me that that was the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits, then can you please prove it? Prove it! Please do not accuse me that that was the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits unless you have got proof of it! I should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

If I didn’t make many edits before the username change that were bad, then would you still continue blocking me? If I changed username because I wanted to remove records of edits, BUT the reason why I wanted to remove them was NOT because I made many bad edits in the recent past, then would you still continue blocking me?

Is it possible to restore my edit history? Is it possible or not? Why haven’t you even told me that yet?

You should go back to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive589#User Bowei Huang/A1DF67 (ongoing).

A1DF67 (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

Dear Sir/Madam,
MFI wasn't founded by His Holinss, only ASI was founded by His Holinss, it is a lie to join MFI with His Holinss. MFI is a terrorist organization, that's why many countries have lounched an FIR against MFI. Younas the dirty soul is mastermind of it. You can easily trigger it by searching on google. That's why I put the NPOV tag to this article.
--Spiritualism (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I reverted this since the discussion's been closed for a loooong time. I do appreciate you getting involved in the whole Gohar Shahi mess, though...I haven't much patience for it any more. Cheers, — Scientizzle 16:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Station Agent 836 on WWOR-TV page

Please see this page for more information on why this edit war is going on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

AIV report

Sorry about that indecent. The reason I reported him as a vandal was because I looked at his talk page and saw all the warnings he had received, and saw what looked like vandalism to me, I guess I assumed he was a vandal. Sorry! --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 00:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ncircle Back at It

I recall that you helped fix the situation last year when an Ncircle marketing intern (since banned) created an Ncircle page (deleted by AFD process), and then a page for Ncircle employee Tim D. Keanini (also deleted in AFP) and then a page for Ncircle employee Andrew Storms (also deletec in AFP). The user RPelton was banned for Ncircle shilling, but Ncircle is apparently back at it :(. They have recreated the Ncircle page even though it has been repeatedly deemed non-notable. I'm not a Wikipedia expert, but this seems like abuse to me. The user Rgaushell (talk · contribs) created the page. I won't comment on who that obviously is, since I don't want to get accused of "outing" again, but I believe RGaushell is another obvious COI account just like RPelton was. Is there anything you can do? Sfba (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

nCircle not at it

Hi Todd,

I updated the nCircle page like yesterday. I don't understand why it is gone. The content is no different than the content of business competitor Qualys. Why are you allowing one but not the other? Is user: sfba merely an employee for Qualys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secretquiz4 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of nCircle company page

This page was created to mirror that of its competitors, Qualys and Rapid7. All three companies are of similar size and provide similar services. As with Qualys and Rapid7, nCircle has been cited in a number of different third-party sources. If the nCircle page is deleted for lack of company notability, should that not be true of these other company articles?

There was a previous deletion of this company's page for failing to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines; for this reason the page was rewritten and resubmitted. More information on the previous deletion can be found here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCircle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjed (talk • contribs) 01:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Reconsider deleting new nCircle page

I understand the previous nCircle page was too much marketing-speak and should have been deleted. However, I think it's completely unfair to have just deleted this page because sfba says it's 'back again'. The new page was based on both Qualys and Rapid7's pages, using the same format and sticking *completely* to verifiable facts about the company. Patents? Awards? Names of products and CEO? That's somehow showing a bias? Did you read the page before you hit delete?

I challenge this: if the nCircle page is not right for Wikipedia, then neither is Qualys and Rapid7's and they should be deleted too. Why have you not deleted theirs? If however, it's ok for them to have pages, but not nCircle, then I charge that favoritism is at play here and sfba is actually the one with a COI. And I don't buy the line that company employees can't edit a company's page. C'mon; who do you think edits Qualys' and Rapid7's page, or Oracle's or Microsoft's? Rgaushell (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:DRV but be sure to fully inform folks about your involvement with NCircle. We don't ask you to buy our policies, but we will continue to insist and enforce that you and your interns keep your propaganda off Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 06:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you be more specific about the propaganda in the article that you deleted? I'd prefer not to have to escalate this to a review, so if you could explain what about the article violates Wikipedia's policies (other than the topic being a company you don't like), perhaps we can edit it to meet those guidelines. Again, it was based on the content of 2 other company's pages that have not been deleted. Rgaushell (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NCircle. Toddst1 (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

?

I just want to ask you if Admins are going to contribute the discussion:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Montenegrin_language

As there are no valid comments till now on that topic. Cheers! Rave92^(talk) 13:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Time Machine Software

Hi, I got your notice on the deletion of the page. where you said: "Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as Time Machine ("SolutionSoft Systems" software), you will be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. I'm sure you are aware of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time Machine (Solution-Soft software). Toddst1 (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2010 (UTC)"

I was not aware of the deletion. I had the page on my watch list but did not see any emails come through about it be nominated for deletion.

Here'e my situation. Lot's of companies use this software worldwide. I need a stub point for other users to put in thier relevant information on this page. So, how can I start an article, with the content maybe 25% of what it would grow to & expcet others to contribute to it when it seems that it is entirely blocked from being created at this point? Michaelmorrison (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

How could you not be aware of the deletion when it's a big chunk of your talk page? What about the COI? Do you have a relationship with this company? Toddst1 (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

69.178.195.143 on AIV

For some reason the report on 69.178.195.143 keeps getting looked over and ignored. This is a user who has repeatedly vandalized Wikipedia on this and other IP addresses, so giving them "another chance" to vandalize some more just seems silly. Please give the report and the contribs of the user in question and his sock to see this is someone that needs blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by another admin. Take Care...NeutralHomer • Talk • 17:02, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

International club competition records

Hi there. I noticed that International club competition records is protected. However, on the talk page I have updated the world-ranking table. I wanted to know if you can update the page? Barcelona won the Club World Cup last month, so they earned another title. We also discussed the Fairs Cup recognition and it was agreed that it is not recognized by FIFA as they only recognize titles of competitions that either they or a confederation organized. Seeing as the Fairs Cup was not organized by UEFA (or any other confederation), it cannot be considered official. So can you place the updated table into the article? --MicroX (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to have a go at it now. Toddst1 (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made the table changes. You can protect it again (if that's allowed) as it seems it will receive a lot edit warring in the near future. --MicroX (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Hi there, I'm a bit concerned about WikiLubber (talk · contribs), because he seem to have created a sockpuppet to act as "2 people" which is definitely against Wikipedia's ethical issues. I'd want to request an invesigation about this user.

I believe that Lub-Dub-Man (talk · contribs) is WikiLubber's sockpuppet. Notice the use of "Lub" in the usernames. Also, when I have inserted a tag on Lub Dub's page concerning being a sockpuppet, he repeatedly reverted it, while WikiLubber joins the edits and left a note of "I am not this guy. He and I are friends" and this is minutes after accusing Lub Dub. Therefore there is a high possibility that he logged off the Lub Dub account and logged on with the WikiLubber account.[1]

WikiLubber and Lub Dub also seem to be editing the exact the same pages, including the Alvin and the Chipmunks, which he has engaged an edit war before and the Mighty Morphins Power Rangers page, where he was blocked before. [2] [3]In the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers page, he simultaneously uses both the accounts to revert edits continuosly, so that he will not be able to look like "he has broken the three revert rule."[4]

Please take actions about this matter, It is very unfair for other people, specially making them look like a fool. --79.78.83.85 (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Harassing

I don't understand why you are tracking every edit I do and pointing out the mistakes. You have been harassing me for the last couple of months now. Please leave me alone. This edit was a mistake. I was looking for a different image of him but could not find one and forgot to replace the old image that was already there. And notifying me of my grammar on the Talk:Borg (Star Trek) is just nit picking on me. Don't you have anything better to do then to point out my edit mistakes? I don't see you tracking anyone else on Wiki, so please leave me alone. Dumaka (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye

As it has become painfully obvious, my contributions are no longer welcome or needed here. In light of this situation, I am leaving this screwed up bureaucracy for the conceivable future. Good luck, my friend and keep fighting the good fight. ILLEGITIMUS NON CARBORUNDUM WuhWuzDat 02:34, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Fare the well now, let your life proceed by it's own design... Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop

Why few movie articles or other Articles are redlinked! I list first time that these not welcome is! few articles from other people are redlinked or without an actor who is here listend, many of these people are active over wide as one year!

Zombie433 talk) 16:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say there. However, List of horror films: 2010s‎‎ is not exempt from WP:V. Additions must be cited. Toddst1 (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

i have say all films are listed in Bloody Disgusting, IMDB, Fangoria, Dread Central etc., but when whe need a reference for all films, we have to the end of the site over more than 100 links! this is also not the sense or?! Zombie433 talk) 16:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they must be cited, no matter how many citations that requires in the article. If it gets too long, then break the article into multiple articles. That's why articles like List of all films are a very bad idea. Toddst1 (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

ok! must each film are linked with References or reaches the info on Edit Summary?!Zombie433 talk) 16:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess this foils my plan to revolutionize Wikipedia by creating List of people, List of places, and List of things. Drat. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I... I wasn't expecting two of those to be bluelinks. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Moreover the group WikiProjectFilm will neither article before five months for release and removed or delete article by the early creating! but the film are listend and promoted in early time for the final release!Zombie433 talk) 16:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Answering your questions, we need to use references. Toddst1 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

see my last edit this correct?! Zombie433 talk) 17:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. It would be even better if you included Wikipedia:Citation templates. You can do this manually, or if you look above the editing window, there is little icon at the extreme right which if you click it, it will give you some fields to do it super easily. Good luck and happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

JLS

Actually, various editors keep restoring One Shot (JLS song), a song that was deleted via an AfD discussion. In fact, they've recreated it 5 times, and added links to it in 3 articles. I've had to delete it 6 times, salt two pages, and delete those links in those articles. I'm not involved in an "edit-war", I'm taking administrative action. In the future, instead of templating my userpage, please approach me and ask what is going on. That way you'll be able to make a more fully informed response to the situation. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

You should know that admins are not exempt from edit warring and some edit summaries would sure go a long way. Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

William Woodward 1859-1939 (Preservationist, Artist)

Todd,

Concerning the woodward cabildo page. The picture I have on the William Woodward 1859-1939 (Preservationist, Artist) is my own. I have the rights to it. Also, concerning the site. I am creating a new page on William woodward because the original was incomplete. I'd prefer to just delete the old one since mine is more complete and reflective of Wikipedia's professional articles. Thanks, Quazar121 (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)quazar121

That's not the way we do things here. We collaborate with others, rather than replacing their work. Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

woodward cabildo1 is being used. I'd prefer just to delete the original which is named: woodward cabildo.jpg but I can't. Can you do that. Also, is the title ok? I can change it, but I do think it helps clear up what article someone may be searching for. Thanks, Quazar121 (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)quazar121

Durgesh Sharma

Sorry about that, I was tagging a few different articles and apparently missed a step. Thanks for keeping me on my toes! AlexHOUSE (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You should check out a tool called Twinkle. It automates most of those mundane parts of the follow-up and is really easy to use. Keep up the good work on WP:NPP! Toddst1 (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the tip, I'll check that out. AlexHOUSE (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Chile

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

mate, I'm directly quoting the source. That way it speaks for itself. the other user is going in and removing the direct quote and DELIBERATELY MISREPRESENTING the source. There's nothing to be discussed. It's not a dispute regarding originality, npov, reliability of source. It's plain and simply about fradulent misrepresentation of the source. Please stop the guy. There's no discussing anything with him.

the source unequivocably says chileans are a mixed population, on average 65% white, 35% Amerindian and 1% other. He is going in and removing the direct quote to then claim the source says chile is 64% white. if he actually interprets it to say that, which it doesn't, then why does he not also say that 35% of chileans are Amerindian. Why? Cos he knows he's misrepresentig the source, and misrepresenting it as 65% white suits his pov, but the implication of that misrepresentation would not suit his pov, namely, that implication that that misrepresentation would mean 35% of chile is Amerindian. Al-Andalus (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote my disagreements on the talk page User:Al-Andalus and in the discussion page of articles inpricados to agree changes and thus avoid a possible edit war. Ccrazymann (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

The edit war is ongoing - discussion on a talk page is not a license to revert. I'm closing this discussion - please take it to your talk pages and/or Talk:Chile. Toddst1 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2010 (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.

Stop Being a WikiHitler

My post on the McGangbang Deluxe has no harassment hidden within the text. I only wrote the intro sentence and you deleted it without even letting me finish the article. The McGangbang Deluxe is a customizable sandwich known to many and is widely popular around the globe. Why don't you grow a pair and post something rather then policing other posts before anyone even has a chance to read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N0str9 (talk • contribs) 02:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Block on user 64.228.131.129

After I reported 64.228.131.129 (talk · contribs) on WP:AIV for vandalism, you blocked him, but I found no mention of it on his talk page. Is this normal? -- JPMcGrath (talk) 06:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope - I should have left a note. I usually do leave a note except in the most blatant WP:VOAs. I must have gotten interrupted and forgot to follow through or something. Thanks for catching it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Signature change

Hi, I noticed this edit and also noticed that you had blocked the brasileiro account, any ideas what is going on? I have asked the Grenzer22 account on User talk:Grenzer22 but not really got a clear reply. Point is for me that if they are the same they need linking especially as the brasileiro account has been blocked. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure. Let's keep an eye on that. Toddst1 (talk) 07:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think its much of a problem, I think they come over from another wiki and edit under the other name by mistake or something, I'll keep an eye on it though, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Peter Chao

Hi,

Peter Chao is an important Canadian You Tube actor-comedian with a large and dedicated following.. His importance will become apparent before long. I think you are perhaps out of tune with You Tube culture.

It is too bad that you are preventing Wikipedia from being as current as it might otherwise be.

Admittedly, the info I provided was sparse but the idea was to make a start on the article.

Cheers, T.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterchao (talk • contribs) 05:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I'm out of touch. Toddst1 (talk) 07:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

173.66.72.134

Hiya, you recently blocked 173.66.72.134 (talk · contribs) for persistent vandalism over months. Well, just started doing it again after hours of the block ending. And it's usually me who has to cleanup afterwards. Please use a stronger block. No repentance has been shown at any point over the past year. PRB88 (T) 06:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

jasmere.com

Hi, new to wikipedia but consider jasmere.com notable in its being a new entrant into much talked about business space. Also is first of its kind in that it features Internet retailers, not bricks and mortar; also uses a reverse auction format. Artcile cites credible sources that consider the company notable, including Self Magazine, WUSA-9, and Washington Business Journal. Certainly respect Wikipedia's right to control content, but this one seems to keep criteria, no? If it does not, could you please help educate me as to why not? Respecfully submitted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kugelonline (talk • contribs) 02:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo

I note the comment you left on my Talk page, although am rather surprised that it only appeared some four days after my last edits to the page in question. I clearly explained the reasons for my initial deletion of the material in the edit summary, and again on the Talk page when it was reinstated by 2007apm, who then continued to do so without addressing said reasons, which clearly still remain, i.e. that it is a synthesis. I would note that the material was originally added by the new ID Tonydj, which made a number of apparently agenda-driven edits to various pages in concert with another new ID - Piecede12 - between 17 and 19 January, before becoming inactive. Nick Cooper (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Replacing AfD for CSD

Can it be done? Because Pizza house should really be speedied - just look at the article's history and how it's "evolved" from a house made of pizza to a music style. It was nominated for speedy deletion a bunch of times but the tags kept getting deleted and I guess the nominating editor got tired of it, but really, it's CSD G3 all the way. XXX antiuser ^eh? 07:00, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Done. Toddst1 (talk) 07:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with conclusion?

Hey, since we finished with discussion about Montenegrin language, can Admins give their opinion about this question?

So far, for Montenegrin language are: 4 users

Against: 1 user

I hope you will read our arguments for both sides, also I will write here what I think the best solution is (and I guess others too as none one complained about it): Soultion:

1) All articles that is about Montenegro or person from Montenegro to have written Montenegrin and after that, to have in both Latin and Cyrillic script. E.g. for that is Pedja Mijatovic
2) Cities where Serbs are majority (Like Berane, Pljevlja) beside Montenegrin, also have Serbian Cyrillic written. (or only Serbian Cyrillic)
3) Historical person like Njegos and Marko Miljanov to have beside Montenegrin, to have Serbian Cyrillic written.
4) Not to have Serbian (Cyrillic) on Montenegrin articles if the city majority is Montenegrin, if the article is about geography or biography of newer history.

Best regards.

Rave92^(talk) 12:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll try and carve out some time this week. I've got some pressing RL work due this week. Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Rave92^(talk) 11:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Trey Grayson

Todd,

SineDie519 continues to vandalize Trey Grayson's wikipedia page by putting irrelevant pictures up. His intent is obvious, given he has vandalized Mr. Grayson's page in the past by putting a fake attack website as his official campaign website. Please help me remedy this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MJ787123 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on Trey Grayson

Sorry about that.. i noticed the edit war after i reverted the deleted image...Would like to point out that the statement "There is no photo, b/c you don't know how to upload, and no reason for Beshear" <--- this is not constructive and is close to a personal insult..anyways hope all works out..I know being admin is hard!!!..Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:11, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

All good. Toddst1 (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

crotchety old man

thank you for removing that wikipedian, he was a terror to wikipedia. 198.175.205.251 (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't be a dick was written for a reason. Toddst1 (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

someone thanks you and you call them a dick, the person thanking you was not a dick. 65.0.15.148 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think that I was referring to the IP? I wasn't. I was agreeing with the IP. To be clear, I didn't call anyone a dick. Toddst1 (talk) 04:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry, i thought you were, i hope you can forgive me. 74.249.138.19 (talk) 22:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

...

Hello i noticed you from the user User:Fuckingeveryone that you cussed on the declined reason of: "No fucking way" i thought wikipedians were'nt allowed to cuss? Thank you. --Wikipedian7878 (talk) 22:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Nah, that's a bunch of crap. We're supposed to be WP:Civil. We cuss all the time. There's an art to doing it properly though. You're not supposed to go around fucking everyone.  :-) Toddst1 (talk) 06:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, do you know what a sockpuppet is? Toddst1 (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A sockpuppet is a person that makes several accounts at the same time or is banned and makes a new one (Mostly blocked from account creation.) --Wikipedian7878 (talk) 23:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:74.142.113.42

Just a courtesy notice, this user you blocked is currently requesting unblocking. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Gladly unblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 07:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for having a look. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"Tattling" comment

Hi Todd, I'm not sure that the "tattling" comment you made on WP:AN/I#Unknown Lupus was very constructive. Was there any particular reason why you wrote this? AN/I is a perfectly reasonable place to report suspected Wikihounding. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree - editors need to talk to folks they have problems with instead of just running straight to ANI. Users have talk pages so that messages get to them. Engaging them on article talk often goes unnoticed. Toddst1 (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Editors should be discussing changes on talk pages. There should be no need to message them, though sometimes it is helpful. But that was not my question. Why did you say that it was "tattling"? A number of other admins have expressed concern about your phrasing. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, you're wrong again. You were the only admin there saying that. Go away now. Toddst1 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandy Farina Page deletion

Sandy Farina is noteworthy as a songwriter and actress, she has several top songwriting credits, including writing for Barabara Streissand, Vanessa Williams, and others. There is another "Farina" named Santo, who had the nickname of Sandy, but this is not the same person.

She's probably most famous for her role as "Strawberry Fields" in the 1978 movie "Sargent Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band."

I would be happy to edit/correct/update or reference the article to make it meet the guidelines.

How can I help?

MichaelAReid (talk) 06:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Try creating it here in your private sandbox. Get the article in shape with proper references and I'll help you get it back as an article. You should probably read Wikipedia:Your first article first. Deal? Toddst1 (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelAReid (talk • contribs) 05:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility

Hi Toddst1,

I've noticed that your comment to me was fairly unfriendly, and also I noticed that you responded in a fairly immature manner to the unblock request of Fuckingeveryone. Perhaps you should think a bit about the way that you respond to others before you accuse another admin of irresponsibility?

Thanks, Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You made a bad unblock and I called you on it. Take it to ANI. I'm not gonna sugar coat it for another admin. Toddst1 (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not going to happen. How's that for sugar coating? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty good. I like you. Toddst1 (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI WP:AN#Admin decision review. –xeno^talk 21:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

He knows, he's been posting a number of messages to my talk page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As I commented about him there, I figured an explicit note would be best. –xeno^talk 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough - that's reasonable. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Android_(disambiguation)

OK, I'll be quite now!!! Sorry to bother you in the first place. Thank you! HagenUK (talk) 11:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Interesting coincidence

[5] As you were blocking, I was blocking for three hours as well and you beat me by seconds! Enigma^msg 04:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd say great minds think alike but there are those that would not agree that my mind is great. Toddst1 (talk) 04:13, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about great, but this was nicely and quickly done. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Smithers, British Columbia

The edit you reverted on this page was apparently hoax text. The user whose deletion you reverted admits his hoax on the article talk page and has now been blocked. Hope his admission is genuine and not a hacked account or something, but it looks like the real thing. What do you think? --KenWalker | Talk 06:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be correct. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I did get one thing right there though. Toddst1 (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

One of many I am sure. When I posted my earlier message, I hadn't figured out that you had done the block. --KenWalker | Talk 07:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Etiquette notification

Hi Todd, I have filed a etiquette notification on a number of incidents where you have been uncivil, plain rude or have not assumed good faith. The notification can be found here. I encourage you to review and respond accordingly. Thanks. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The page you unblocked

The page I asked you to unblock the other day is being reverted by a user known as Sporting1905 even though in the talk page we established consensus on the official and unofficial titles. Thank you. --MicroX (talk) 18:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've issued a warning about edit warring to that user. Just so you know, you could have done that. If he/she makes another reversion like that, please report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Don't get caught up in the edit war in the process though. If sock pops up, let me know and I'll protect the page. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring?

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

Hi Todd, please tell me that you weren't retaliating when you made this edit? There is nothing wrong with my editing, given that three editors who really don't know each other (though I'd say they are all Australian) have been consistently asking the editor to go to the talk page. I don't believe that I am clearly in "an inappropriate edit war". - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In terms of retaliating, I assume you are implying retaliation for your WQA report.

The answer is no, I had started working on my comment there at least 50 minutes before I posted it at 08:00. To put it in context, I started working on it ~35 minutes before your WQA post at 7:43. What you're probably not aware of is that I sent in a report to the oversight committee about your potential WP:Outing of Alan Cox on AN3 at 07:12 and I got sidetracked without saving my edits about your edit war. You'll notice Alison responded to my report at 07:16 which led to an edit conflict when I returned to the tab with my open edits.

You may wonder why I chose not to bring the outing to your attention. My observations are that you've been making a bunch of really poor decisions lately and that potential outing was just the latest. I've also observed you reacting very negatively to folks that disagree with you or question your actions - not only me. However, you seem to be going through a pretty rough patch right now and I thought best to let oversighters deal with the issue as you seem to be making things personal.

As it turns out, you were very lucky. Alan had already outed himself on a different account as Alison pointed out and then an IP later claimed that Alan was using the account that you first identified as being the same Alan Cox.

I'll refrain from giving any further observations at this time. Toddst1 (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ummm... outing? They signed as Alan Cox, I asked if they were the Alan Cox who works on the Linux kernel? Good lord! Now back to what I was asking you about. How was it an edit war? I notice that the admin who closed the AN3 thread has categorically said that I was not edit warring. What is your say on this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I answered your question, now go away as I have asked you before. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you didn't. That was not inappropriate edit warring. What is your view of the actions of the admin who has stated that I was not edit warring? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Go away. Toddst1 (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Explain your assertion please. That was not assuming good faith and I would like, at the very least, an apology. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

GO AWAY! Toddst1 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2010 (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.

You can try to archive this, but given that you have personally attacked me on a number of occasions now, I would like an apology. (forgot to note that you have asked others to discuss your Etiquette notification here, I have asked you to note your response there). - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, incidentally, I have emailed Allison asking for feedback. You may believe that I have made a bunch of bad decisions, but given your recent editing I would say that you have made some fairly bad decisions yourself. You noted, for instance, that you have retracted or modified previous comments but I have seen no evidence of this. Even if I had, I think that the fact that you have needed to do this for many of the edits I highlighted in the Etiquette notification definitely shows that you have made some fairly poor personal judgments while conducting administration duties. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please take any further discussion on this matter elsewhere. Toddst1 (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with what Toddst has said. He asked you nicely the first time to leave him alone, and you didn't, so he got more stern, and you still didn't. I advice you that if someone, especially an administrator, requests to be left alone, that you do it. - Zhang He (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

So he is able to accuse me of edit warring with impunity? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am now formally asking for an apology on the Etiquette page. Todd's response is not acceptable, and it suggests to me that he doesn't believe that his comments to me and many others have been quite rude and not the sort of behaviour we would expect from an administrator. I will restrict my further comments to the Etiquette page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Everyone makes mistakes. You admit you made a mistake, and while he may not admit it, he likely made a mistake in saying you had edit warred. You should accept this and move on, as recommended here. Continuing with this on his talk page after he asked you not to is bad form, and there are precedents where it's been considered harassment. Therefore either move on, continue your complaint at WQA, or take the advice and open a RFC, but please respect his wishes and leave it off this page. NJA (t/c) 07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Warner Bros. Insider Rewards

Hi,

My article on Warner Bros. Insider Rewards was deleted as promotional material. I was using it as a starting point for a series of articles on similar programs in the movie industry--namely, Disney Movie Rewards, Sony Rewards, and others--and was not trying to be promotional or biased in my approach. In the movie industry these types of programs are a growing constituent of studios' efforts to reach their audience, and I was trying to document the specific programs, which have millions of members apiece. In short I was trying to create an article akin to My Coke Rewards. Admittedly, I'm new when it comes to creating articles, so it may have come off as biased. I'd love some general tips on how to start up an article or series of articles on this topic without contravening any of the guidelines for encyclopedic content. Maybe free-standing articles are too much? Maybe add a subheadline to existing articles on similar, non-industry programs? Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryinads (talk • contribs) 23:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My recommendation is to try writing about something you don't have a WP:COI with. It will make things a lot easier. Toddst1 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Back

FYI--Fresh off your block, IP 129.21.64.153 is back w/a vandal edit.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

When you come back

Hello Todd, remember this? well it has been escalating as the other editor, MarshalN20 took part of it, this time I tried to reason with him on his talk page I asked him to avoid confrontation till the mediation starts, he lost control and ended up again on ANI here. When you come back could you take a look on the situation? Erebedhel - Talk 07:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

External Google Map Links in SEPTA articles

Upon return: I've been working to bring additional useful info to the SEPTA articles (particularly the Market-Frankfort line), and noted in the recent revision history that someone added an external link to a Google map image of the line; but also saw that it was quickly removed as being spam. Looking at the link itself via the diff page, it looks like a perfectly reasonable addition to the article, and i can't understand why it was marked as spam in the first place. Granted, the user that added it seemed to have issues with consensus building and personal attacks; but the intent was still Good Faith. I'm not suggesting any kind of removal of their ban (that's not my fight, they can earn it themselves if they're interested); but i would support the re-addition of the google map link. I would like to put it back; but i'm not going to stick my nose out to add good data if the only thing it will get me is a cauliflower schnoz. Would you consider taking a look at the link itself and allow me to add it back to the MFSL page? If not, would you be willing to discuss your reasoning why? Hiroe (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

TUTT/TAST/TEVL/TAST

Hey man, thanks for the note. I was just trying to get these 4 interrelated articles up at once. I'll be adding in the references for them either this evening or tomorrow. --Drew.ward (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Bowei Huang again

Bowei Huang 1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back, no link to the original account on his userpage. Looking at the talk page, it seems he's not doing too well again. Auntie E. (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

hi

im not rockof5 but im a fan and on his talk page he ask you to go to his youtube and apologise to his fans would you do it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginRockof5 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Nipsey Hussle

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Nipsey Hussle. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nipsey Hussle (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Block of Fan-of-Pope

Hi Toddst1, I noticed that you blocked User:Fan-of-Pope a couple days ago; he was included in an WP:SPI at the time which is now being closed. The other two suspected accounts, User:Artistic-mind and User:Old-chobo, have now been blocked as well. Could you (assuming this is appropriate) add the relevant SPI, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bischof-Ralph/Archive, to the block tag. Cheers! Wine Guy~Talk 21:56, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

You got it [6]. Toddst1 (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

HARDY BUCKS

so you deleted my page on the hardy bucks but now a new hardy bucks page is up and you havent deleted that, does this mean you were wrong to delete the page in the first place?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminati16 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No. It means you have no idea what you're talking about.

• 11:35, 6 August 2009 Backslash Forwardslash (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted "Hardy Bucks" ‎ (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardy Bucks)

Toddst1 (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User :Gzdavidwong

Hi, I got your name from User talk:Gzdavidwong, and I am having problem with him, see:Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Possible edit war regarding Additional source content and Youtube video linking, he seems to have the bad habit of going around deleting contents that he doesn't like. As you have dealt with him before, I hereby request your assistance to help solve this dispute. Thanks. Arilang ^talk 08:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Decision

Hey, I hope you didn't forgot about language discussion we had on Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. Cheers! Rave92^(talk) 14:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I'm going to remain a neutral admin on that issue. I'll let folks who know more about it sort it out. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine with me. I hope they will read the whole discussion and take in mind arguments of both sides. Thanks once again! Rave92^(talk) 22:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of horror films: 2010s

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of horror films: 2010s. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of horror films: 2010s. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You utter bastard...

• picks himself up off the floor, giggling insanely* HalfShadow 20:07, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Note on 202.56.7.137

Your block is quite appropriate to hold off the vandal. Just wanted to tell you that the IP 202.56.7.137 is very likely to be the web proxy of Grameen Phone, the largest cell phone operator of Bangladesh. So, any long time block can affect a large number of unrelated users as well. The IP description says it is the IP of a "router object". Not sure what that means ... but again, from the edit history, it doesn't seem to be a single editor. So, a 72 hour block may be too long. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Help?

Could you help revert the page of "Arab Christians and Arabic-speaking Christians" to the last version restored by me? The previous version was a wholesale removal of researched content/section by a certain POV pusher whom I suspect was the mastermind of all those IP socks doing the same content blanking stunt over and over again. Thanks. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

Why have you blocked User:Wikipeacekeeper. Not that I disagree because I don't but it would be useful to know. Polargeo (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see. Polargeo (talk) 16:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record, this makes it obvious. Toddst1 (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so cannot follow that link. Nearly perhaps but I failed my last RfA 64% support!! :) Polargeo (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah. He recreated the same attack page as Human Rights Believer (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

MY friend

Can i make a large page on wikepidia about myself for a school computer science project that is somewhat funny(No profanity) without it being taken down —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR.JANSON (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but do in in your user space, User:MR.JANSON/school computer science project for example. Be sure it's not a copyright violation, or a WP:BLP issue, etc. Toddst1 (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

thank you im kinda new to wikipedia so could you explain how i go to user space and do this as opposed to what i had already done —Preceding unsigned comment added by MR.JANSON (talk • contribs) 01:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Click on the red link above in my previous response. It will take you right there. Create the article there. Toddst1 (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Project

Can i make it not on my user page so people can see it and then take it down in a month after my project is over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.183.208 (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

WTF? Toddst1 (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Random question

What was wrong with my article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by My Only Son Jackie 6000 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Read your talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 05:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a short-duration range block is in order here...

IPs from the Mary Washington College are blanking University of Mary Washington again. [7] XXX antiuser ^eh? 18:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - i've semi protected it. Toddst1 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Grancafe

When is this abuse going to stop? As soon as he's unblocked, Grancafe is back to making unsubstantiated accusations and personal attacks. I have no desire whatsoever to have anything to do with this editor or his edits, but I don't want future editors to have to go through this same unwarranted abuse just because they challenge any of the 30+ questionable edits a day or suggest that an obvious COI may require more due diligence in editing and sourcing. Flowanda | Talk 08:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it. From what I see, the editor was just tidying up what was already written. Am I missing something? Toddst1 (talk) 14:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I see this as getting one more shot in, but okay. My frustration level was pretty high. Flowanda | Talk 19:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Question

May I ask the reason you have blocked me until early March for alleged cause of "vandalism"? To the best of my knowledge, I haven't edited any English page in more than 10 days. And the one to which I have contributed, I did it mostly through the discussion page. I would appreciate it if you could explain to me -- a newbie -- what I have possibly done wrong or incorrectly. Thank you. Regards. Bouziguepeuchere (talk) 18:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Bouziguepeuchere. Never blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Ray

Would you mind unprotecting Jeff Ray? It's been protected for a while now, I'm not sure that it is in danger of vandalism anymore, and I would like to give some anonymous editors a chance to work on it. I have it in my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye out for vandalism. Joshua Scott (talk) 19:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, by the way. Joshua Scott (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and ...

Since you applied the helpful related block, I thought this should be brought to your attention .... [8]. Thanks for your good work.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

216.56.3.205

I have unblocked account creation for 216.56.3.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as there is a teacher who needs to create accounts for an editing project. Fred Talk 14:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like my block was set to expire today and you extended it. Either way, all is good.Toddst1 (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd editing pattern

See: Disruptive editing by an anon (75.80.151.51), seems to have been picked up by user:Bilcat and subsequently led to an admin looking into the issues of adding erroneous information. However, as usual, the anon has probably popped up with a new id. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

..

Hey, there was almost a month since the discussion was taken. Can you please just tell to some Admins to read discussion and arguments and close the dispute? Thanks! Rave92^(talk) 14:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear that i don't intend to become an involved administrator on that issue. Toddst1 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but you said you will suggest Admins which intend to involve into discussion. Quote: "I'll let folks who know more about it sort it out. "

Rave92^(talk) 15:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No mention of admins in that statement. You know more about it than I do as do may other folks on wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but I can't close the discussion as I am not the admin. We need final say from admin as we can respect the decision on all related articles. Rave92^(talk) 10:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look. Can you give me a pointer? Toddst1 (talk) 15:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by pointer?

Main arguments are:
-Official language
-Used in all government files, school, media etc...
-Foreign embassies respect it, and put ONLY Montenegrin language.

My suggestion to solve this is:
1) All articles that is about Montenegro or person from Montenegro to have written Montenegrin and after that, to have in both Latin and Cyrillic script. E.g. for that is Pedja Mijatovic
2) Cities where Serbs are majority (Like Berane, Pljevlja) beside Montenegrin, also have Serbian Cyrillic written.
3) Historical person like Njegos and Marko Miljanov to have beside Montenegrin, to have Serbian Cyrillic written.
4) Not to have Serbian on Montenegrin articles if the city majority is Montenegrin, if the article is about geography or biography of newer history.

Of course this is mine opinion and arguments, the opposition side have some other arguments, I just wanted to show you here quickly what are arguments FOR Montenegrin language.

Direct link is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Montenegrin_language

Cheers! Rave92^(talk) 20:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for working hard at WP:AIV ChaosControl1994 (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Chuck fries not deleted

The editor, who is also the subject of this article, just editted its talkpage. He is seeking OTRS permission to save the page.--Morenooso (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Jwesquier5991

This user that you blocked has requested unblocking, if you'd like to comment. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Still think deserves deletion?

Please review Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Incidental Economist and The Incidental Economist. Do you still think it deserves deletion? If so, can you explain to me why? Thanks. NBERgal (talk) 01:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR Toddst1 (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not representing an organization. I still welcome your opinion as to whether the page under discussion warrants deletion. You seemed to feel it did but I do not understand your reasoning. Please explain. Thanks. NBERgal (talk) 07:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah. You're pushing your blog and evading a block of IncidentalEcon (talk · contribs). Good day. Toddst1 (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Haunted Pussy

Hi there, Todd... I have no idea how to navigate Wikipedia and have no ability to learn and so I hope you can assist without too much trouble. I made the mistake of checking the wikipedia page others created about me recently, and tried to fix stuff that was still misleading or incorrect, and I returned a link to one of my bands, Haunted Pussy, but that link was removed, since, with no explanation I can find. (If even legitimate LINKS aren't allowed, am I losing my mind? That sure looks a lot like me on the Haunted Pussy websites!) (Note: the original link was removed by a fan of my ex-girlfriend. He didn't want me getting any credit for being in the band, etc. Sheesh!) Also, since it mentions that I was on the GREEN party ballot and DEMOCRATIC ballot, I still don't think "independent" candidate is accurate. Seems like it was put there by someone who wanted to undermine all the election records I set in 2005. Also, it's pretty obvious I didn't win the elections, and that's why someone posted "he lost to Ferrer and Willebrand" to excessively try and politely attack me. Obviously, I know all the facts of my life better than anyone, but Wiki seems to have some rule (?) against people fixing their mistakes on their OWN page. (I'm not against sourcing, as most things about me are facts on the record, such as my heckling the 9/11 Commission in May 2004, but even sourced stuff about me is removed. Also, any adult knows that the Corporate Media is admittedly completely awful with facts (see: WMDs) (see: the tens of thousands of major corrections they've done) and any WISE adult knows they have a corporate agenda, so sourcing much of my stuff via major media is extremely wrong. EX: when I was falsely arrested, the newspapers here in NYC would make it big news to help assassinate my character. When I'd win a lawsuit for false arrest, the newspapers would refuse to report that, because it undermined their smears on behalf of our very dangerous mayors, Giuliani and Bloomberg. Can't I even post some stuff as "Brodeur claims..."? One vandal was removing irrefutable facts about my first "conviction" by a Giuliani-appointed judge [ie, having a judge who owes their job and pension to the alleged victim is SUPER-illegal, and all criminal judges in NYC are appointed by our sleazy mayor] being OVERTURNED unanimously by FIVE judges in the Appellate Term [ie, they owed NOTHING to the criminals at City Hall]. Stuff that is so basic as that is both annoying to "source" and sometimes near-impossible. (I have the Appellate Term decision right here that proves my first "conviction" was 100% ILLEGAL and thrown out. Do you have any idea how much work it could be to link to something online that "verifies" this?) It's not like I'm posting things about how great I am! I'm posting basic facts about my battles with Goliaths and my enemies are all very powerful people with the time and money to cover up their scams online. ARGH! Any advice would be appreciated. (I don't even have internet access most of the time!) Christopher Brodeur, mayorcxb@gmail.com, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.92.11 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 9 March 2010

WP:V is the rule. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for a general overview of ways to get problems fixed (as well as an email address). You can also mention specific problems on the article talk list if you want specific mistakes corrected.

The email address is info-en-q@wikimedia.org. The first thing you might be asked to do is to privately establish your identity. Toddst1 (talk) 17:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Tomcarr142

Hi. I am a recent admin and have been trying to help out at WP:AIV. I was curious about your indef block of User:Tomcarr142. He seemed to have made and self-reverted a test edit at 16:12/16:13 and then a pure vandalism edit at 16:16. The pure vandalism was reverted and he was properly warned, and then he seemed to be later warned for the earlier test edit, at which point he was brought to AIV as a vandalism only account. But given that there was only one self-reverted test edit and one pure vandalism action and no edits after the first warning, I was inclined to give him an opportunity edit appropriately post-warning. But there may be something I did not pick up on, and I would like to learn so I can help out more effectively at AIV in the future. Rlendog (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. I saw a new account, 4 minutes old, replacing Bung (a frequently vandalized articles for obvious school-kid reasons) with a biography of likely his pal, and making related edits to Thomas Carr that you correctly pointed out were reverted. I used quite a bit of discretion there coming to the conclusion that the editor didn't come here to constructively contribute. Toddst1 (talk) 18:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I understand. By the way, his talk page doesn't seem to have a block template. Is that because it is a vandalism only account? Rlendog (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

2 reasons - 1 I was completely lazy, 2 I unblocked him/her. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Scientific Drilling

As soon as I released an long-time-in-development article to go live on Wikipedia, you apparently deleted it, citing {db-inc} or something similar. I have already been through the numbers of utilising certified logos in the Sandbox area, even after reading through all of the relevant docs, and determined that I had to go live before using logos in an article. I have researched similar companies, such as Baker Hughes and Gyrodata, to ensure that the article created is neither unnecessary in the Wikipedia environment nor an advertisement. In terms of Wikipedia articles, the company in question shares a name with a terminology that has similar meaning / process. The company is international and can be seen in the same field as Halliburton, Smith International and likewise. I do not see what else needs to be done to certify this. Please clarify, as I would like to go live with that page.

For the record, I have no vested interest nor consistent contact with the company, save for verifying legal or free use of the company's logo for the article, which is what led to the many months of development. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SDfacit (talk • contribs) 20:34, 10 March 2010 SDfacit (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. You're clearly not a newbie around here based on the formatting above and your article. Try adding some reliable third-party sources, rather than advertising networks and press releases. Better yet, try editing something else. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

This was (actually) my first time creating an article; I just know how to read (docs) and sample (syntax), so THX for the compliment! BTW, I'm not snarky for what I wrote: if a bot (or actual admin) disables something without clear justification, I cannot go about resolving the questionable issue; I was just being constructive in my criticism to those that seem to like playing Wiki-god -- bottom line: if the reasoning is conclusive and objective, rather than swift and subjective, I comply without argument. The purpose for a talk page is to discuss the issue, is it not? In any case, I took your advice and looked around Wiki on the possibility that editing articles might sharpen my understanding for your tags, and I've found something curious: the article on Gyrodata has been tagged since 2008 for lack of references and for looking like an advertisement. If that's the case, why is that article still 'live'? SDfacit (talk) 15:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). Toddst1 (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

More disruption planned

Take a look here. Apparently the block wasn't long enough. The topic ban needs to be extended to the talk pages at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#RfC:_Using_the_National_Science_Foundation_as_a_reference and Talk:Ghost. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TLDR Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul James

How should I explain the significance of a topic so that it won't be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurybeardy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BIO. Toddst1 (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ohorongo Cement

You needn't bring something like this to my attention, if there are obvious reasons to restore an article. Thank you, though, for the courtesy.

I'll restore it now, with an expectation that you'll take it on yourself. Cheers and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:43, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Alan Soble (and JBsupreme)

Since you are an admin, would you lock Alan Soble to prevent the blanking of the article during the AfD discussion? If the content is deleted, and AfD proceeds solely on the basis of an erased article, that is not right. I can see the argument that the blanking is not vandalism, per se, although I actually disagree... it looks like pretty classic vandalism to me. Just being motivated by some broader deletionist agenda doesn't make vandalism into non-vandalism.

But it is also true that the Wikistalking pattern is pretty annoying too. I wouldn't have even noticed it, but another editor emailed me with info on this pattern. After JPsupreme started the belligerence towards me on some software articles, he then nominated David Mertz and List of Python software for deletion (the first because it was about me, the second because I created it). The latter closed as Speedy Keep, the former unfortunately deleted against the bulk of opinion and arguments. But then after I stopped watching it, these other stalking actions happened (copied from said email):

Further into the rabbit hole, checking with this tool http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/cgi-bin/wikistalk.py?namespace=0&all=on&user1=JBsupreme&user2=Lulu+of+the+Lotus-Eaters turns up a number of curious overlaps, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wavy_Gravy&action=historysubmit&diff=343339202&oldid=343079152 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=REXX&action=historysubmit&diff=343517748&oldid=334266871 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Soble&diff=347439133&oldid=347016958 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haun_Saussy&diff=prev&oldid=347670586 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Doug_Bell&diff=347742423&oldid=332454973 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=James_Watkins&diff=349062229&oldid=347535295 (this is not even including all the David Mertz delinks and related information removals).
...So out of ~3.2 million articles (and nearly 800,000 known BLP articles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Templates_with_the_most_transclusions) these specific overlaps seem pretty indicative of the exact same sort of wikistalking I've been dealing with from JBsupreme. In effect, he removes material (sometimes including references) and later nominates the article for deletion.

Yours, LotLE×talk 18:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Without relation to what may have gone before, I do see a pattern of JB concentrating on articles associated with this particular editor, some of which, like the Python Software article, were unanimous keeps., and some like allen Soble, are headed in that direction also. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Point well taken - notice my keep comment on Soble. Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Groupthink

Hey. Groupthink has requested an unblock, and I have concerns about your block as well. Please reply at User talk:Groupthink. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 21:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. First, thanks for handling things while I was offline.

But I'm a bit puzzled (not at all upset, just puzzled) by why you think this was a "very bad block." I've looked over the discussion at ANI and on User talk:Groupthink and I'm still pretty puzzled.

• I see the first block for edit warring by Ed Johnson at 22:03, 9 March 2010, for "an edit war at Trent Frank"
• Unblocking by Ed at 12:34, 10 March 2010 per request and a warning about Edit warring
• Continuing edit warring on the same article here at 00:29, 11 March 2010 and here at 21:06, 11 March 2010.
• And as a result of continuing edit warring on the article that he/she was previously blocked for, at "15:03, 12 March 2010 Toddst1 (talk | contribs | block) blocked Groupthink (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 2 weeks ‎ (Edit warring or violation of the three-revert rule: continued edit warring on Trent Franks after release of previous block for EW on that article"

The block was for continuing a previous edit war and significantly longer since it was a continuation. I don't see any real WP:BLP violations that he/she was removing (See citation 9 at Paleoconservative).

I'm assuming I'm missing something here. Can you help me out? Toddst1 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, here's how I saw it: Both parties initially violated 3RR but only Groupthink was blocked. When the edit war was resumed by John Asfukzenski, he violated 3RR (through socking) while Groupthink edit warred without a 3RR violation. Again, only Groupthink was blocked, and in my opinion for an unreasonably long period. Given that this is an established editor, going from two 24-hour blocks (one over two years old, and both overturned for at least some reason) to a two-week block is unusual and inappropriate, even if blocking for continued edit warring in the same article. I would not have objected to 48 or 72 hours if you had blocked Asfukzenski as well, though I would have preferred to see the page protected instead of any blocks, due to the IPs that jumped in. While I certainly do not endorse Groupthink's edit warring, I do feel that this case was lacking in the fair treatment department, both before and after discovering that he had actually been reverting nasty socks. In retrospect, your block was very beneficial to the encyclopedia. Without it, Asfukzenski's sock farm would have probably continued going undetected and unreported. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks for your answer. In that case, I disagree. The length was highly appropriate for continuing an edit war on release of block. You may be right that Asfuk deserved a block too, but that in no way changes the appropriateness of the block of Groupthink. I'm glad we discovered the sock farm in the process.

I'll add that I think you're pretty far out of line calling that a "very bad block." Toddst1 (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Toddst1 informed me of this discussion. Now that we have the full sockpuppet story thanks to Prolog's investigation, plus the new material added to the SPI by User:HaeB, lifting the two-week block was the right thing to do. Toddst1 can't be faulted for taking notice when somebody continues to revert an article for which they were blocked just a few days prior. EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

User:LaRouxEMP

Hi Toddst1! User:LaRouxEMP is questioning on his talk page why he was blocked. I indicated to him that he had to take it up with the blocking administrator and directed him to your talk page. Apparently, his level of block prevents him from asking you here on your page. So, I agreed to notify you of the discussion currently occuring on his talk page. I have now executed that obligation. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 23:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I am seriously considering unblocking this user. While the two talk page posts that got him blocked were clear WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA violations, that first one was not nearly egregious enough in my mind to merit a 4im warning. The user appears to understand what he did was wrong--just waiting for you to weigh in. Blueboy96 14:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "ITVFest (Independent Television Festival)"

Hi Todd, I wanted to make a request to restore the "ITVFest (Independent Television Festival)." It was deleted because "per CSD A7," because it was "an article about a company or organization that didn't assert the importance or significance of its subject." And I would like to assert it's importance. The festival has been in existence for five years and it is one of only two television festivals in the country (the other being the New York Television Festival which has a Wikipedia page). Several projects which screened at the festival also have pages, such as "Urban Wolf" and "OzGirl."

I do not work for the company, but I have volunteered at the festival in the past and see no reason why it should not be considered significant. Similar festivals that have only existed for a year maintain their pages. Please let me know what I can do to assert it's importance because I believe this is a worthy non-profit organization that affects thousands of people each year who watch live-streams of the panels, submit their art, and attend the festival in person.

Thanks for your time and consideration, Olivia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliviaallin (talk • contribs) 01:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Edit war

Thanks for not warning the other fella, just me. Clearly I'm the correct one here, trying to abide by the MOS and structure guidelines (&->and, no refs in section titles, history before awards, etc.) May you intervene?--Truco ₅₀₃ 02:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear to me at all or the editor you were warring with. Had you explained what section of MOS that you were referring to, you wouldn't have found yourself in an edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 18:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Some help in a dead end (?)

Hello, i'm seeking your administrative help, i'm not sure if it's worth the space in ANI. Would you be willing to give a kind advice to User:Pylambert for not being constructive in a content dispute that we are engaged in Greeks in Poland ? In his last comment here he stated his refusal to discuss the issue further and threatened to edit war. His previous respond, which was basically an unprovoked polemic rant, doesn't leave me with much hope either that he can see me with good faith, and frankly i'm not sure if seeking mediation has any meaning here, since Pylambert seems so uncooperative. I guess his last resort if he was convinced he could not communicate with me would be to initiate a mediation process himself, which he hasn't done. Whatever you decide upon my request, your advice on how to proceed would be helpful. Thank you.--Δρακόλακκος (talk) 03:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Puppetry of the Sock

Hi there, I was hoping you could provide clarification regarding the following: [9], revert of 1, [10], and [11]? Thanks in advance. Groupthink (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious that you logged out to make this edit and avoid continuing the edit war with your logged-in identity. Toddst1 (talk) 18:38, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I can't open a checkuser investigation on myself, would you kindly open one on my username and 70.112.246.190 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) in order to clear my name? Maybe open one on 90.224.231.10 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 128.54.21.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) too while you're at it? Groupthink (talk) 19:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone beat me to it. Glad to clear your name if the IP is false. WP:Duck is a good rule of thumb but not 100%. Toddst1 (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated – and yes, on extremely rare occasions, if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck, it's actually a very ugly swan. ;-) Groupthink (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I hope you're a swan (or even a chicken, a buzzard or a turkey). Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 06:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Chuck Fries

Chuck Fries is one of the foremost TV producers and we thought placing his bio on wikipedia wouldn't be a problem. All of the information is true and accurate. It isn't about self-promotion, but simply just presenting accurate info.

Norm --Chuckfries (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Asst to Chuck Fries

Request

Hi. I am the person who possesed the account User:iaaasi and I want to ask you a favor:

I understood my mistakes and the reasons for my block and I changed my behaviour. Since I started my new account, User:Ddaann2, I started making only constructive edits, as you can see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ddaann2. Even if i made all my edits in good faith, the user User:Squash_Racket reverts my edits, even if it's obvious that they are constructive, judging them by the author, not by their content. He claims that I am a banned user and I have no right to contribute on wikipedia (a fact which is theoretically true)

Can you please check my last contributions on the new account and unblock my old one if it is possible? I am not here to make disruptive edits. Thanks in advance (Ddaann2 (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC))

Saw this request and my name here. He's indefinitely banned from editing Wikipedia with several unblock requests turned down. This is what we call a sockpuppet account (he's open about it) used for ban evasion. And no, I didn't revert all his edits without checking even though I'm allowed to do so. Squash Racket (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Blocked editor

Hello the editor you blocked for vandalism Special:Contributions/87.155.126.188, has started editing under another IP Special:Contributions/87.155.118.58. Can the Nowruz page be semi-protected? Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request of Rebel1916

Hello Toddst1. Rebel1916 (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, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello! :)

Hi, Toddst1. Hope you are well. Can you please see this? Also, talk page. Mladifilozof (talk · contribs) recreated deleted content, and other Rochass‎ (talk · contribs) delete redirects. Hope that temporary page block will be enough. Thanks in advance, all best! --Tadija (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Toddst! Hope that now talk page will work! --Tadija (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Dont forget to tag case at WP:RFPP --Tadija (talk)

Hotel5550 Message

Hey Toddst1! It's me again! I am now doing something fun! I am doing ten headlines from Jay Leno per year. Choose the one you think is the funniest and I will cast the deciding vote. Whatever headline gets the most votes stays on the list and the rest will be taken off the list and replaced with a 9 new headlines. If you have a Jay Leno headline, send it to me. It's got to be an old one, not the new ones, or things can be spoiled. Hope to talk to you soon! Happy editing! Hotel5550 (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Disputed article

Sorry to bother you. I just want to notice that you have locked disputed article Serbian propaganda in the Yugoslav Wars immediately after one user has deleted whole page and turned it into redirection (please, see history). I know that this protection is not an endorsement of the current version. But it is impossible for us to find out some solution by discussing when there is no article to discuss about. Thanks for your patience.--Mladifilozof (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Cyber-bullying

The edit I restored was sourced to what looks like reliable sources to me. Woogee (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Look further. See WP:Primary sources. Toddst1 (talk) 22:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Montenegro

There was never a consensus to translated Montenegro-related articles to Montenegrin. Montenegrin is not an internationally accepted language, even the majority of Montenegrins don't declare that they speak it, but rather Serbian. This is not the Wikipedia of the Montenegro government and it only translates articles into internationally accepted languages. Anything else is considered vandalism and should be reverted. --Cinéma C 01:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You should review the definition of WP:Vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Translating an city article title into a made up "language" that is not internationally recognized and doesn't even have an ISO code isn't compromising the integrity of Wikipedia? --Cinéma C 04:12, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's actually your opinion that language is made up. Read the constitution of Montenegro. Rave92^(talk) 09:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Either way it ain't vandalism. Both of you, stop. Toddst1 (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Black hebrew israelites

Are you sure the Protection was nessecary? i did not see that much vandalism on it? Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

George Lopez

I saw you protected George Lopez. What possible BLP violation was there, especially now that the full context of his remarks about Palin are included? I know that WP:BLP requires that "unsourced" or "poorly sourced" contentious material not be included in a BLP, but the material is fully sourced.--Drrll (talk) 19:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for Toddst1, but I can give you my own observations:

• The "source" is a videoclip of a stand-up comedy routine; a primary source with no context, evaluation or reporting, hosted on the FOX Nation blog. BLP requires high-quality sources.
• The proposed content doesn't inform the reader. It's a joke about a politician (the #1 subject of stand-up comedy jokes), seemingly inserted into a biography just to disparage either Palin, Lopez or both.
• It isn't relevant to the subject; isn't something significantly covered in any reliable sources about the subject, and also appears to be inserted clumsily into the inappropriate "Film and television projects" section. (See undue weight.)
• Political personalities are the subject of stand-up comedy and talk-show jokes all the time. So why put this one joke and punchline into a biography? The only reasoning the original editor offers for inserting the content is, "And how often do you hear a major comedian on a non-premium broadcast channel refer to a major political figure as a bitch? If he wants to do that fine, but Lopez can't complain if a large number of his potential audience find it over the line." — which is no reason at all. Isn't there at least some news article somewhere reporting on why this particular joke and punchline are of any importance?

I changed the originally inserted content from:

"In February 2010, he referred to Sarah Palin as a "special needs" "[bitch]".

to this, to add context:

"During a stand-up comedy routine in February, 2010, Lopez referred to Sarah Palin as "la cabrona", and said, "Sarah Palin said that it is wrong for President Obama's advisor Rahm Emmanuel to use the word "retarded", but it's alright for Rush Limbaugh. When someone becomes irrational like that, complaining, not making any sense, it means only one thing: they're special needs."

...but frankly, I still don't see justification for having this joke and punchline in a BLP, and will recommed removing it completely until someone explains what it adds to the article. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this is being sorted out on the talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Los Angeles mayoral election, 2013

Sourced rumors in a misnomer. Also, by the same logic, United States presidential election, 2012 should be deleted. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No it's not. You're confusing encyclopedic information with infotainment. Ok on the second point. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think only the section labeled Speculation in United States presidential election, 2012 should be deleted. The rest has some pretty important and factual information about the election. Toddst1 (talk) 17:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you blocking people rather than simply clearing them from the list?

Because User:Rosana2ne1 looks pretty clueless but has stopped actually editing for the last half hour. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a 3 hour block (already expired) was out of order to prevent further disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 04:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well yes, if they were actually disrupting. But they had stopped, so the block was pointless. Theresa Knott | token threats 09:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As are a lot of conversations on Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 13:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Notification

As an user who commented at this discussion, you may wish to weigh in on Grundle2600's topic ban modification request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Satori (album)

Was the full protection of Satori (album) ment to be semi protection and is it needed anymore? Rettetast (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hylas yachts

Toddst1: I noted a couple fixes to your clean-up on the discussion page. Could you add them to the article Hylas Yachts? RJ (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Intent to revert edits to List of proverbial phrases

Toddst1 - I intend to revert your edits to the above list later today, because of this one source which I will add which will cover most of the entries.

"English Proverbs".

Moving the entire list to the talk page seems a bit pointy and since the article gives no indication that there are entries waiting to be sourced on the talk page it would be unlikely for other editors to look there for them.--Mike Cline (talk) 16:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No pointyness intended, rather adherence to WP:V as noted on the talk page. I'm glad you found a source and per http://www.phrases.org.uk/about-us.html it seems pretty reliable. Please attribute the entries after reverting my edits and beware of WP:Copyvio as the page you mentioned is Copyright © Gary Martin, 1996 - 2010. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider your placement of Copyvio on List of proverbial phrases

I don't think that there has been any copyright infrigement in this article. Gary Martin may own the copyright to his website, but he does not own the copyright to the individual phrases. Any alphabetical list of proverbial phrases regardless of source would mimic his list. The fact that the original creator of this list was probably inspired by Martin's list, does not make the list itself a copyvio. The article does not pirate Martin's detailed explanations but merely credits his website as a reliable source for the individual phrases. An other editor agrees with this position as well. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like DGG removed the copyvio, I trust you'll agree with his judgement. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 22:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll stand down on this. It still looks like a copyvio to me though. Toddst1 (talk) 01:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a great example of what's wrong with Wikipedia. The copyright owner filed an OTRS request and got "A politely written response but not much better than fuck off and die." (his words, not mine) Nice job folks. Toddst1 (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

fwiw, I and Mike have been rewriting the article to make it less dependent on that book as a single source. It's an example of what is right with WP. First, that we are open to listing to complaints of copyright violation. Second, that we remove material that is copyvio, but do not remove material that is not. Third, that we make polite responses to those who are dissatisfied. Fourth, that when a less than satisfactory article is pointed out to us, multiple people are willing to improve it. DGG ( talk ) 19:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Jwh3

Hello, I am messaging you due to your involvement in a sockpuppet case of a user called James Hunter aka: Jwh3 (talk · contribs). A year ago he tried to create an article about himself, making friends and influencing people in the subsequent AFD by socking and personal attacks. Now he has returned as JJFilmie (talk · contribs) and has created another article. Ryan4314 (talk) 23:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm?

For a kick off, learn to format; you messed up my talkpage, which meant I had no choice but to remove your message. Secondly, at no point did I say any of the following; "I am going to block you", "You have been blocked by me", or "This account has been blocked by me"? Until I say one of those things, don't tell me I am "unauthorised" to do so. As the case happens to be, I was right. Deal with it, and don't bring silly little claims like "Baiting" to me. Good day. Lefty101 (talk) 18:38, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestions, they have been noted. Please read this lovely article about wikipedia's policies on harassment and then stop trying to give me instructions. Lefty101 (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll now have to provide evidence (here). This is now harassment. Lefty101 (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Nope. All the evidence is in your talk page history. Good day. Toddst1 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI

User:Lefty101 has made a report against you at WP:AN/I. Thought you might like to know. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete of The Eternal City (online game)

Last December you deleted this article as G3 Vandalism. What was going on there? The nominal topic is supposedly a large commercial online game, and I'm wondering what the article would have contained that it would consist, in and of itself, of vandalism. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The entire article consisted of:

"poo"

and there had been no other edits. Toddst1 (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Fascinating. Thanks! —chaos5023 (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee departments.
Message added 13:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codf1977 (talk) 13:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

comet, ajax, steel wool and sandpaper

Varying degrees of abrasiveness. ;) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:38, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I assume that is referring to me and perhaps warranted. Toddst1 (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

We all sometimes express ourselves in ways that could have been better. Hindsight is 20/20 and one's critics weren't the ones dealing with the situation at the time. I had in mind primarily the other party to that affair, who definitely needs to learn to talk and work with others. I saw maybe one conversation that did not involve snarkiness, and that was a thank you for a welcome. (I think some people confuse sarcasm with cleverness, without any particular skill at either.) Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply

I think it is more appropriate for you to say that the other editor need to make enough discussion before remove the whole contents of the articles. Revws (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

semi retired

Sorry to see that. Maybe after a rest you'll be back better than ever. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Splash Pad

Hi editor I just want to ask what is the best way to get my citation listed again. We were cited by users other than ourselves as the first to create the residential splash pad. It looks like another company came in and got my citation deleted. How can I get this back? Can I create a section within the page called residential splash pad? I just want to not get listed as a spammer. Dave@raindeck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.254.89 (talk) 01:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Try using a WP:Reliable source from a third party. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Lefty101 (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Disregard, as it happens, you have gotten away with harassing me, again. As you failed to take heed of my last request, I shall ask you again, please do not leave another message on my talkpage for any reason ever again. Lefty101 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete of docuganda

This was an article from a third party Christian Science monitor that defines a new film genre, which includes An Inconvenient Truth, and Fahrenheit 9/11 Michael Moore. Why was this deleted? happy to delete the links. but the article itself is worthwhile and valid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albagodas (talk • contribs) 12:57, 17 April 2010

One source does not make it notable neologism. Per your request, I have restored it.

Besides - Docuganda.com is your website. Try facebook. Toddst1 (talk) 12:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

SimulTrans

Hope you're enjoying your semi-retirement. :)

Just a friendly heads up on SimulTrans, an article you proposed for deletion. I've restored it as a contested prod, per a request at WP:REFUND. However, I've warned the requester that notability hasn't been established and that the article can go to AfD at any time. Feel free to proceed however you'd like. Cheers! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm pretty lousy at being semi-retired. Thanks for the heads up. It's at AFD now. Toddst1 (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A user blocked by you now using a different name

Hotel4500 (talk · contribs) (blocked by you for malicious redirects) for is now editing under Hotel5500, and writing some negative info about a California school district without any citations. To me, it appears this person has a grudge against this district. They also threaten to block users who revert any of their edits under the 5500 name. I am also concerned about some of their edits about their insistance on including the UK version of Law and Order in the Law and Order Franchise and it's universe. Now, I do know and understand you are "semi-retired" - but I take this to mean you do check in here occasionally. So I politely ask you to check this out if you do have the time when you visit, or at least forward to someone who is more active than you. Thank you very much Todd. I hope you are enjoying your break, and hope it does not become permanent as I have great respect for you as an admin and editor for your intelligence and fairness - and also ability to remain civil when others are not (which is the main reason I am bringing this to your attention rather than attempting to deal with it myself...I am fully aware my Irish temper can get me into trouble!) Cheers, Trista (user name Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you've got the right user name? Hotel5500 (talk · contribs) doesn't appear to be making edits on school districts. Dayewalker (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and since they were blocked they are now using Hotel3600 to evade the block and currently are in the CSI and Law & Order sections. Trista TristaBella (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for the quick block. Leaky Caldron 20:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Docuganda

I don't see this as meeting a WP:CSD. What do you think? Dlohcierekim 22:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I had deleted and then restored it for that reason. I left the CSD tag there for someone else to think about. I think it's a WP:NN neologism and could probably do with a {{prod}} or an AFD. Of note is that the creator owns the website http://www.docuganda.com/. Toddst1 (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like an IAR at best. Glad I'm not the only one that deletes these things and has 2nd thoughts. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I declined the speedy. Got G-hits Don't know if it would survive AFD. Dlohcierekim 22:45, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

75.170.161.149

You were the blocker on 75.170.161.149 previously, so I am bringing this to you. The user has been vandalizing the WGGH page from many 75.170. IPs. At present the user is now using 75.170.193.114 and continues to vandalize the same page. Is there anyway to lock down the WGGH page and range block the 75.170. range? I think this would keep most of the vandalism at bay. The last block the user had was 1 month. Is there anyway to make this rangeblock a 2 month'er in the spirit of the escalation of the blocks? Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

looks like it's dealt with Toddst1 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup, it was. My apologizes for not notifying you of that. Had a couple other things on my plate and it slipped my mind. My thanks for looking into it as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

User:THETRUTHPROTECTOR

Thanks for the swift Whack-a-Mole action. Edison (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You bag'em, we tag'em~! :) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Just in case, could you please pre-empt block User:DaveNov85 and User:DaveNovember85 as well? Second time this had happened to me and I must say that he's really a no-lifer. Thanks and toodles~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 04:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't block someone who hasn't edited. Perhaps you should sign up for the names and never use them, just to take them out of circulation. Toddst1 (talk) 04:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the help. 173.11.92.206 (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Splash Pad

Why is it you are blocking the history of a Splash Pad? How is urparks more relevant to a splash pad then a splash pad. The page has little to no actuall information about splash pads. Google it find out actual information about splash pads instead of blocking in favor of old text about irrelevant topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.184.91 (talk) 02:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Because it is your company and you are here only to promote it. Toddst1 (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Wrong it's not my company. The company splashzone created the residential splash pad . I'd say it's relevant. Do you think the page about coca cola talks about the company? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.56.45.136 (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

A thought on a recent anon block

Perhaps in light of the abuse of multiple accounts by 128.163.229.32 the original 31 hour block on 128.163.229.36 should be modified? - Schrandit (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a dynamic IP which means the editor is unlikely to get the same IP twice, so blocks have little effect. It just means they have to turn the DSL unit off and back on to evade the block. If it continues, we should set up a range block. I'd be glad to do that if I'm around, but if not (more likely), ask for it on WP:ANI. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind - it looks like they were still hopping, so I issued a rangeblock on 128.163.229.0/24. Toddst1 (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. So all anons on that range have been temporarily blocked and there is no purpose in me firing up a sockpuppeting investigation? - Schrandit (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe so - if I did it correctly. It would be good to watch to see if my range was wide enough - that is if s/he pops up on another IP address, we will need to widen the range. Toddst1 (talk) 21:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I tweaked your comment at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 2#Oppose

Just fyi - I couldn't figure out how to get the numbering to work with {{quotation}}. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 04:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

ok. Didn't mean to f things up there. Toddst1 (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

More Albanian Montenegro edit warring

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

Don't you see that's the same person again and again. That article is vandalized without any reference. It says" . The Albanians objected the anthem because they demanded the verse "our mother Montenegro" replaced by "our house Montenegro" for the Albanian populations' sake.". That was just one time said by politician of Albanian ethnicity more than 2 years ago. You can't say it is what Albanian people want, when one politician just said it once, and never mentioned it again. I mean he always stands up like all Albanians in Montenegro to the anthem. Furthermore, look at other anthems on Wikipedia, none one has controversy. There can't be controversy about official anthem of country. It also says it's in procedure of getting shorter text which is not true. When it comes to parliament, then that someone can add it. And to all that, Montenegrin is official language, not Serbian. Rave92^(talk) 09:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I wrote him if he wants so radical changes, he needs to show arguments, references and reasons on Talk Page why it should be added on that article. I guess that's ok? Rave92^(talk) 20:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, of course information matters - that is what the Wikipedia is for! Secondly, that is because there is an ongoing controversy regarding the Montenegrin anthem. All the media in Montenegro are discussing it on a daily basis. It's a hot topic, especially considering the very sensitive and controversial issues discussed (authorship of a Nazi collaborator).

The answer might be that Rave92 isn't following the news, however this is no justification to refuse to check the cited sources himself and get information about Montenegro, Montenegrin matters and its anthem and all the numerous controversies that circle around it.

Rave92, the article is referenced and your actions have included either direct lying or something else. Considering the rapid speed of your reverts, it is a high possibility that you perhaps did not even care to read the article, the added content, or you would've noticed the references. In that case that is a very reckless act and indecent towards me, also a part of your personal campaign of obviously wanting to own the article for you and yourself alone as its history very clearly suggests. That is almost as bad as intentionally lying and trying to deceit an uninformed third party (for example Toddst1) who would come up and read the edit summaries, and - God forbid - believe in your false accusation. It is especially a worrying matter since you continued with your accusations even after it was clearly pointed out to you that they are incorrect. You have also resorted to something really ridiculous, that I really do not know how else to characterize but as childlish games.

If there is anything precise that you hold against the article (your edits only depict that you hold a personal grudge against me), I suggest you lay them out, as you say yourself, at the talk page.

Montenegrin is official language, not Serbian.

This is yet false claim. Both are official.

Firstly, text what they want to delete is the text which glories Montenegro as state, they don't care who wrote it. Also there are no proves that these text wasn't used before he added it, but never mind that, let's get back on "topic".

I am incorrect? You firstly here say about reckless actions towards you, accusing you etc... but when I revert it, you are saying I want to own article, to lie, that I am incorrect. Now you are being hypocrite. I don't think Todd or anyone else is "uniformed" or anything you mention here.

Montenegrin is official language, not Serbian.

This is yet false claim. Both are official.

Read the Constitution. Rave92^(talk) 09:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I did. According to Article 13, the official languages are Montenegrin, as well as Serbian, Bosnian, Albanian and Croatian. --MNEFORGER (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Take this to the article talk page! Toddst1 (talk) 11:21, 27 April 2010 (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.

Jay Haher(English Actor)

Jay Haher is an English Actor best known for playing the character of Zac in The story of Tracey Beaker broadcast on the CbbC channel.

He has not had any other major television roles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.47.42 (talk) 20:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic, and the sun comes up in the east. Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollbacking privilege revocation

Hi there, While I can appreciate the reasoning behind it, I would have appreciated a heads up on the matter. Now that it's actually up for debate, I now know that I can get some help from this annoying little IP. Cheers!,--Hourick (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Note

Apologies, I had placed a block on User:99.241.223.101 before I had noticed the final warning you had placed on the IP's talk page. Feel free to adjust or remove the block if you have a different level of visibility there. Kuru (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah - probably deserved the block. I was feeling a bit too charitable this morning. Toddst1 (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

I do not understand why you deleted [12] Muir Skate Longboard Shop and then restored it a half an hour later... -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:34, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Ani discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks I found the discussion, good work btw. -- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violation on Bertematti

Hi, please restore my article "Bertematti". This has information on this family name. The content is my own. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbertematti (talk • contribs) 20:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

replied on User talk:Rbertematti Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude...

Try to remain calm... Just a "polite notice", no more of this if you'd be so kind. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes it's appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Changing speedy delete

Greetings Toddst1 - just letting you know that I have substituted the speedy delete you stuck on Los Angeles Port Police Association, Inc. for wikify & unref tags. I saw someone had deleted your tag and slapped it back on automaticaly without reading the article, but now that I've actually done so, I reckon that an organisation that can claim a membership of over 40,000 at least deserves a bit of leeway to demonstrate it. There's plenty of time for AfD if needs be. Cheers! --Technopat (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

National American Greek Council

I created a page with all the National Greek umbrella organizations. I see that a page for the 'National American Greek Council' existed previouly and it was deleted due to copyrights infringement. Can I recreate the page, with a brief two or three lines summary of what is and a list of its 12 member organizations? Thanks.--Coquidragon (talk) 14:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, as long as it doesn't come from another non-GFDL web site. Toddst1 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Ross Fishman entry

Hello. I would welcome your guidance on how to edit entry “Ross Fishman”, which you deleted May 14 at 3:27, so that it conforms to guidelines. The deletion calls the entry blatant advertising, but per Wiki instructions, the entry provided numerous links to external sources that verify the statements made. This is my first Wiki entry so I of course want to follow proper procedures. Please advise me on how to edit the entry so that it is acceptable. User Jmitot ~ ~ ~ ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmitot (talk • contribs) 16:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I would guess that you have a conflict of interest based on how you wrote it. If so, you should find something else to write about. If not, try to write about the person with a more neutral point of view. I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

207.235.199.10 (talk · contribs) - Greenville ISD

We must have pressed the block button at the same moment; mine was the one that got home, though I only gave them 3 months. By the time I had looked up the WHOIS, you had already sorted their talk page. So I have altered your block template to have "3 months" and my signature, corresponding to the actual block they got; but feel free to go back and step it up if you like. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the collision. It's all good. I've been blocking IP's rather heavy lately. Toddst1 (talk) 16:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting it. Even though I was not going to reply anymore, that AfD is so long and annoying because of POV pushers. Joe Chill (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

That's been happening quite a lot lately. I'd be in favor of automatic semi-protection of AFD discussions at this point. Toddst1 (talk) 16:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

TWCMax (talk · contribs)

If I had a button I would block him. Off2riorob (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I do and did. I also did a "rollback all" edits for that user. Thanks for bringing it back to my attention. Toddst1 (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, those redirects are messy to tidy up, very disruptive vandal, thanks for your attention, regards. Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Tyler Schlegel

I do not understand why you deleted the page Tyler Schlegel? It was all factual information and I think this was very inappropiate of you Todd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler.schlegel (talk • contribs) 20:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Toddst1 (talk) 23:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock on hold

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Str8cash&diff=362529913&oldid=362529555

—Kww(talk) 00:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

G&P

Thanks for deaing with the disruption, I also think that MKDLion is a similar user since all his edits are reverts of users who had disputes with users that now are under editing restrictions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Banhammered. Toddst1 (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Inuit18 requesting unblock

This user has finally managed a well-formed unblock request that addresses the reason why he was blocked. (See very bottom of the page). Since you're the blocking admin, you may want to take a look. If you are inclined to unblock, you might consider some kind of a revert restriction, like 1RR/day. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Balkan disruption-only account

[13] Likely a sock or meatpuppet of one many banned users. Athenean (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Ed beat me to it. Toddst1 (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Luckyb69

Please unblock Luckyb69. This user is new and added content to luckyBackup at my request and is not a spammer in any way. Thank you. Ttg512 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're saying Luckyb69 (talk · contribs) is your meatpuppet? Toddst1 (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Reisman

I thought I was the only one that used the term "coddle". :) They want to "assume good faith" with this character. Once he edits again, they'll find out. "Pay now, or pay later." He comes across a bit like Liebman, i.e. full of himself; except it's worse, because Reisman has actually published something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Toddst1 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Father Son Holy Ghost

ENDLESS PREJUDICE

Love direction of construction all in one. It's indispensable. People get lost all the time for immersing fame delusion, but earn gross profit for pure mind. Dangerous people are so vain to communicate because of foolish. There are too many options , we cannot just enjoy those things we owned, but really for growing benefic wisdom everyday under the sunlight. If every envy heart traversing or misleading wrong road of destruction, it's a little bit unfair, what I want it's not an explaination, may be there's no isolation. So can we own all the knowledge this moment or this life ? You may say it is the greatest treasure but not to hold. All of us have three heads and facing north, east, south and west. There's nothing, but we still need to face it . You are one of the protector brother, and I know you can feel bad when you get in a bad mood. Never hold it , never trust anybody and please put it down , never ever. Time will tell . And I hope you can reach my voice of hope someday this life.

Sarasvati

May 24, 2010, 19:57 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drolmanam (talk • contribs)

Greetings Drolmaling (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

REQUESTING UNBLOCK

Please unblock my sister Drolmaling , My name is Sarasvati, I'm afraid we are not proficient in calculation and schemes. Just because we have different culture, forgive me brother , She is a good person who is willing to make all contribution to god whole life. Please make decision as soon as posible, I promise your loving kindness heart will connect to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drolmanam (talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 May 2010

Can you explain what she means by "there were so many dangerous people"? Toddst1 (talk) 19:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

G&P

Thanks for deaing with the disruption, I also think that MKDLion is a similar user since all his edits are reverts of users who had disputes with users that now are under editing restrictions.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Banhammered. Toddst1 (talk) 03:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Inuit18 requesting unblock

This user has finally managed a well-formed unblock request that addresses the reason why he was blocked. (See very bottom of the page). Since you're the blocking admin, you may want to take a look. If you are inclined to unblock, you might consider some kind of a revert restriction, like 1RR/day. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Another Balkan disruption-only account

[14] Likely a sock or meatpuppet of one many banned users. Athenean (talk) 01:44, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Ed beat me to it. Toddst1 (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock Luckyb69

Please unblock Luckyb69. This user is new and added content to luckyBackup at my request and is not a spammer in any way. Thank you. Ttg512 (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

You're saying Luckyb69 (talk · contribs) is your meatpuppet? Toddst1 (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Reisman

I thought I was the only one that used the term "coddle". :) They want to "assume good faith" with this character. Once he edits again, they'll find out. "Pay now, or pay later." He comes across a bit like Liebman, i.e. full of himself; except it's worse, because Reisman has actually published something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Toddst1 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Major "oops"

Umm... I think there was an error here... the guy clearly isn't me, since he's deleting my own post. More likely another sockpuppet of banned user User:Akraj; I've updated the page accordingly. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

uh..thanks. Toddst1 (talk)

Hi Todd. Administrator CKatz is on an harassment mode and is persistently reverting valid edits and also consistently vandalizing other people's talk page. [15]. Similar activities have been perpetrated by her in the past and are too numerous to count. Her obsessive behavior can be seen at [16] and [17]. I do hope there is some mechanism to stop her destructive behavior since such rogue administrators bring bad name to Wikipedia. By blocking her you had done the right thing.

I am also sure she will immediately ban me. Solarmaster1 (talk) 04:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It took 14 minutes. On the geological scale, that probably qualifies as "immediate". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:32, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Good block. Toddst1 (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

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

This is not forum shopping. This complaint was filed by me because that last bit he put up about paranoid ramblings was so over the top that it merits the complaint on AN/I. I deserve to have my complaints addressed and to delete it is wrong. I've done nothing to engender this type of treatment on Wikipedia and RepublicanJacobite had violated the rules with impunity. This deserves to be heard on AN/I.Malke2010 22:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Please remove the 'resolved' and allow this complaint to go forward. Thank you.Malke2010 23:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you please show me diffs of the forum shopping?Malke2010 01:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Drop it, for your own good. Toddst1 (talk) 06:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So you don't have any diffs?Malke2010 14:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It's called WP:DNFTT. Move on. Your edits and continual claims of personal attacks are now in the WP:TE territory. Toddst1 (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

responded in email. ThanksMalke2010 17:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, several editors have told you that you were both wrong in varying degrees. Warnings issued to both parties. Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Toddst1 (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving discussion to User talk:Malke 2010.

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.

Inuit18

Hi, just want to inform you that as soon as you made a deal to unblock editor Inuit18 (talk · contribs) [18] he already began vandalising articles by tampering with quoted words [19] and trying to help editor Tajik (talk · contribs) in edit-war. Editor Inuit may actually be editor Tajik using proxy servers (i.e. Proxy Way) to easily change his location. An IP from Germany 188.107.215.119 (location of editor Tajik) left a message telling Inuit. "...but be careful, he can also use Proxs and Prox mashineries/programs that can get filtered by Wikipedia, like ProxyWay)..." Ahmed shahi (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be right. Let me know if you see an edit war break out. I'll try to keep an eye on it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC

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

Why did you close the thread. The other editors have not had the chance to comment yet.Malke2010 20:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Replied and yet another discussion moved to User talk:Malke 2010. Toddst1 (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2010 (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.

What you won't learn...

Todd, I greatly enjoyed What you won't learn in new admin school, which I just happened to see zipping by in recent changes. How dare you speak truthfully! LOL. See also No. 37. I think a lot of your comments are spot on. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 13:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Your observations are pretty good. I especially liked numbers 19, 24 and 65. Toddst1 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, Antandrus' User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior long ago helped give me hope that, while I may be a bit crazy, I'm not altogether nuts. Likewise this. Cheers, Gwen Gale (talk) 14:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination)

Hi, Toddst1. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muir Skate Longboard Shop (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Malke 2010

Retaliation by blocking administrator

I made a neutral and polite comment above. Immediately afterwards, the blocking admin, Toddst1 made a personal attack on me accusing me of edit warring on a page that I haven't edited in days and am not fighting. This is an excuse. Todd is harrassing me. This is really abuse of power and intimidation.

I, therefore, withdraw my comments about Malke. I support Todd's block. Malke's block should be extended to 1 year, not 1 week. I 100% support Todd and fully oppose Malke now. Todd has my full support. Please accept this apology and do not follow me around or pick fault at my edits.

Sorry to have crossed you. I get the hint. I support you 100%. Please stop any further following me around. Please. Please. Please.Asorg (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Look, first thing I did when I saw your first comment on ANI was check if you were a sock of Malke. I didn't find evidence of that, but it was pretty apparent that you were edit warring on that article. I've reverted your edit so now I can not block you, and I did that on purpose to remove any possibility of appearing that I could be trying to intimidate you. In effect, I am not acting as an administrator there and I cannot block you. Toddst1 (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: The block itself

I must thank you for your block. As I have said elsewhere, I have had some highly unpleasant experiences with this user, and therefore am an involved party. Nevertheless, by my count this is their fifth block in nine months, and I feel the need to say that I must echo the "slightly wary" concerns expressed by SGGH regarding the latest round of contrition expressed. Indeed, I am more than slightly, as previous affirmations of behavior change and promises have been shown to be of little worth from this user, who in my view edits with openly-expressed agenda-driven POV and an unrelenting and breathtaking hostility. I am very much afraid we are, after a few weeks or months, just going to wind up back with the same situation. But again, I thank you for taking a stand. See you at the AIV page! Jusdafax 16:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If you see the problem recurring, please speak up but hope for the best. Toddst1 (talk) 18:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

query

are you on right now? I've got a history merge request (see my last edits for it) Thanks.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 04:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks, I appreciate it, even though I haven't been here long, I will try to use it properly.  :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 04:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Nah, I don't mind if you look over my shoulder to make sure I'm doing okay. Thanks for the tip. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply

You've got email. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: duck

The editor I was refering to edits in the same exact manner as JB50000 and the other socks used(particularly one Judith Merridith. My internet connection is Effed-up right now, so it's difficult for me to go through the contributions and give diffs. But if you look through the contributions for the editors I listed(particularly on User talk pages and ANI) you will see an almost exact manner of writing. Exaggerating and outrageous comparisons, feigning ignorance, and the accusatory manner of writing to other editors that they are meeting for "the first time". If this is still an issue tomorrow(with my connection hopefully fixed), I will list the diffs. Dave Dial (talk) 05:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

AIV report of User:Devx101

Hi Toddst, I was waiting for a while for my report regarding this user to be actioned or at least declined, and realised that you recently removed the report as unactionable. Could you explain what this means and why the report was removed please? The user repeatedly recreated a deleted article after numerous warnings to stop, including a level 4 warning; I'm confused why no action has been taken. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Last article created @ 11:03, 25 May 2010 Tinplate India. Final warning issued at 11:12, 25 May 2010 by you. I don't see anything blockable. Toddst1 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it seems that when I moved the draft page he created from mainspace to his userspace, the history followed it so it looked like he created the page in his userspace; I wasn't aware that's how it worked. Well, that last one was probably unintentional anyway, so I'll leave it unless he breaks any more rules. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Re User talk:71.111.254.6

Thanks for your quick intervention with this. I do hope that'll get their attention. Thanks and best wishes, DBaK (talk) 21:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

You deleted some of my userboxes recently. Since saying Tom Cruise is a homosexual and Scientology is a cult is too racy for you (how?), what about these two amended ones? In case you don't get the one with a Gamecube, raping refers to "Bro Rape," a video by Derrick Comedy, tazing refers to "Don't taze me bro!," and Dane Cook is a reference to "Bro Rape," as bros LOVE Dane Cook.

This user thinks the High School Musical movies are slowly bringing an end to childhood intelligence and that Zack Efron should be tried for crimes against humanity.

This user does not believe in the raping or tazing of bros.

PÆon (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd bring it up on ANI since it was previously discussed there. That way you'll have a discussion to point to in case anyone has any problems with it down the road. My opinion is the first one is fine, the second one iffy. Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Avoiding confrontation

If you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at DinDraithou's comment here? You might also take a look at his recent edit summaries on that same article here and here. He makes reference to a "meaningless confrontation" with me at some point in the past, which I did not recall. So, I searched through my contributions and found an argument between DinDraithou and several other editors (myself included) over at the Michael Collins article. That argument, which was last September, has nothing to do with my edits on the Irish American article, and I had no recollection of that user. After all the recent drama, I want to avoid any situations that might lead to confrontation and trouble, and I am not seeking out situations. I think you understand what I mean. I appreciate your time and all of your efforts. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What is the actual issue here? I am keeping my eye on Malkes edits, if there is any problem I would also like to have the opportunity to intervene, please keep me in the loop as I am advising her on improving her contributions and avoiding conflict, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue is the number of images that are acceptable in the infobox. So, I started a talk page discussion in order to get other editor's opinions. At that point, DinDraithou accused me of trying to pick a fight. Which I consider a ridiculous accusation. How is starting a talk page discussion picking a fight? I was trying to avoid one. Then, today, Malke chimed in to say that she thinks the images are find. I have no problem with some of the images being changed, but I think 15 images in the infobox is overkill. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of pictures, my objective is to raise Malkes edit pattern out of such worthless disputes. I will mail her and bring this issue up. I have asked her to stay away from editors she has recently been in dispute with and I will email nudge her again to stay away from you. Please keep me in the loop, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest and your comments. Obviously, she has the right to her opinion, and I believe this is a matter that can be dealt with through discussion, as long as people are mutually respectful. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 01:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at RP459's talk page.
Message added 01:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- RP459 ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Please check the item "Concept Cloud"

I have improved the item Concept Cloud according to the guidelines. Please check the item and remove the proposed deletion. Thank you.

Concept cloud (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Concept Cloud - that article is barely in English. Also, you don't appear to have provided any sources outside the creators. The article appears to be promotional, as does your username. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Another Balkan disruption only account

[20]. Athenean (talk) 17:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Unactionable report

I was wondering if I made a mistake reported 208.105.10.66 in the wrong place. The outcome was what I thought appropriate, a warning on the talk page of this individual by an administrator, but I got the sense that maybe "Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism" was only to request blocks. Will you please clarify for me? just Eleos 19:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you're fine. It was just that the editor hadn't edited recently. Toddst1 (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! :) just Eleos 23:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :)

Thank you Todd, for being an AMAZING Admin and a great human. It's truly refreshing and appreciated. Molleeb (talk) 19:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Demand of Deletion Withdrawal

Dear Editor: Please check the deleted item "concept cloud" again.The main reference resources of the article are two research papers, both published in peer-reviewed sources. "StYLiD: Social Information Sharing with Free Creation of Structured Linked Data" is published in Proceedings of the Social Web and Knowledge Management Workshop(SWKM 2008), pp. 33–40, Beijing, China (2008), Located at the 17th World Wide Web Conference (WWW2008), whose accepted papers are all peer-reviewed by at least three reviewers from an International Program Committee. This information is available on their website: http://www2008.org/CFP/index.html

"The Design and Realization of Information Retrieval System Based on Concept Cloud and ontology" has been accepted by Journal of the China Society for Scientific and Technical Information, one of China's most prestigious peer-reviewed journal in this field.

According to the guidelines, "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." the references are reliable sources, so my article could not be seen as non-notable. I hope this will help on the withdrawal of the deletion. Thank you.Concept cloud (talk) 08:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You may take your "demand" to WP:DRV but I suspect you won't get very far. Toddst1 (talk) 12:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Seeing as your an admin involved in Balkan related activities could you take a look at this? [21] -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 10:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm decidedly not involved in Balkan related activities and have gone to lengths to keep it that way. You are right, I have issued a lot of WP:ARBMAC-blocks though. I'll take a look. Toddst1 (talk) 12:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

stick to your knitting

I could say the same to you, but I won't. I have again cleaned the drive by comments from Tans page, he has retired and I have cleaned his talkpage of friendly and not so friendly comments about three times now. I think if he wants to retire then people should leave him alone, why you felt the need to revert me with such an explanation when you had not even commented there yourself is beyond me, I have again cleaned the comments, I cant see that there is an issue with it in policy and your explanation is unhelpful. Other retired talkpages are kept clean and I don't see a reason not to keep Tans clean either. I would like an explanation as to your keep to your knitting comment, it seems a bit of a demeaning put down. Perhaps if you had explained the issue in a decent way I may have understood what the issue was. Off2riorob (talk) 10:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Blanking another person's talk page is not OK if there is not vandalism or inappropriate content on it. Tan did not request page protection, deletion of the page or request that nobody post there. It's not your place to decide to remove that stuff. Please self-revert. Toddst1 (talk) 12:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I will but I will look for confirmation on your position. Again I find your comments a bit off and you fail to respond to me request for an explanation. Off2riorob (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your explanation is above. In short, you are not the keeper of Tan's page. Toddst1 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

A self-retired user account is still an open account. Unless they have asked that their page be blanked, the policy is straightforward, posts shouldn't be removed by other editors. So far as I can recall, the only time I've seen this done has been when the user hadn't made an edit in many, many months and most of the posts were from bots. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I will ask Zeno as he was contacted by email and he added the template and he blanked the talkpage when he did it. I was trying to readd it when another editor came in and reverted me saying there is no need for it so it is getting more and more confusing. Off2riorob (talk) 13:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, trying to go by what another editor has done can lead to good faith muddles. Editors who add retired tags when asked to do so, wontedly rm all the TP contents at the same time, likely because the self-retired editor has already seen them (or the request could have been "Please replace the contents of my TP with a retired tag" and so on), but this doesn't always mean the editor wouldn't want to see other posts which happen to pop up under the retired tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Weird

That is odd, as honestly, there is not Canadian Dept of Education. Education is a provincial concern. Nonetheless, it does not matter much :-) Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerning your recent block.

You blocked a user named Sir Floyd indefinently until his off-wiki harassment was removed, don't you think that is out of your jurdistiction to block a user on a site for actions that were committed at a different site/location? Rohedin (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Toddst1 (talk) 01:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

An unclear precedent concerning the entire project

Sir, I really believe a detailed explanation is required at WP:ANI#Sir Floyd. Wikipedia:Npa#Off-wiki_attacks doesnt'seem to support your decision in several users' opinion. It will be appreciated if you kindly would like to clearify there what exactly is the reason for your decision. You can understand it's above all crucial to clearify there weren't possible politics matters in your decision, as well it's important to understand, without doubts, if Wikipedia can censor or can impose conditions about any expressions of political thought by users if expressed outside of wiki. The matter is being a little bigger than how should have been. Thank you sir for kindly give the community a deeper explanations about your (until now) not completely clear choice. Regards, - Theirrulez (talk) 04:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is not a precedent at all, rather explicit in policy. See Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment. Toddst1 (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There are some ArbCom decisions that might be relevant to this discussion (on a general level; I haven't looked into this particular dispute). If links would be useful to anyone please let me know. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Referred to you by Jusdafax

Hi, quite a few editors have been having trouble with User:75.2.209.226, and I've been putting together an RfC at User:Noraft/Sandbox/5. Jusdafax noticed a pattern we haven't seen before (which he mentions at User talk:Jusdafax#Request where User:75.2.209.226 likes to start editing articles that people he/she has disagreed with have worked on. He's copyedited on two or three articles that I've edited today, and damn near drew me into an edit war on a FAC I've been working on for months (3rd nom). Anyway, I need a second editor to certify that they've attempted to resolve the dispute by contacting him/her on his/her talk page, or I can't take this to RfC. Can you take a look at User:Noraft/Sandbox/5 and User talk:Jusdafax#Request and give your unbiased opinion? This person has sucked hours of editing out of good editors who have had to waste time dealing with him/her. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree - In my view, '75' is in violation of both the spirit and the letter of rules governing Wikipedia editing. Their two appearances on my User page make interesting reading, and '75' following me to George Armstrong Custer was additionally in violation, as I understand it. '75', by their own admission, has edited under other IP accounts, so it may be of value to look into that as well. Thanks for any time you can spare towards this matter. Jusdafax 01:12, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Toddst1, did you miss this, or just no interest? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 23:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Been busy. Will take a look tomorrow. Toddst1 (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you probably have a problematic editor and you've spent a lot of time doing your homework for that RFC. Per WP:NOTNAS#Section 3, document every statement with a diff and explain the context concisely and carefully. I think in your Evidence_of_disputed_behavior section you have plenty of diffs, but you need to give context to those diffs. i.e. this incivility towards editors he disagrees with was given in response to this benign edit. Hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That does help, thank you. However, I can't post the RfC without a second certifying editor, so I'm looking for someone willing to contact this user and attempt to stop the problem one more time. He's already been warned by a couple people, but none of them are willing to certify. One refuses to have further contact. Another thinks warning an IP user is futile. So I'm sort of stuck unless I can find someone else... ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 07:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a busy week for me and this requires a deeper dive than I have time for right now. No promises, but I'll see if I have time to take a deeper look maybe towards the end of the week, but I'm skeptical Toddst1 (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Courtesy

Detective Pedia (talk · contribs) seems to have some theories about you [22]. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Dude said he wanted to keep it low key, then posted it on a half dozen talk pages. HARHARHARHARHAR! ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 01:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Socks

Do you really believe those ip are socks of mine? They are almost evidently some banned users coming back with an IP identity. If they are involved in some issue i'm involved I don't know, I can't control them. Anyways since now and for the future I will never have any objections to being checkusered at any time. Regards, - Theirrulez (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The duck says so and it's certainly suspicious. I hope I'm wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I understood you are familiar with those articles related to ARBMAC, and I suppose you are able to distinguish banned users approach from mine. Anyways, no regrets if you felt to submit the request, it will be helpful to better understand this difference.

P.S. I posted a comment to the same ANI section you recently attended, would you take a look and tell your opinion? Sincerely, --Theirrulez (talk) 15:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied there. It was dealt with in December. Toddst1 (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw, thanks.--Theirrulez (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your indefinite block of Sir Floyd

Could you please answer this question at ANI thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=365495253&oldid=365495178 Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have replied again there at ANI. Thanks Off2riorob (talk) 20:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that and I am sure Sir Floyd will, I will mail him and let him know. IMO User Sir Floyd still needs to make some commitments to the wikiipedia and I will also tell him that. Off2riorob (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Sock IP

The 172 IP is not Ragusino. Who it is, I'm not sure, but I get the feeling your hunch was dead-on. This needs to be checked somehow. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he is Brunodam. But, looking this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Faust_Vran%C4%8Di%C4%87&action=history I've a question for you Toddst1. Why did you investigate Theirrulez for 172.129.3.110 ip and not Jesuislafete or other Croatian users for 78.3.71.83? --Grifter72 (talk) 14:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Never noticed Jesuislafete (talk · contribs) or Brunodam (talk · contribs). Toddst1 (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Why this investigate for this 172 IP?, i`m not Brunodam, Pio, Ragusino or other user, i live in Miami, USA ::)).--172.129.116.24 (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See the SPI. Toddst1 (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

How can I have my own Wikipedia Page

I just got my biography deleted because it was mistaken as an advertising purpose... this is in no way my intention but just a place to track down my work and professional experience for the future.

I have various artists friends who have a wikipedia page very similar to mine.

can you please inform me how can I have my wikipedia page with out being deleted?

I appreciate very much the help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanielV (talk • contribs) 19:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:BIO, WP:COI and WP:Advert. Toddst1 (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand

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

Lots of organizations have their page on wikipedia eg: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wipro_Technologies i created a page for my organization 'Bird Group' and it got deleted in few minutes.. can you plz explain as to why there are diff rules for diff organizations? My page had a basic information abt my organisation and FYI we are a leading travel technology and aviation company in India. Alot of ppl in india dont know abt wiki's and this was a way to get them understand and maybe in the future help wiki's aswell.

Kindly explain your move. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman9999 (talk • contribs) 05:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Corp, WP:COI and WP:Advert. Toddst1 (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

what should i do to get a page for my org? plz help as this is not a promotional activity or advertising of any sorts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman9999 (talk • contribs) 05:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't. If it truly deserves a page, someone else (without a WP:COI) will create it. Toddst1 (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

so u mean to say that the above page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wipro_Technologies was created by someone else? how come http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wipro_Technologies is advancing the aims of Wikipedia?

Go read those links above. Toddst1 (talk) 05:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

one last thing Todd, what if an employee from my org creates a page. will it still be removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aman9999 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Now you are WP:Gameing the system. I've salted it so your employees can't create it either. Toddst1 (talk) 05:56, 4 June 2010 (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.

Reply

Hello Toddst1, thanks for your message, to which I have replied at my talk page, with a query which it might be helpful for you to clear up. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:58, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Question over recent sockpuppet

Hi Toddst1, thanks for cleaning up after my fanboy. I assume you've already seen the relevant SPI archive? I'm pretty sure I identified the sock master as User:ChulaOne, who is still actively editing. I brought him up with a bit of evidence about a year ago but what I felt was a clear-cut case was quite shockingly closed without any action towards ChulaOne. This recent bit of vandalism came right after I readded a COI tag to an article that it was likely that he paid to write [23] (history here). Due to the nature of these sockpuppet attacks I am a bit disgruntled that he is allowed to edit. Would you suggest that I take this back to SPI? I'm not sure if there's any system to reevaluate cases that have been erroneously handled. ThemFromSpace 11:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty lousy when it comes to SPI if Duck doesn't apply. If you have additional evidence (which it appears you do), by all means you should resubmit and include your latest fanboy. Toddst1 (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Jeske Couriano blocked the user with email disabled. The emails are fully posted in my original ANI post... he basically swore at me, called me a piece of shit for one completely legitimate revert, and for another which I didn't even do. Thanks for your help and offer anyway (: Tommy²⁰¹⁰_message 12:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Central Technology Belt - page deletion

Hi Toddst1

You have just deleted the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_technology_belt on the basis that it did not contain enough encycolpedic information. Can you tell me what we need to include to make this page suitable for publishing?

Central Technology Belt is a not-for-profit organisation, there is no commercial reason for them being on Wikipedia, but instead to inform and explain.

The information we wish to include (although happy to expand/revise if requested) is as follows:

Central Technology Belt (CTB) Central Technology Belt’s role is to deliver technology-led economic transformation in the heart of England, along the A38 corridor, running from Birmingham, through Worcester to Malvern. Established to reduce the local economy’s reliance on motor manufacturing and related industries, Central Technology Belt sits at the interface between the public and private sector. Technology-led economic regeneration is about getting new and existing businesses to make use of technology, where they perhaps haven’t before, to increase competitiveness and create new jobs.

Central Technology Belt concentrates its efforts in four key areas:

1. The region’s science and technology Base. There are a number of strengths in the West Midlands region’s science and technology base. The five strengths Central Technology Belt is helping develop are: advanced materials; medical and healthcare; digital; transport; and environmental. The development of these strengths will attract additional research teams from which new ideas will flow - these ideas can then be deployed into business.

2. Technology transfer. Deploying new ideas created in universities into business is known as technology transfer. Central Technology Belt makes this happen by identifying suitable businesses to put in touch with the universities, or by running projects that make the process of taking up or testing new technology less painful.

3. Infrastructure. Technology-based businesses need somewhere to locate. Central Technology Belt has a number of existing and developing science and technology parks which can provide the ideal conditions for the growth of technology companies. It also lends its voice to those charged with improving communications (roads, rail and broadband), to try and create an environment conducive to successful business.

4. Skills. As some businesses start the journey of incorporating new technology into their work, they find that new skills are required. Central Technology Belt talks to the organisations that can provide people with the right skills, and make sure that a connection is made between the ‘supplier’ and the ‘user’.

Delivering the aim of Central Technology Belt will take a long time: infrastructure takes time to deliver, and the incorporation of technology into business can be a lengthy and difficult process. But the outcome will be the regeneration of the economy, led by business, which will provide worthwhile and valuable careers for people, long into the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Severncom (talk • contribs) 14:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:Corp, WP:COI and WP:Advert. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi

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

I preferred not to load your talk page with further explanations! Cheers! Theirrulez (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't do this

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

Toddst1, I've seen this [24]. You are not helping. It was me that stood down, and the disputed edit remains in place. Man, I am trying to be nice here. To all concerned. Please help me in this process, while bearing in mind that the article now says something that the sources oppose. You asked me to walk away and I did. Please don't thank the source-contradicted edit-warrior. Man, we're in trouble in the Balkans, 'in such messages aren't helping. What should I now do about the edit? AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears the edit war has stopped for now. Thank you. I suggest you do the usual process- start with the talk page, pursue WP:DR if necessary. Notice that I'm not taking sides here. Toddst1 (talk) 00:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the edir war (I only reverted twice) has stopped. Because the article now says what the sources don't say. You can imagine my exasperation. I'm now going to fuck with a few calendar-related articles, and I'll need your backup - to say that Feb comes before Jan. Please help me, because we will prob have edit warriors against us AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

May someone exactly explain me what does this discussion mean??? Theirrulez (talk) 03:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

It means despite pleas from both sides of this dispute, I remain neutral. You two partisans must settle this disputes within the boundaries of Wikipedia policy and common sense. I will enforce WP:ARBMAC without either prejudice or hesitation. Good luck to both of you. Toddst1 (talk) 06:15, 5 June 2010 (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.

Repeat of personal attack by IP account after warning

Your warning issued to IP user 69.110.12.49 in response to my complaint filed here has not had its desired effect as evidenced by this edit where he again calls me a vandal on my talk page. I Respectfully request stronger action as the issued warning has had no effect.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:42, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Jeehun Hwang

Was there not a clean version in history to revert to with this article? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose I should clarify my request - if there was, would you be willing to reinstate the article in a clean version? And if there was not, would you be willing to provide me with a list of whatever sources/external links were in the article? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't take that close a look at it. I came to it while tracking the edits of the PR firm, Brandxmgmt (talk · contribs) and quickly found a match for the third paragraph (which is typical of a PR firm) so I didn't look too much further - which was probably hasty on my part. I've restored it to User:VernoWhitney/Jeehun Hwang. I'd be more than happy to see the article back in main space if you could take a look and remove both the adverty stuff and the copyvio. Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! VernoWhitney (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

POV complaint

I am confused by your comment regarding my posting teacher's benefits being an attack on teachers. I meant no such thing. I reread my post. I do not see any opinion words in what I wrote only facts and all the statements are backed by third party citations. Rep Grell's comment is published in the paper. According to the neutral POV wiki article, I think my posts are neutral.

How should the contract facts be written to be acceptable to wikipedia?Paopenrecords (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved discussion to User talk:Paopenrecords. Toddst1 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Greek And Proud

Not sure if you've seen this: This user, Greek And Proud (talk · contribs), who you blocked the other day for jumping into a revert war, now has an unblock request up, which you might want to review. Cheers, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARBMAC block

Can you please take a look at the offer I gave to Greek And Proud? You blocked this user explicitly under arbitration enforcement, so I can't actually enact this offer unless you agree to it, so I just wanted to know if you were OK with the unblock and restrictions. Let me know, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Greek And Proud. Unblock at will. Toddst1 (talk) 16:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Nastran

Hi Toddst1, I am trying to fix up the NASTRAN page, since it gave me some real insight into what the program is (I actually was applying for a job and the guy asked me if I had used it.. and I had no idea what is was) and I dont want it to be deleted due to notability. Mind giving me some tips on how to fix it up so those banners for deletion can be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonedrops (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the article is now in great shape - thanks! I've removed the article issues tags. Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Hm... now to see if there are other topics I can fix up! Lonedrops (talk) 17:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Caroline Glick

Not sure whether you've been monitoring the talk page, but there's been a request to unprotect it. Wondered what your thoughts on the matter might be. Shimeru 06:10, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll let an uninvolved admin make any corrections necessary via the {{editprotected}} functionality as it was intended. If the reviewing admin thinks unprotecting is in order, then great. Otherwise, we're dealing with WP:WRONG. Toddst1 (talk)

Hi Todd. Instead of full protection can you modify protection status to semi. This will restore stability and prevent fluctuating IPs from engaging in disruptive editing. Just a suggestion. Your call of course.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied here. Toddst1 (talk) 01:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Purim

Dear Todd,

The reason I did not provide 'support' for that latter fact was because it is mentioned in the hyperlinked article on the doctors' plot, where references are given:

"Initially, thirty-seven were arrested, but the number quickly grew into hundreds. Scores of Soviet Jews were promptly dismissed from their jobs, arrested, sent to GULAG or executed. This was accompanied by show trials and by anti-Semitic propaganda in state-run mass media. Pravda prepared publication of a letter signed by many Soviet notables (including Jews) containing incitive condemnations of the "plot"; however, some notable Jews refused to sign it (general Yakov Kreizer, singer Mark Reizen, writers Veniamin Kaverin and Ilya Ehrenburg, etc.). The letter was never published because of the termination of the campaign soon after[21]. According to Kruschev, Stalin hinted to him to incite anti-Semitism in Ukraine, telling him "The good workers at the factory should be given clubs so they can beat the hell out of those Jews."[22][23]

If you wish I can include a summary of the above information in the Purim article.

I think we just had a case of missed communication.

Have a nice day.

Sagi Nahor (talk) 07:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:V each article must stand on its own with respect to verifiability. Perhaps you misunderstood that, which is possible. However, this is a highly contested area (I have no dog in this race) and extreme claims such as yours require extreme sources. Toddst1 (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Todd

I have applied the relevant references from the doctors' plot article to the Purim article.

If this is insufficient please let me know and I can locate neutral sources to confirm that Stalin's death did indeed save a large number of Jewish lives in the FSU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagi Nahor (talk • contribs) 08:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mini Thin

i am Jake Mays, the manager of hip hop artist Mini Thin, a fan started a page for him and it popped up on our google alerts. he is real and we have real references to his accomplishments. I have tried to get the page edited, but it keeps going back to the old article. funny "vanilla ice" rip on him. but he's not that. he has acheived alot and we would love to have a wiki bio page on him. this all might has well be in Greek to me. i'm trying but it's not working. is there any way to get help from you? i have news articles, reviews of cd's he has been on. a real bio etc... please let me know. thanks for your time.

Jake Mays Manger Hillbilly Murda Records —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.47.109 (talk) 04:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Joni Hendrawan

You just deleted a legitimate article that was referenced (see here. Please reinstate it. Oceanmatrix (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Please respond to this request, or acknowledge that you have received it. Oceanmatrix (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The reference in the article that I deleted did not support the statement about the subject. See WP:BLP. Toddst1 (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Kadima

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately I am being stalled in my attempts to restore NPOV to the article by a couple of editors who have a history of pro-Israel, right-wing bias and block logs to match. If you note the actual change to the article which is in dispute, these two editors are attempting to portray the party as leaning in one particular direction, whilst sources can be found noting that it leans in either (and whilst there are more sources aligned with their POV, I believe it's still an NPOV violation to give this precedence in the introduction). If no action is taken, I'll restore to the NPOV version in the near future. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Why deleted page "Katiyar"

Hello Toddst1

Not sure, why you deleted page "Katiyar" created by me. "Katiyar" is a group of soldiers participated in Indian History. I just started writing the page and had plan to add some more information about the Indian History and their soldiers. I already verified the existance of the page and read the guidelines provided for new wiki writers. Then only I started the page which is explaining about a perticular soldiers group of Indian History.

Looks like, you not even read the article and deleted.I would like to know, on what basis, you deleted the page, even it was not completed and no other page has the same information or reference. Please explain me , what are your criteria of consideration based on those you deleted my page "Katiyar".

Anticipating some positive response.

Regards, SK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smkatiyar (talk • contribs) 14:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I read the article and the article failed WP:CSD#A7 which means there was no assertion of why this subject had any WP:Notability whatsoever. Just because there's a family with that name doesn't mean there should be an article. As a courtesy, I've restored it to User:Smkatiyar/Katiyar where you can work on the article, get some WP:Reliable Sources, proper WP:Footnotes and only then move it back to article space. Toddst1 (talk) 15:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Croatisation

Hi Toddst1, did you fully protected it following my request? Can you restored the section blanked by DIREKTOR? You can easily check is fully sourced, and it's necessary to clearly show there was a clear consensus on it, despite a single user's claim. Thanks in advance. - Theirrulez (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I see your tag says more balkan crapola, so I'm not sure you really look deeper what section exactly was blanked and what contents were "disputed". - Theirrulez (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see any request, I just observed an edit war as I had that page watchlisted. Toddst1 (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was quite sure you protected it after I performed a protection request some minutes before, in fact I wasn't able to undertand why to protect a page just after a section blanking. Now you say it' wasn't due to my request and I feel compelled to ask you if you didn't believe is more reasonable to reintegrate the section blanked, even to let non-partizan users to have an idea to what exactly is that section. I have the page watchlisted too, and watching it deeper is quite easy to understand that everytime the paragraph was deliberately cancelled, it was then restored more sourced and developed. Thanks in advance. - Theirrulez (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You should know by now that I don't take sides in WP:ARBMAC related issues. Toddst1 (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I want to reassure you I don't absolutely mean to ask you to take a side, because I don't stay on any side, and that single paragraph it's not related to any Balkan issue, but just to Italian population in history of WWII.

Anyways, I understand your position and I will leave that famous section waiting in the talk page with its load of sources well shown: I really don't want to be involved in what seems wrongly to be an edit war, but really it's not. Thanks for your efforts. - Theirrulez (talk) 13:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad

Thanks for the fix. — Timneu22 · talk 13:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. It's all good. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Related sniping

Hi,

just for your information, I have absolutely no idea what WP:ARBMAC might be, so this is definitely not "related sniping" (not on my part, at least). cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your answer. I had no idea about this. However, edit wars about the Balkans are not what I seek to obtain. However, they do seem quite frequent, which is why I'd like to restrict my exchanges with some users to a strict minimum and just concentrate on the articles. cheers, Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War

Why was this page deleted? A new summary was put in the Ulysses S. Grant bio article. This was to be an expandible article of Ulysses S. Grant and the Civil War. This section was to have added maps. {Cmguy777 (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)}

It looked like a significant duplication of Ulysses S. Grant and was deleted under WP:CSD#A10. Toddst1 (talk) 19:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The new summary was not an exact duplicate of the old summary. If the summary in the USG bio is compacted, then, the summary currently on the USG bio could be used as a separate article. Would that be acceptable? {Cmguy777 (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)}

Never said it was exact. If it duplicates most of the info, it shouldn't exist. What was your intent? Toddst1 (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If the USG Bio Civil War section is compacted or reduced in size, then the current USG Bio Civil War section could be a seperate article and could be expanded. I am working on the compacted USG Bio Civil War summary and can post here. {Cmguy777 (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)}

Perhaps it would be a good idea if you work both up articles in your userspace and we can move them into article space simultaneously when they're ready. Sound good? I've restored the deleted article to User:Cmguy777/Ulysses S. Grant and the American Civil War. Toddst1 (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

.

Could you unprotect the Bosniaks article? -- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 03:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I've lowered protection so that pending changes must be reviewed. Toddst1 (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Gday Toddst1

Thank you for your feedback. I will look at changing my article so it conforms to Wikipedia guidelines. If you have any suggestions, I would love your advise. Thank you .....simplesimon58 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simplesimon58 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

RfA

Thank you very much for your contribution to my Rfa. I have made a comment about it at User talk:JamesBWatson#Your Request for Adminship which you are, of course, very welcome to read if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

HarrisonIT

Hi Toddst1, I would like to explain you that Harrison was blocked on June 12th, 2010 on it.wiki. That, maybe, may not be clear just reading my answer in his talk page. I agree that his attempt to contact italian users on en.wiki may be inappropriate, but I don't know if it may represent a block evasion. Thanks. --Harlock81 (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I have unblocked. Toddst1 (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

NAS

Thanks for dropping me a link to Wikipedia:NOTNAS. I am sure it contains a lot of useful advice, even though it probably looks cynical to some people. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Darrin McGillis

I have tried to be a good wiki contributor and always polite. I do not know how to handle a user who is hammering me on the Afd page of Darrin McGillis can you give a objective view point and let me know what I am doing right and wrong. I do not want problems with anyone, want peace and harmony. I try and sometime trying is not enough. Thanks for reading.--Dymo400 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Are you aware of this insinuating message? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep. That user has a history of stuff like that. Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the whole thing to ANI. Toddst1 (talk)

• Well, like what I've told to him... I've given him enough rope~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 20:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at her behavior in the ANI thread, I now think it's an issue of competence is required. Toddst1 (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• More like point number 37 of WP:OWB which states that: "When someone screams about "admin abuse", it's most likely true – they're probably abusing admins again. If there's a block involved, expect to see a battalion of sockpuppets in short order, making even more shrill cries of admin wrongdoing." For lack of a better word, her attitude sucks. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I did make a comment. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Sodesune... noted~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You know, I learn more stuff about more shit than I ever expected, doing what I do here on Wikipedia. This is a great example. I learned a new phrase: Sodesune. Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• By now, I gather you have find out that it is a Japanese word (so desu ne) with almost a thousand connotations, which is not entirely bad, eh? =P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 08:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The latest unblock

I want to thank you for your efforts; as you know, I feel the same way as I did the last time this user was unblocked. I'd like to be proved wrong, but I suspect this is just another turn of the wheel. As I just said at ANI, a full and unconditional apology to you would be a good first step. And again, I'd like to be surprised. Jusdafax 22:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's rare to get thanks for this thankless job and more meaningful coming from someone you've worked with. I'm pretty sure this will be the last unblock one way or another. Toddst1 (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It IS thankless and you spent a lot of time on this. In the spirit of starting over I've redacted a couple of my final comments and apologized for them, as they were too strong in the sincere hope that it will set an example for the editor to come here and offer an apology to you. I see it as a crucial step forward. Jusdafax 23:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

• Jus, relax... we have given her enough rope. Make or break, it is her last chance this time. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 08:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant

Where was the USG and the American Civil War article you saved? Here is a sample of the compact summary. This is just text without references. {Cmguy777 (talk) 01:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)}

After the fall of Union Fort Sumter on March 14, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln put out a call for 70,000 volunteers. Grant was initially ignored when he attempted to enlist on George McClellan’s regular army staff, however, he was finally commissioned a colonel of the 21st Illinois in June, 1861, largely impart due to the sponsorship of Illinois Congressman Elihu B. Washburne. Grant turned this unruly regiment into a well trained-trained fighting squad and was promoted Brig. Gen. of Volunteers.

On November 1861 his army attacked Belmont, Missouri. Initially capturing Camp Johnson, Grant’s army was forced to retreat after Confederate reinforcements arrived from the Mississippi River. Grant gained national attention in February 1862 when in collaboration with, Adm. Andrew Foote’s ironclad fleet, Grant advanced his forces against Confederate defenses in Tennessee. When Foote captured Fort Henry, Grant’s army moved overland, defeated the Confederate army, and forced Fort Donelson’s surrender. After the victory Grant was given the nickname “Unconditional Surrender”. After Donelson, Grant was temporarily relieved from command by Henry W. Halleck for going to Nashville without communicating to the war department in St. Louis.

After being reinstated to command Grant moved up the Tennessee River near the Mississippi state line and camped at Shiloh to await for reinforcements from Don Carlos Buell. On April, 6 1862 Grant was surprised by a Confederate attack by Albert Sydney Johnson. Although his army, now called the Army of the Tennessee, fought tenaciously and won the battle the next day, Grant was criticized of leaving the army undefended and was falsely accused of being drunk. Grant was reprimanded again by Halleck and reduced to second in command while the Army of the Tennessee took Corinth, Mississippi. Grant reluctantly stayed in this position until being reinstated to command of the Army of Tennessee in October 1862.

See the archived discussion here. Toddst1 (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

E-mail of user you blocked

Hi Toddst1; Previously the user Mattopia (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mattopia&action=edit&redlink=1) wrote/expanded upon an article back in 2006, namely Amorphous carbon. In it there is a detail that he wrote that i am quite interested in, as it relates to my current research. I realize that you had previously blocked this user, but i would like to know if there was any way of obtaining his e-mail adress so that i can contact him. Thank You Pjbeierle (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

That user has disabled people's ability to send him/her email. Even I as an admin can't do that. I wish I could help you there. Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

What the sniff are you talking about? I did upload 2 pictures and am thinking about whether to add them to an article and explain why they are useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electricity Shocks (talk • contribs) 20:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

CullVernon

I see you have previously warned CullVernon about the partisan bias he's entered into Rand Paul. He's at it again. This time he removed any mention of controversies involving Paul, on the basis that Paul's opponent's wiki page doesn't mention any controversies. I reverted, but I think your help may be needed again. By the way, the controversy section CullVernon tried to blank is well sourced...76.123.241.114 (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Revdel

Missed a revision when you did so. PleaseStand ^(talk) 01:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars

Nice try, but I haven't been active at Nanjing University for 36 h, never broke the 3RR, engage in Talk:University#European origin of the university and actually filed a complaint here 20 min ago. So do your job and Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to like the template but you do have to stop your edit war. You will be blocked if it resumes. That may require another template. Toddst1 (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: Couldn't agree more with Richard. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to yourself? Toddst1 (talk) 18:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I see. Silly me for assuming good faith. You're referring to Dick Cheney in my list of quotations on my user page and you've repeated your wish several more times in your edit summaries. Charming. Toddst1 (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, not mine. I have replied on the ANI. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

About WBU topic ban proposal

Sorry to bug you, but I've raised a procedural point that a wording is needed (and as you are proposer, your view does carry some weight on this issue). I've suggested one wording. Another point has also been raised as to whether you think it should be indefinite or on a specified duration. If you could add your input on these issues, it would be greatly appreciated. :) Cheers, Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for reminding me. - Peducte (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

thank YOU for HELP

To HELP I go now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.88.105 (talk) 19:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Return of the vandal

As you may remember, you blocked me a couple of weeks ago for "edit-warring" regarding the format of a particular link. Unfortunately, the other party involved in this matter has returned and is now making the same edits as before. Would you please do something about this? Obviously I can't do anything because you'll probably block me again, but someone needs to do something to sort this fecker out! – PeeJay 16:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Page semiprotected for now. Let me know if problems spread or continue, I can do a rangeblock. Toddst1 (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It's more than one page, mate. The IP user has been changing many different FIFA articles. A rangeblock would definitely be in order. In the meantime, do I have your permission to revert the user's edits? – PeeJay 20:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't give you permission, but I can do it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Then please do. – PeeJay 00:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Any ideas?

[25]. Tiptoety ^talk 04:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: User:McYel_responds_to_User:Alison.2C_User:Crazycomputers.2C_and_admins

I wanted to let you know that I reopened this ANI thread that you closed recently as a community ban. I am not sure that the consensus is even close to there. I haven't unblocked him as yet but to be honest think it may be nice to do so. James (T C) 05:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Toddst1, please reconsider your admin action here - Alison ^❤ 05:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you are likely asleep (it appears you left shortly after the ban) but do want to let you know I decided to unblock him. The conversation on AN/I is still ongoing and I'm going to be letting them know as well. Part of this was my confusion on whether the ban should have been placed in the first place but it was strengthened by the original person in the vote discussion posting on the users talk page that it was meant as a joke (so we were down to 2 people in an hour). Obviously any admin is free to revert me, I don't see it as wheel waring, and that includes you and I'll state that on AN/I as well. Hopefully we can settle this in the near future (though to be honest I, like Alison, thought it had been settled a while ago :) ). James (T C) 08:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Thanks for taking the initiative there. Toddst1 (talk) 13:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider block of User talk:JonnyQ123

I would ask that you reconsider your block of User talk:JonnyQ123 for edit warring. If the block is preventative and not punative- once the editor recived notice from a third party he stopped edit warring to remove the template and I have no reason to believe that the actions would start again. The editor is participating in the Afd process. Active Banana (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked per request. Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Active Banana (talk) 16:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good laugh

Your collapsing of sections of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rob_Baker_(producer) and the headlines you provided gave me a good laugh, thank you. --Pgallert (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I call it as I see it. That gets me in trouble sometimes. Nothing to get in trouble about here though. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Spain

why should be said everytime when a Spanish citizen is cited, if he or she is Catalan or Basque, that he is that, just after saying that he is Spanish, and why don´t just write his nationality and city of origin, as is common in almost every other situation?

After all, it´s already clearly written on the right side of the page, on the presentation chart, as it occurs with an Italian, British, French, etc.

I´m not trying to twist any reality, rather trying to impede it to be twisted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.229.25 (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Good question for WP:Help Desk. Toddst1 (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Linda Fox-Mellway

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Linda Fox-Mellway. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Susan Braudy

no, im planning to write an article on her, as she has some notability as an author. if i dont do it immediately, i will put her name in the area for requested articles. she is also the name of a character on Curb Your Enthusiasm, which may actually be intentional, but thats pure speculation at this time.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Perla samuel

I put a 'tn' into the {{Help Me}} on User talk:Perla samuel, just to stop it alerting helpers. Looking at the history, I noted you blocked the account, and I see the reasoning. So...well...I'm sure you'll check back on it, and so will I. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  05:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

All good. Thanks for the heads up. I left the tag there since I was signing off for the evening. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

TW Request

Would you please restore TW? I apologized to the editor whose tag I reverted. I explained why I thought it was vandalism, and I accept whatever explanations other gave as to why it was not, but I too deserve the assumption of good faith. It is not as if there is a pattern of improperly reverting vandalism -- not once has anyone ever complained or raised an issue with my use of TW. To the contrary, I have used it responsibly to improve the project. Please see my contributions. This is an isolated incident over which reasonable people can come to differing conclusions. Now I know better than to get in the middle of someone else's tag war. I use TW when patrolling new pages and CSD tagging, copyvio, etc. Please reconsider this in the larger context and restore it. Thank you. Minor4th • talk 08:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I think you've shown sufficient bad judgment and consistent bad faith that I'm going to decline that request for now. Toddst1 (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Just for my own edification, if he wanted to appeal that decision, what would the process be? I have no indication that Minor4th wants to appeal it, I'm just asking about the process, and I mean no offense or slight by my questions. GregJackP (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I know you weren't asking on my behalf, and I would also kind of like to know the answer, but I'm not going to appeal. If Toddst 1 will rest easier at night knowing that I won't use bad judgment to maliciously abuse TW in bad faith to revert non-vandalism, then I'd rather not have the tool. That's too much pressure! Minor4th • talk 21:19, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

• Toddst1 -- just to let you know, I refactored my request and your response to the AN/I thread so discussion can continue in that location if anyone in the community wishes to participate. Thanks. Minor4th • talk 18:16, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Taking it to ANI as you have done is how you appeal it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm losing interest in TW related edits, so I don't really need it now. Minor4th • talk 21:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Tourism in Israel

I made a response at ANI after you put up the resolved template if you have a moment to review it.Cptnono (talk) 01:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the good laugh (redux)

Retrieved from here:

Your collapsing of sections of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rob_Baker_(producer) and the headlines you provided gave me a good laugh, thank you. --Pgallert (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I call it as I see it. That gets me in trouble sometimes. Nothing to get in trouble about here though. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The editor you are commenting about read what was written here and complained to ArbCom. Although we are not taking any action on this one occasion, I'm leaving this note because I'm distinctly unimpressed with the attitude displayed here and at the AfD. Please remember that Wikipedia AfDs and user talk pages can be read by anyone, and are not the place for jokey comments about other editors that do no more than wind them up. New editors, even if they may be going overboard, still need to be treated with respect and not labelled as SPAs until they have been given the chance to expand their editing interests.  Roger Davies ^talk 05:45, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to remove the collapses on that page or edit the captions if you feel it would improve the discussion. If not, good day. Toddst1 (talk) 06:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed the discussion is closed. Toddst1 (talk) 06:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I did not make a joke out of any of this. The person who found it funny did. I called it as I saw it, in line with policy. Toddst1 (talk) 06:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for rollback

I have been editing on Wikipedia for a lot of time as an anonymous user and I have shown a deep understanding of using Twinkle and leaving warnings for people where appropriate. I certainly do know my way around Wikipedia because I am a confirmed user. I know the difference between good and bad faith edits and when to use warnings at the correct time. I have read the guide for Huggle and think it will help me revert more vandalism. I fully understand how to use it. Thanks CuteMice·Talk 17:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done Today is your first day on wikipedia. Please take some time to learn more about our culture and policies before you request this privilege. Toddst1 (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(Re.)user page semi protection

Are logged wikipedians allowed to write then? If your move is for anonimous users only, then it is ok for me... Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 18:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although I can't imagine why you'd want anyone other than yourself editing your user page. Your user talk page remains unprotected. Toddst1 (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah ok.... didn't understand in first place. Thought you were talking about the talk-page also. It's fine for me. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Alex Tweddle

I'll be honest with you dude, I have no idea who Alex Tweddle is or how he could be linked in any way to this IP address. Does this mean he somehow has access to the functions of my Mac (which I find unlikely), or that he is using some kind of IP address re-directing software that has just so happened to throw his bad news my way. I'll level with you, I don't really know much about that sort of thing, so I'd appreciate anything you can offer. Cheers! - Alasdhair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.39.80 (talk) 15:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

My error. Replied on User talk:86.135.39.80. Toddst1 (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's quite alright dude! :) And also a little weird, considering this Mac is less than a year old. It's like a plot from Doctor Who. Thanks for making my day a little more sci-fi! ^_^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.39.80 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Cole Phillips exists

Talk:Cole Phillips is still alive. Could you delete it too? TIA. ----moreno oso (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

You bet. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Toddst1 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Message added 22:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you, a lot of times when a innocent editor gets brought into one of these, they never hear anything that acknowledges that - I've been guilty of that myself. After I was cleared in the SPI, I was left with a bitter taste and realized how important it really is, so I've promised myself to do better. I'm sure that Minor4th will appreciate your comment. I'm also sorry that I wasn't clearer on not asking for an apology. Again, thanks. GregJackP Boomer! 02:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Ewing, III

There's something screwy about the AfD template you added to Robert Ewing, III, and I'm too sleepy to work out what it is. As of a few seconds ago, the link within it to the AfD discussion was red. But yes, the AfD discussion did exist, seemingly with the correct title. I'm baffled. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that before. I can't explain it. Toddst1 (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT

A friend of mine asked me to test this. I am not intentionally doing anything illegal or improper. He said that certain words cause you to be banned. I don't believe it. So here goes.

I hereby declare that I am going to kill 5 Klingons and also sue the Romulan High Command. Testing 0987130498710951 (talk) 03:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Consider yourself banned. Commence self-flagellation now. Don't stop until I tell you so. Toddst1 (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Again

Despite your post and my notification and warning, Rave92 (talk · contribs) reverted all over again, without edit summarys or talk page explanation (diff, Perović article again), and including vast sources removal (diff), POV pushing claiming attitude (diff) and a lot more. As he was informed numerous times, i am afraid that it is time for action. --Tadija^speaks 17:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for returning TW and taking me off the blacklist. I appreciate that. Have a productive wikibreak. Minor4th • talk 22:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding User talk:Tadija

Hi Toddst1,

Half an hour or so ago you blocked a user par WP:ARBMAC, and this user (Tadija) isnow requesting an unblock. Since i am not to familiar with WP:ARBMAC i placed the request on hold and i would like to ask if you could comment on the reason behind the block, and the 1RR restriction. Thanks in advance, and with kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Attacks?

Could you explain what it is that I said that you interpret as an attack? Sometimes it's necessary to be harsh when dealing with unreasonable people, but I don't think anything I said could be considered an attack. Thanks. TJ Black (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, that's certainly an interesting interpretation. But the issue is hardly dead. Not only was a valid complaint ignored for no good reason, it was archived before I had a chance to reply. But the user seems to have stopped on his own accord, as long as he doesn't start again it won't be an issue. Thanks. TJ Black (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

This user appears to be a troll hoping to inflame the situation I am involved in. He created this account yesterday and is already on the noticeboard, inserting himself in disputes. I will not fall for these tactics.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Block

Rather than blocking me, perhaps you should block Ten Pound Hammer for calling edits "crap" and not being able to take a joke.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second. You're allowed to use the term "poppycock" but I can't use the word "nonsense". This looks like a double standard.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 06:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

How often do you use the term "poppycock"?--Lost Fugitive (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Since when is it a personal attack to call a song nonsense?--Lost Fugitive (talk) 06:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Further uncivil behavior from this user here: [26] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Black (talk • contribs) 06:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of trolling. Appears to be attempting to inflame this situation. I will refrain from feeding the troll.--Lost Fugitive (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

My reversion to Trotski

I was working through recent edits made by IP 188.141.15.253, many - although not all - are clearly vandalism. I made the judgement on Trotski that as it is a disambiguation page for a varient spelling of "Trotsky", adding "Trosky" pages was nonsensical. Clearly if disambiguation pages were filled with everything that vaguely sound like something, things would get unmanagable fairly quickly. Nick Cooper (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

TW

TW is not working now but was working this morning. Can you check this for me please? Thanks Minor4th • talk 19:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind -- signed in on a different computer and needed to purge the cache. Minor4th • talk 19:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Independentobservernz

Can I ask you to reconsider this block? I see it as a potential WP:DOLT case about a living person, and had instead protected the article and was asking the editor to explain specifically what was wrong with the material when you blocked him/her. I feel we should give him/her to explain what was wrong first. --Slp1 (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You bet. Will unblock now. Toddst1 (talk) 22:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks muchly!! I appreciate it. --Slp1 (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

In regard to the deletions made to Wikipedia on this subject, it is a DOLT situation. I have requested the page be deleted entirely as it still contains other factual mistakes based on further gossip and innuendo.

Page should be deleted because 1) The three brothers are not particularly famous enough for comments - owning a business is hardly newsworthy. 2) The Banks and Brash connection is not relevant to the article.

Regards, Independentobservernz

User:Satesclop

Hi there TODD, VASCO from Portugal here,

Regarding this user: unlike some i know, he gives himself the correct mark in English. Since he has a level one in the language of this site, why should i risk writing in English and not getting the message accross? Besides, i have already warned an administrator (see here, amongst other topics http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NuclearWarfare&diff=373939034&oldid=373937138#OBVIOUS.21), and i also brought up a discussion at WP:FOOTY (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Autonomous_football_teams).

However, sorry for any incovenience. Site rules are there to be respected (although i kind of like the "be bold" stuff too :)... Attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Pique

First of all, don't template the regulars. Second, I have made exactly three reverts to that article in the last 24 hours, one of which was a reversion of blatant vandalism, which therefore does not count towards the 3RR. – PeeJay 15:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the template. Toddst1 (talk) 15:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read WP:3RR. – PeeJay 15:37, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As I said in the message on your talk page, you don't need to violate 3RR to be blocked for edit warring. As a self-declared regular, you should know this. In addition, warnings are issued to prevent 3RR violations and blocks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Architecture and Interior Design

I really don't think this is bad faith or sockpuppetry, Todd; I think it's somebody who doesn't know what they're doing, and is having trouble making up their mind. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Per your suggestion above, I have deleted the pages with the sock tags. Toddst1 (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

330th Bombardment Group

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

Good afternoon,

It has been a while since you assisted me, but you helped me out in the beginning with the creation of the 330th page.., there is a gentlemen who moved the page I had created and renamed it and now if you search under 330th Bombardment Group you can no longer find my page. He is arguing against renaming it and i am not that skilled to do so.., I am asking assistance to 'undo' what he did as it is not helping matters in the least.

He is less than cordial in assisting me.

I would like my 330th Bombardment Group page renamed back to what it was prior to 12 July 2010. He added chronological mission history which screws up the searches for the 330th.

Please assist.

regards, --B29bomber (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(tpstalker)Todd, I went to look at this and it is a mess. The original article 330th Bombardment Group was proposed for a merge to 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing and closed with no consensus. Then Bwmoll3 moved the article to 330th Bombardment Group - Historical Mission Chronology. There was no redirect left that I could find (I added that, and posted that to the article talkpage). B29bomber then posted a comment on Bwmoll3's talkpage requesting the article be moved back, stating "What did you do to my page?" implying ownership (as he also did above). B29 then moved the 330th Bombardment Group - Historical Mission Chronology article to Fred squawbasker and then to 330th Bombardment Group (VH). My personal view (based on normal WP:MILHIST practices) is that the original article should be merged with the current 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing, but that's neither here nor there at the present. I was going to try and clean it up, but it is beyond me how to approach it - too many problems. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 20:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't this be sorted out with a few well placed redirects? Toddst1 (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought so, but I couldn't get them to take for some reason. I also tried to move the article back to the original title, then to the Historical title, and couldn't get that to work either. Revert and undo similarly failed to work for me. It's probably just that I'm doing something wrong, but I couldn't get anything to work. The other issue is the Fred squawbasker redirect to the 330th Bombardment Group. First, a good deal of the edit history is on the Fred page, and I can't tell if the history is just duplicated or needs to be merged - it looks like there are some distinct entries in both places, and I don't know how to merge that (or even if I am able to). Of course, then the Fred page would need to be deleted also (and I have no clue what Fred has to do with any of this, but it didn't look like it was an article before this). GregJackP Boomer! 22:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I added the redirect from the old '330th Bombardment Group' to go to '330th Bombardment Group (VH)' I do not mind these small edits by some of these people, but what gives someone the arbitrary right to completely move a page with no redirects in mind. This Bwmoll3 is a real pain. Thank you for your assistance. Hopefully this 'fix' fixed this.--B29bomber (talk) 19:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

First off, I apologize to User:B29bomber for distrubing "YOUR" article. However, as I wrote on your talk page, the information you provided is not "your page". Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Indeed, it's an excellent historical mission chronology of the 330th Bombardment Group in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II, but the fact is that the article fails to encapsulate the entire history. Which is why I renamed it as I did and put it in it's proper context in the history section of the current unit's page, which does have a list of the designations of the unit, the assignments, the squadrons, stations and aircraft which is also part of the unit's history. As the 330th Bomb Group is part of lineage and history of the current unit; that is where it was placed. I took a look a it and there is just no way I wanted to edit it. I wouldn't know where to start.

Another fact is that was I renamed it what it was; 330th Bombardment Group - Historical Mission Chronology, a historical chronology of the unit when deployed to the Pacific Theater during World War II. The fact also is that when I moved the article to a new name, a #redirect was left automatically as part of the move. I then repointed the #redirect to the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing page. After B29Bomber left a note on my talk page complaining about the move, I noticed on my watchlist that the 330th Bombardment Group page was blanked by B29Bomber. I saw the blanking and decided to stay out of it; as clearly he was going to do what he wanted and I have no desire to become involved in a silly and pointless edit war. The fact remains that after I renamed "HIS" article, I placed a clear link to the renamed article in the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing page as follows: "For an extended historical mission chronology of the 330th Bombardment Group in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II, see 330th Bombardment Group - Historical Mission Chronology" on t 12:42, 18 July 2010.

It appears that B29Bomber wants "HIS" pages left alone and if anyone in the Wikipedia Community does any sort of constructive editing to "HIS" page, then beware. Quite frankly, the unit is one of dozens of units I've been writing about for the past several weeks and whatever happens with "HIS" is perfectly fine with me, because he's going to do whatever he feels like doing with it no matter what. His writing on my talk page, and his childish whining here makes that perfectly evident. However, I did want to correct the record with regards to my editing of this page and why it was done in the manner in which I did it. Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

In another comment B29Bomber wrote that I was "less than cordial" in my remarks made to him about this. When I went back to read what I wrote, I saw that he deleted my comments from his talk page. I leave it up to you about the cordiality of my remarks, as I've gone back in his history and found my deleted remarks. Bwmoll3 (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

"The information you provided is not "your page". Ref: Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. It's an excellent historical mission chronology of the 330th Bombardment Group in the Pacific Theater of Operations during World War II, but it doesn't include the lineage, assignments, stations and other historical information about the unit. The page you wrote is still there and I did not edit it in any way. It is clearly referenced in the 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing page; the current designation of the unit. Bwmoll3 (talk) 13:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)"

"My reason for renaming the 330th Bombardment Group Page was that each and every time I'd try to link a page to it; it was going to the chronological history page. Which I stated before was well-written and quite comprehensive. However the purpose of the link was to link one of the squadrons; one of the assigned organizations, and other wikipedia pages to it. The page which you contributed is part of the history of the unit, but not the entire history. Which is why I renamed it as I did and put it in it's proper context in the history section of the current unit's page, which does have a list of the designations of the unit, the assignments, the squadrons, stations and aircraft which is also part of the unit's history. As the 330th Bomb Group is part of lineage and history of the current unit; that is where it was placed. Now it's history in the Pacific War is there along with the history of the unit being a heavy bomber training unit; as well as the part it played in the Korean War. Another reason was that I did not want to try and edit the fine page which you created, it being easier to leave it as it was and simply rename it; then link it prominently in the current unit's page. If you know of a better way to encapsulate the unit, then please make things better Bwmoll3 (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)"

I also don't seem to understand the rationale for any of this. It appears that B29Bomber is making up nonsensical pages and acting very childish because I moved "HIS" Page.......

Revision history of Fred squawbasker

1. (cur | prev) 13:27, 21 July 2010 B29bomber (talk | contribs) (42 bytes) (←Redirected page to 330th Bombardment Group (VH)) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 13:19, 21 July 2010 B29bomber (talk | contribs) m (69 bytes) (moved 330th Bombardment Group to Fred squawbasker) (undo)
3. (cur | prev) 12:57, 21 July 2010 GregJackP (talk | contribs) (69 bytes) (add redirect) (undo)
4. (cur | prev) 12:42, 21 July 2010 B29bomber (talk | contribs) (empty) (←Blanked the page) (undo)

(cur | prev) 12:43, 18 July 2010 Bwmoll3 (talk | contribs) (45 bytes) (merged into 330th Aircraft Sustainment Wing page) (undo)

Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Mate, Plenty of people with good intentions have edited the 330th BG's page over the last couple of years. No one has taken it upon themselves to be so bold as to rename the entire page. You are above the rest of us.

Folks, I'm moving this discussion from my talk page to Talk:330th Bombardment Group (VH) where it really belongs. Please continue it there. Toddst1 (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2010 (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.

Thank you

I'm so glad this is over. Thank you. Architecture and Interior Design (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Triumph Spitfire

You have recently reverted my change to the production number in the above article. You have actually reverted it to a previous recent change made by 96.41.156.173 who himself altered it from the original cited number on 21 July without changing the citation. The number originally quoted was 45,763. All bit one source I have looked at quotes 45,753 which is what I assumed the last editor had intended but I have just checked the Club Triumph website and they quote 45,573 so I am no longer sure what is correct. I do not have a copy of the cited book so cannot check that. The original citation is also slightly odd as it quotes page 187 for a whole string of facts which surely can't be correct. So, the article either needs reverting further back and/or someone to check the original citationMalcolma (talk) 14:17, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I will self-revert. I have a copy of the book somewhere (as I originally cited it). I'll try to dig it up, but until then I'll leave your #s. Toddst1 (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly Graham Robson's 2006 book "A to Z of British Cars 1945-1980 gives the production figure for the Mk I as 45,753. The rest of the figures he gives agree with the article except for the 1500 when he gives 91,137. Club Triumph agree with the MK2,3 and IV figs so at least we have some agreement but say 95,829 for the 1500 which agrees with the article figure but not Mr Robson.

We seem on safe grounds for all except the Mk I and the 1500 and I have no idea who is right.Malcolma (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Right on. Toddst1 (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Mbz1's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IP

Hello Todd, thanks for the comments on my talk page. I did think it was vandalism by the IP and I've not been around much in the last few days but today I did notice that the IP has earned another warning: [27]. When I templated him, I had looked at his other contribs and he seemed to be engaging in vandalism. I removed the template but I didn't apologize as I don't think he has the best of intentions here. Hope that's all right with you. Thanks.Malke2010 22:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

All good. Thanks for the follow up. Toddst1 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:WindarProd/Appeal discussion

Hey Todd, I've received some appeals related to a block you performed against WindarProd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Your input on the above-linked page would be appreciated. Thanks, --Chris (talk) 01:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Toddst1,

many thanks for deleting a recent disgusting malicious article about me. it was archived under "dominic di rollo" this was a nonsense article and it has caused me some problems. however the contents of the article are still available to see on googles cache when you search "dominic di rollo". i have tried to remove these using googles tools but it is denied. it says the webmaster has not applied a "robots.txt" file or meta tags which would enable them to remove it from search results. can you do this for me? and also how can i stop further articles beinf posted. is there some way to block the name dominic di rollo or domenic di rollo from wikipedia. i am not famous, i am just an average guy and do not want to be on wikipedia.

many thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medchir (talk • contribs) 14:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

malicious article

Dear Toddst1,

many thanks for deleting a recent disgusting malicious article about me. it was archived under "dominic di rollo" this was a nonsense article and it has caused me some problems. however the contents of the article are still available to see on googles cache when you search "dominic di rollo". i have tried to remove these using googles tools but it is denied. it says the webmaster has not applied a "robots.txt" file or meta tags which would enable them to remove it from search results. can you do this for me? and also how can i stop further articles beinf posted. is there some way to block the name dominic di rollo or domenic di rollo from wikipedia. i am not famous, i am just an average guy and do not want to be on wikipedia.

many thanks for your help

if you would like to contact me, my e mail is domenicdirollo@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medchir (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's a tough one. I think I have to refer you to the Wikimedia foundation on that. The email address is info-en-q@wikimedia.org. I wish I could do more, but I have limited tools as a volunteer. Toddst1 (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Conflict resoltuion.

You were accurate, my article post of Pelan Lateef has no meaningfulness. Delete the page entirely because until Pean's famous that article shouldnt be up there and I sincerely appologize and hope there can be an understanding to this matter as it will not occur once more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ppswe11 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about IP block

Hi Toddst1... I noticed you reverted this edit from IP editor 89.214.216.75 on WT:ACN as vandalism, and I would like to ask what makes the admittedly harshly worded criticism of ArbCom vandalism? I also note in looking at the IP's contributions that it has made 5 edits and is less than 2 hours old, and yet has copped a 1 week ban for being disruptive. The edits to confirmation bias aren't obvious vandalism either, and the IP has only a single talk page warning. Yet, you have also instituted protection on the article for vandalism. Is there something I am missing? Please explain. EdChem (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You have a point about the edits to confirmation bias not fitting the definition of WP:VAN. However they are disruptive, removing citations and cited info as well as edit warring. The ACN comment was nothing but disruptive. I noted the block was for disruption in the block log. However, your comments about the length of the block are spot on. I have shortened the block. Toddst1 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering, I was much more concerned about the interpretation of WP:VAN and am pleased to hear that my understanding of the policy is closer to yours. Regards, EdChem (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Right on. Toddst1 (talk) 13:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Actually, Bsadowski1 has posted to ANI a few times. [28] [29] [30] [31] [32]. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for that. The search box appears to be broken on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I use a monobook script that places a search box in the history of a page. Inputting the username of someone and pressing "Isolate history" brings up all of that users edits to that page. Here's the script

importScript('User:Ale_jrb/Scripts/userhist.js');  //[[User:Ale_jrb/Scripts]]

The Thing // Talk // Contribs 22:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow - super useful. Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've posted an answer to your RfA question

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Joe_Decker#Questions_for_the_candidate.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks, that was an interesting and somewhat challenging question! --j⚛e decker^talk 19:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I've encountered more stuff like that as an admin than I ever wanted to. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I had my first encounter with something like that a few weeks ago, and it was disturbing to me, as near as I can tell, it was a threat against the article subject's children, complete with the physical locations of the children. No matter what happens with the RfA, I'd greatly appreciate (now, or after the RfA), any guidance you could give. --j⚛e decker^talk 21:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have the common sense and responsibility down. What I do is I usually prepare an email that is a version of User:Toddst1/TOV with details spelled out. Then I call the local or state/provincial authorities or if it's a federal thing (threat against elected official or candidate) I'll go the FBI tips web site. They usually ask for something concrete and I offer to email or fax (I work out of my home office) the details that I've prepared. I always drop a note to the Foundation in the process.

The only law enforcement agency that wasn't extremely grateful was the one time I contacted the West Virginia State Police. The FBI usually responds by phone within 10 minutes to stuff on their tip site. The down side, is it usually takes an hour or so to get them off the phone. I've been amazed with how may officers have followed up with me telling me details of their investigations and the results. It's truly the most important stuff I will ever do here.

BTW, I'm looking forward to having you as a fellow admin. Toddst1 (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm starting a link page under my userpage for resources I might want in the future, I hope you won't mind that I've linked your TOV, that's really well done. --j⚛e decker^talk 09:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

AIV for 82.32.149.22

Hello. Thanks for looking at the AIV for 82.32.149.22 (talk · contribs) regarding List of Disney references in Enchanted amongst other pages. You stated "not enough recent activity". If you could reconsider, that would be swell as this editor is making multiple edits per day that are requiring reverts. We've requested the page be semiprotected, but was told that since it was a single editor that was causing disruption that it was a better case for AIV. Thanks for looking. SpikeJones (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As they're not currently active, I can't block. However this might help. Toddst1 (talk) 23:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thx for that (which, frankly, was what was originally requested). The last time we had the page semi'd, the same user came back afterwards..which is standard practice. If it happens again, we'll go through the rigamarole...rigamoroll...rig-a-ma-roll...steps again. Cheers.SpikeJones (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Block of Boogerboydan

Boogerboydan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Hello, this user is requesting an unblock, and I am unable to find anything in the username policy that I interpret to prohibit this name. For my benefit, as well as his, would you mind explaining the block further? Thanks, --Chris (talk) 03:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've replied on User talk:Boogerboydan and unblocked with comments. Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. I didn't want to unilaterally unblock in case I'd missed something obvious. :) --Chris (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Consider this your warning about disruptive and escalating behavior. I was not even close to 3RR nor anything close to resembling edit warring as I have changed the particular piece of information less than anyone else. Please do not "warn" people for such things to try and embarress them on their talk pages, in fact it is within my rights to now inform you that you are not to contact me on my talk page again, if you do I will bring this to the wikittiquette noticeboard for harrassment. Thank you and please do not bother me again.Camelbinky (talk) 16:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You were warned and I have brought you to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, you may respond there. Further communication on my talk page will bring you to WP:AN/I. Please read WP:Harrassment.Camelbinky (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Angelina Musik

This is my first attempt to create a biographical page. I have articles by others who have written about me. And many quotes as well about the work I have done. http://AngelinaMusik.com - you can review the reviews and quotes here. Should I pull from those articles and reference them in the 'Angelina Musik'. MusikComp (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Toddst1 (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the creators blanking of the page [33], I have nominated the page for speedy deletion under "Author requests deletion" - in reviewing the history it appears that you also made a few minor contributions and rephrasings. If you wish to contest the speedy deletion, please feel free. Active Banana (talk) 18:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for granting me the rights. I will certainly try to live up to the appropriate standards! Active Banana (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm confident you will do so. I'm looking forward to discussing an RFA down the road. Toddst1 (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

AN/I again

Well, welcome to AN/I again for your rude and disruptive behavior in stifling discussion.Camelbinky (talk) 20:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick FYI

You awarded Proudfoot (talk · contribs) rollback rights. He seems very active, however, he also seems to dispense warnings and templates at higher levels than warranted, with no explanation, and has numerous complaints for harrassing new editors with no communication, explanation or replies. I've checked his history, and he mainly acts like a cop with no explanation to the person he perceives as "violating". It is discouraging to be a new editor thinking this is collaborative then have a guy like this swoop in with tags and no explanation. I wonder how many editors gave up due to this treatment? You personally seem to have more of an assume value approach, and at least train newbies and give explanations so we can learn. I don't care, and have no opinion about what to do about it, but wanted to let you know in case this guy is on a track to become an admin, since you seem to be a supporter. Phoenixthebird (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the right user? I see Proudfoot (talk · contribs) with only 2 edits. Toddst1 (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I should have been more specific with a link: Todd Actual Rollback guy. I don't want to cause the guy trouble, but he is pretty aggressive with no explanations, and seems to weild a mighty keyboard. He's sent me warnings and reverted stuff, which I have worked out with the other editors involved, but was surprised he joined in with his 2c dispensing warnings and threats which seem over the top, especially since I'm a raw newbie, without even knowing me or researching the thread, ANI or other side of the story. I've backed off doing bios until the sting wears off, as I was accused of all kinds of promotion, being some kind of PR type or even company, etc. even though I had no knowledge of the subjects (people) I was working on. Several other editors asked me to do a new bio on a Chess Informant editor, but I'm staying away from bios for now! As an academic, I didn't realize that admins here have to cope with a bunch of advertising types, and the guys I started bios on are all academics with whom I have no relationship. The editor/admin/rollback guy above does no educating, and his responses to other requests for reasoning seem to go unanswered. Phoenixthebird (talk) 13:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Eugeneacurry

Do you have any objections to my "unresolving" the thread? I know it's snow territory at the moment, but it seems fair to give enough time for anyone who might want to defend him to come forward. – iridescent 22:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Good to hear from you, btw. Toddst1 (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

novice request for reporting vandalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nontrinitarianism#Vandalism_by_User:Jeffro77

I am a novice here, so I'm asking if you could report this through the proper/appropriate channels.

THanks, 208.87.197.82 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear that the edit you refer to fits the definition of WP:Vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This anonymous user, who I believe to be User:GabrielVelasquez, clearly has a vendetta. The alleged "vandalism" was my correction of a typographical error from "tracks" to "tracts".--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

JahnTeller07

Hi Toddst1. I wanted to drop you a note because I noticed a mismatch between the block notice on JahnTeller07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s talk page (which says indefinite) and the block log which says 2 weeks. I assume 2 weeks was indeed the intended timeframe, and have said so to the editor but wanted to double check that you didn't intend to hit indef and accidentally hit 2 weeks. Cheers, Syrthiss (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I meant to change it to indef. Thanks for pointing it out. Toddst1 (talk) 16:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a prob, thanks. Syrthiss (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Alice Ayres

Oh, I was just trying to get that page back to an earlier state. Amandajm (talk) 16:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC) There is a silly bit of vandalism, (not to mention a silly bit of bloodymindedism) left behind. Amandajm (talk) 17:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are aware...

that it is TFA on the main page right? (Don't get me wrong, I think it (and all TFA articles) should be (semi) protected) but I just wanted to note it here in case you weren't aware. Cheers, Tommy! [message] 19:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As you haven't edited since applying protection and these concerns were raised, I've taken the protection setting down a couple of notches, but left some protection as a compromise. You have permission to undo my action at any time. DrKiernan (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm cool with changing protection and all. What is TFA? Toddst1 (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

TFA. Wikipedia's way of keeping new blood circulating, by ensuring that anyone putting in the effort to get an article up to a reasonable quality is then subjected to such a tedious time reverting vandals that they don't come back for six months. – iridescent 20:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Had no idea. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

User: Gun Powder Ma has repeatedly forum shopped by accusing me at different forums of the same contente dispute after getting a negative result at multiple forums here, here, here and here. Is this an example of WP:FORUM SHOPPING that should not be allowed? As I see you have interacted with this editor in the past and am an Admin, I hope you can help clarify wiki's policies on this matter. I acknowledge I am currently in a content dispute with said user, but I wish to know whether this kind of forum shopping should be allowed. This forum shopping was repeated in a previous instance 1 and to me at least it seems increasingly disruptive.Teeninvestor (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's possible. Two of them aren't obvious to me. Toddst1 (talk) 04:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

At two of them he raised the content dispute, and at 2 others he accused me of disruptive editing in relation to the content dispute(through misrepresentation of diffs) so it is quite similar.Teeninvestor (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Then in that case, perhaps you should raise this at WP:ANI. I haven't sorted through the issue, but that would be the venue to raise it. Toddst1 (talk) 14:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocking Phoon

Hey todd,

I'd really prefer if you lifted that block. I think the AN/I section was unfounded (As my comments make clear), but we can't be to hard on some guy for being heated he didn't get the response he wanted. I think a better path would be to let this peter our naturally. If it doesn't and tomorrow or the next day he is banging the drum, then we can call it gaming. But I think it is fairly harmless at this stage. Protonk (talk) 05:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Done per request. See User talk:Daven200520 Toddst1 (talk) 05:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice, I was going to say something too. Good block but better to give them a second chance here, in my opinion. --John (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall now take time to applaud you on your prescience. Protonk (talk) 07:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have dropped teh stick, at least for now. Prolly just in time, too ;) Jack Merridew 08:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Toddst1. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Phoon (talk) 07:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable. Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Catsquisher

Hello Toddst1, I have reviewed the unblock request of Catsquisher (talk · contribs), and have placed it on hold for the time being, as I am inclined to grant it, but would appreciate a comment from you before taking further action. Regards, decltype (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup - all good. Thanks for the courtesy. Replied at User talk:Catsquisher. Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite all good. Your comparison between my username and "child-molestor" was highly inappropriate and offensive. Consider such an association made towards you. In the future please choose your words more carefully. --Catsquisher (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're so offended, change your offensive name. Toddst1 (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how hostility is constructive. I simply asked you to try a little empathy and take more care in your posts. --Catsquisher (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any hostility. Toddst1 (talk) 04:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to believe it a coincidence that you submitted my user name to WP:UAA for reblock review within 30 minutes of my request that you take more care. In the context of your other comments and actions taken in regard to my Wikipedia account, I smell hostility. Perhaps I am confusing it with overzealousness. --Catsquisher (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is because the user name is offensive. GregJackP Boomer! 04:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I like his name its very original. --Cat strangler (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice WP:BAIT. Bye. Toddst1 (talk) 06:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently (probably inevitably) some Wikipedia administrators stubbornly see only in black and white and are unwilling, or unable, to reconsider a prejudice under a new light. However, I’d like to think that those administrators use Wikipedia for a different reason than the vast majority of people who use the site. --Catsquisher (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please explain how the comment of mine you recently deleted constitutes trolling. The criteria posted here are “inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages” of which mine was not (unless you consider stating an opinion you disagree with synonymous with trolling). Nor was it, as described here a “deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia.” My post was directed at my argument that some of your actions have been inconsistent with Wikipedia policies, including the assumption of good faith and editors' ability to create content. Ironically, your comments with regard to my user name qualify as trolling, but I have not removed any of your comments. Deletion of my earlier post further attests to my general point regarding your fidelity to Wikipedia policy. I would appreciate your restoration of the comment. --Catsquisher (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

RFPP

Mind going through there? There are a few old entries. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 01:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Gotta run soon though. Toddst1 (talk) 01:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're still there, could you also speedily delete David Kempf? Totally non-notable and vandals are attacking it. Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 01:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Allmightyduck  What did I do wrong? 01:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Harassment

Can you please stop stalking me and harassing me? Should I cite some wiki policies for you to remember that that is against the rules. I found you comments on my page quite irrelevant. Thanks. --Phoon (talk) 02:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The user has been on wikipedia for 3 years and appears to be accelerating toward banishment. He would be well-advised to do something else for a few days. (It has worked for me!) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugs is right, Toddst1 you need to go do something else for a few days. --Phoon (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That comment reaffirms what I just said to you on your talk page. Walk away for awhile. Wikipedia will still be here when you get back, barring a nuclear holocaust, in which case wikipedia will be the least of our concerns. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Daven, I'm pretty sure Bugs wasn't talking about me. Toddst1 (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

More harassment?

Hello Todd, this guy is at it again even after being told by you to drop the stick. Methinks Bugs might be interested too, be nice! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Easyblock acting up?

Just noticed this block notice but the user was never blocked. Just a script error?  7  05:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

...also [34] and [35] ... strange  7  05:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I can only assume that I was momentarily stupid. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I've blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 06:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - was not trying to dump the work on you - just wondering if there was a reason or problem that should be looked at... cause there are others (many?). I'm just on the B's and here are some more User talk:Aardvarkfootwearuk, User talk:AlliancePreciousMetals, and User talk:Buy to let property ... I'm going through a user category with a formatting script in place to show users who aren't blocked. Are you okay if I just block them as I find them?  7  06:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I've blocked them too now. Please let me know if you find any more that I've fouled up. Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Clarion Alley

An article that you have been involved in editing, Clarion Alley, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarion Alley. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Peter G Werner (talk) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

[36] Did you mean to remove the topic I started? Justin talk 19:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, no! Very sorry about that. Toddst1 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK no worries, mistakes happen. Justin talk 20:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately removing it seems to have encouraged him to continue to be disruptive.  :( Justin talk 23:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To keep you apprised

Hello Toddst1, This is for your information and just to keep you apprised. I hereby inform you that in my communication to Jimmy Wales and ArbCom pertaining to getting my block removed and further for punitive action against the dishonest administrators (including yourself )who have blocked me, which is still pending and I am awaiting a response from Jimmy Wales and ArbCom, I have referred to your conduct. I am reproducing the latest email communication sent to Jimmy Wales dated 9 June 2010 20:48 titled "Conduct of Toddst1" hereunder:

Conduct of Toddst1

In my previous correspondence with Jimmy Wales and Arbitration Committee (ArbCom), notably Roger Davies who has been replying purportedly on behalf of ArbCom, Roger Davies has been pretending that my correspondence has been pertaining to issues pertaining content dispute when it has definitely been regarding conduct , where as Jimmy Wales has evading the profound and pertinent issues pertaining to Conduct that I had raised and harping on content issues when I had specifically contacted him only on the issue of conduct and he apropos the issue of content, he has ignored my suggestion that since the issue of content dispute pertains to law, the issue may be placed before a legal panel and he does not reply. There is a conspiracy of silence!

But now coming to conduct of Toddst1, He has stated, "You have not been allegedly blocked, you have in fact, been blocked. Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address your behaviour. You've had enough appeals here and you have now lost your ability to edit this page”. He is indulging in misrepresentation and lies. I am definitely blocked. It is the reasons given for the block that is alleged. He is lying when he says that in my messages contesting the block, I have not addressed my behaviour. I had explicitly inter alia stated that “I was in the midst of my endeavour for consensus when Abecedare blocked me”. “I as a Lawyer myself, was planning to get in touch with Wikipedian lawyers like NJA for their third opinions but before I could do that *I have been blocked by Abecedare and these constant blocks are hindering my endeavour for consensus”. “I have already made it clear that I was willing to not insist that the article should state that the pass is in Kashmir provided Fowler&fowler and RegentsPark also do not insist in stating that the pass was allegedly in “Xinjiang region of the People’s Republic of China”.

Further he says “You've had enough appeals here” . My earlier message was allegedly declined not on merits because my earlier “request” was allegedly “far too verbose”. Besides, even in the previous 1 month block dated 27 July 2009 , I had asked Toddst1 to “ Please pin point the exact nature of my disruption, and I will do what is necessary on my part to take remedial measures” and “I will also attempt to look for some mediation or third opinions first as suggested by User:Lifebaka” . But he did not, and he willfully ignored and evaded the issue and now he again states, that “Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address your behaviour”. How can such a despicable perverted behaviour be countenanced? I demand that you take action against him.

If FisherQueen says, “ You were offered a fairly reasonable condition for your return” or “getting consensus before making changes is actually standard practice in controversial articles”, then the “fairly reasonable condition” should be applicable to both (all) the parties and “getting consensus before making changes is actually standard practice in controversial articles” should also be applicable to both the parties. What does she mean when she says, “You've given a lot more information that I needed in this request”, or “I didn't read most of that”? She is lying. She has not just read all that I had stated and she has also perfectly understood what I had stated. Just because she very well knows that what ever I had stated therein is perfectly true and she cannot refute it, she is making such statements. I cannot give her information in a platter which is tailor made to suit her whims and fancies! I give information which is relevant to me pertaining to the true reasons for my block and if she is not interested, then she should just not interfere and let some honest administrator to deal with my contest.

Toddst1 has not just removed my ability to contest the block for false reasons. He has also removed my ability to edit my own discussion page. This show how much prejudiced and mala fide his action is. I will pin point the reason why he removed even my right to edit my own page. It is because of the new subsection “Basis” that I created which angered and irritated him! I demand that I be given a chance to contest the block in the manner Ottava Rima was given. I am not necessarily stating that he, i.e. Ottava Rima was given a fair chance. But he was the only one to have the guts to challenge RegentsPark, and all of us know what happened to him! If you are going to not give me a chance to disprove the statements of RegentsPark and his colleagues, rather than making unilateral and arbitrary unsubstantiated prejudged statements like, “However, the evidence you have provided tends to confirm that you edited outside policy; were reasonably blocked for it; and rejected a good faith offer of conditional unblocking. I have little more to add, I'm afraid”, I will have to do what is necessary to expose you. Your article on ArbCom states that, “A statistical study published in the Emory Law Journal indicated that the Committee has generally adhered to the principles of ignoring the content of user disputes and focusing on user conduct.”

Why don’t you just confess that Wikipedia has a policy to support the Chinese and has a bias in favour of the Chinese on the issue of Chinese territorial claims in India and for that reason, I just had to be necessarily removed and the allegations of disruption are just a pretext! Your appointing the first ever Indian Board member is not at all going to change all that. The issue is not just about the Hindutash pass in Kashmir. It is also for example about my contribution in inter alia the Aksai Chin article where in I had added immense information which are neither my original research nor my point of view but are extracts or quotes from acclaimed research books and supported by verifiability which are not being retained by the coterie who want the article to be in their preferred version. The POV version of the article refers to Arunachal Pradesh which, but for the fact that Arunachal Pradesh like Aksai Chin are both parts of India, has nothing to do with Aksai Chin in order to serve the ulterior purpose of the racket involved. Hindutashravi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.55.185 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. I confess. Toddst1 (talk) 21:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The discussion is here [37]. Kindzmarauli (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Best tourist destinations of pakistan

This page is a important page for Pakistani people because it tells us the information that our media doesen't tells us and it shows the inner Pakistan —Preceding unsigned comment added by San andrew (talk • contribs) 22:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Crypto++ deleteion

Hi Toddst1,

Thanks (I think?). Anyway, I'd like to work towards getting the article up to Wiki standards.

Crypto++ has a rich history like OpenSSL, and longevity unlike Botan and TrueCrypt. Is there an appropriate subsection for those interested in Crypto++? You'll have to excuse my ignorance - I can't tell what the article is missing that other popular libraries, such as OpenSSL, TrueCrypt, Botan, Boost, etc, have.

Jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloader (talk • contribs) 02:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Removing "non-notable" usages from disambiguation pages

Please do not remove entries from disambiguation pages simply because the usage doesn't have its own article, as you seemed to be doing at Quest (disambiguation). It is perfectly okay to include usages that don't have their own articles, as long as there's a linked article with some information about that usage. See MOS:DABMENTION. Propaniac (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Didn't know that. I do now. Thanks for the heads up. Toddst1 (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Regret

Hey Toddst1, Please accept my apology. I didn't help the situation by pushing back so hard. Cheers, --Catsquisher (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I could have used a lighter touch too. Toddst1 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Banned username: JetskiTradeCenter

Hi Toddst1,

Why did you blocked my name JetskiTradeCenter? I used that name for nearly two years on this wikipedia, and suddenly you block me? Peekarica (talk) 22:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Your first contribution was 4 May 2010. You've made 5 contributions on two different articles, one of which is an unreferenced WP:NN fictional vehicle. What's the issue? Toddst1 (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Once I saw on this wiki that there was an article about an fictional ship in a game. Also I wasn't done at the moment you blocked me from wikipedia, but how many chance there is that the article will meet the end? Peekarica (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You can still establish WP:Notability of the ship by adding WP:References from WP:Reliable Sources. Toddst1 (talk) 01:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarence John Laughlin: An Artist with a Camera

Hi, You deleted this article as a copyright violation. Could you please tell me what source(s) this article was a copied from? VernoWhitney (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently this one. Mea culpa. Toddst1 (talk) 14:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking into it. Cheers! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad warning?

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

This is putting in junk, which fits my definition of vandalism. Was it severe? No. Should it be condoned? No. Should warning over it earn an apology? Not a chance. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Continued discussion on User talk:Trekphiler where it belongs. Toddst1 (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2010 (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.

Speedy deletion

I did not remove the speedy deletion tag from Clarion Alley. I added a hang on tag. It looks like you may have removed it yourself. Also, it was a brand new article when you first put that tag on, and the change you made by adding the deletion tag caused me to lose a bunch of edits and have to redo them. You might consider this advice: Special:Newpages logs new pages as they are created. It is advisable to patrol new pages from the bottom of the log: pages only stay in the queue for 30 days (720 hours), and there can be a considerable backlog. Working on the backlog eliminates complaints from editors that you tagged their page for deletion only two minutes after its creation. This should give the creating editor enough time to improve a new page before a patroller attends to it, particularly if the patroller tags the page for speedy deletion. Tagging anything other than attack pages, copyvio, vandalism or complete nonsense only a few minutes after creation is not likely to be constructive and may only serve to annoy the page author. And remember - if you don't click the 'patrolled' link, the article will remain in the 'unpatrolled' queue.

thanksCleshne (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Cleshne.Toddst1 (talk) 02:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Please help with vandalism

User:81.226.72.209 is vandalizing Great Divergence repeatedly and is the sockpuppet of a banned editor. Please block him, thanks.Teeninvestor (talk) 13:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor and Gun Powder Ma

I was just about to start a request for an interaction ban between these two when I saw you blocked Teeninvestor - which I think was a good call (having dealt with him in the past over problems with original research, sources, etc has been no fun). Do you think such a ban would help here? And if so, shall I wait 48 hours? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

And also missed the voluntary interaction restriction on Teeninvestor. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope this works out. If not, there will be additional block(s) coming rather quickly and heavily. This nonsense has to stop. Toddst1 (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban made bilateral and permanent

I request that the above ban should be made bilateral/permanent after my 1 month's probation. This would mean that he would not edit articles I heavily edit, and vice versa. Also to draw to your attention another issue, I was reading economic history of China (pre-1911) today and made a tiny copyedit 1 before I realized I wasn't supposed to edit it. I'm telling you about this in case you think I was going to edit war or something.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Request denied. I will point out that your question comes very close to violating your restriction.Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

On request

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

Sigh...

[38]. I'm just going to remove his page from my watchlist, but you may or may not care to re-add the template. I'm not sure what the policy there is.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Hardy bucks

i thought you deleted this page , does its success mean you were wrong to delete it?? should you now apologise for doing so?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminati16 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You are misinformed. I never deleted the page. [39] Please check the snarky attitude. Toddst1 (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Teeninvestor, Gun Powder Ma & Chinese economic reform

Hi, I began GA review of the above article without first checking if there is an edit war (my mistake). I am new to reviewing, and noticed you banned the two above people (who hold different views regarding the above article) from talking about each other. (My idea was to mediate some kind of consensus). I think I am bit over my head on this issue since I just write new articles or edit content and only recently decided to assist with reviews because of the backlog. I would like to hear your suggestion/advice as to what to do regarding the above article GA application. Thanks in advance. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've never dealt with a GA, so I don't think I have much advice. Plus the fact that I'm barely checking WP this week.

However, Teeninvestor has exhibited quite a few serious problems over the past few months which cannot be overlooked. If it means delaying the GA review, so be it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Besides the edit war, the references need a much, much closer examination from me. Your advice is sound. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Rollback#User:Cyberia23

User:Cyberia23, whom you removed rollback from back in Nov 2009 has requested the right again. Your thoughts would be appreciated. Cheers, FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Given the responses now, I'm satisfied that he has learned the lesson, if you want to check back there. Jujutacular ^talk 20:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with you?

"Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Child prodigy. Thank you. Toddst"

I edited in Paul Morphy in said page as he is widely regarded as the chess prodigy, and he was an undisputed child prodigy.

1. It was not in any way poorer referenced than what was there already. I merely changed the name to something that was actually correct. 2. Living persons? He died 120 years ago.

Editoror (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Editoror

Which sockpuppet were you using? You've never edited that article. Toddst1 (talk) 05:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Now there was a Kodak moment! Luckily, child prodigy is a relatively low-traffic article, so I suppose he's talking about this,[40] from three months ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Yup, that's the one. I edited in Morphy instead of Judit for various (good) reasons. I didn't use a sockpuppet, I didn't have an account at that time. Why I received that message from you, I don't know. Editoror (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)Editoror

See WP:V, WP:Edit summary and WP:Civil. Toddst1 (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Dj pup dawg

hi todd, my name is pamela.... email is pamela_lockett@ymail.com

sorry to bother... but im not sure what to do... i'm trying to enter this page to link to the radio station I work for WJMN... but im not sure how to add references to the page, of different articles talking about Dj pup dawg. I'm also not sure how to put hangon on the top of the page so it doesn't get deleted just yet! Please help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pup Dawg (talk • contribs) 06:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC Teeninvestor

Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Jasmere.com

You nominated Jasmere.com for speedy deletion, and I deleted it. However, following discussion with the author and the start of a deletion review I have restored the article. I am by no means convinced the article deserves to stay, but I have decided that, in the light of debate about it, it would be better to allow a chance for discussion if it is to be deleted. You are, of course, free to start an AfD if you like. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the head up. Here we go again: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmere.com (2nd nomination) Toddst1 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do not block my external link

I am a museum educator. The site is educational only. It is directly related to several topics on historic art techniques and we want to share the information. Thats all. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbcennini (talk • contribs) 06:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

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

Okay, I started that AN/I thread we were talking about. I wish to determine what the limits are in admin removal of rollback. Weigh in at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Guideline_for_removal_of_rollback.3F. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Beaufort Sister Cities on Beaufort, NC Wikipedia entry

The link you have posted for Beaufort Sister Cities is no longer maintained. It is a dead link!!! Sister Cities now uses the blog site I posted for its official site! http://beaufortsistercities.blogspot.com/ I am Chair of Beaufort Sister Cities, Beaufort, NC174.106.145.61 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC).

Proprietors of the Beverly Cotton Manufactory

You have deleted a page without allowing me time to add hangon to the page. I was going to add further information to it! Can you please restore it so that I may add more info on it? Silivrenion (talk) 14:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, nevermind. I restored it myself. Next time, please don't be so speedy with your deletion. Silivrenion (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Merge / Proprietors -> BCM

I've added a response. If you care to see it, check out Talk:Beverly Cotton Manufactory Silivrenion (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Speed Tag on Cable Cable

It's a Cable company that serves people of Southern Ontario. How does it qualify under A7 is beyond me. The article clearly says its importance.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You are confusing importance with WP:Notability. See Wikipedia:CORP#Decisions_based_on_verifiable_evidence. No notability was asserted. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No heading

Ummm....while you are at it..please request that management at Wikipedia remove my page, discussions etc...I am done with even trying to understand this place...I will neve come back..and would hope instead of blocking me...you remove my account outright....kapesh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZEST (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Newbie biting

This is silly and probably falls under newbie biting. The Reference Desk is out of the article namespace and is a place for people to post questions. They posted a question. There is no conflict of interest. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

That was humor. You may have heard of it. It was in response to this AIV report. Toddst1 (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Uh, some humor. You say you've "warned" the user about a spurious report, then you post a nonsensical warning on their talk page, all of which involving a newbie? Hilarious!

But in all seriousness, it was not the right thing to do, so I removed it and put an honest-to-god welcome message on instead. Review WP:BITE and see if your actions are really in accordance with its recommendations. I don't think they were. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Apparently you have more friends than me. Toddst1 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Huggle Help

Why can't I sign in and use Huggle, am I blocked? --Látches (talk) 19:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with Huggle but I can say you're not blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Ranjithsutari's talk page.
Message added 07:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

my page deleted but still shows up in search engines - it contains my trademark and service mark, etc.

Hey Todd,

It appears that my page "Financial Wisdom Seminar" was deleted because of an advertising issue. I was unaware that it would violate your policy, etc.

Unfortunately, the page still exists in the search engine. So that is telling me that other people will be using my service mark and trademark and writing about me and I have no voice in the article or page. This I believe is unfair and will also cause considerable damage to myself and business as well as violate my trademark, service mark, and product name. Unless the page and article is eliminated from search engines, I should be able to write about it or it should be totally removed from Wikipedia so that search engines do not pick this up.

What is allowed by Wikipedia to be written about my own intellectual property?

I could post the following which is neither advertising or self promotion but simply factual statements in reference to the articles topic:

The Financial Wisdom Seminar™ was originated by Paul Winford Barrett in 1985.

The Financial Wisdom Seminar is a trademark and service mark owned by the Institute for Financial Integrity, Inc. The Financial Wisdom Seminar™ is also a product of the Institute for Financial Integrity, Inc. All violations of rights will be aggressively enforced.

Give me some ideas, so that I am not damaged by this event.

Thanks, Paul

Wikipedia has nothing to do with what the search engines cache. I wouldn't post that per WP:NLT. Toddst1 (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out that Google has a cache removal tool, if Google's cache contains obsolete information. You need a google account to use it. See https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals?action=show&pli=1 ~Amatulić (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your question on my RfA

I confess I am mystified by the question you posed to me on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amatulic. I answered it, but the question doesn't seem relevant to the duties and tools entrusted to administrators, specifically. If there's something I failed to understand about the intent of your question, would you mind clarifying it for the context of adminship so that I can answer more appropriately? Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Gladly, and you're right - it really isn't specific to admins, but as an administrator you are held to higher standards. This is a very gray area - the foundation has avoided policy on this for legal reasons.

My experience is that IP addresses are far more likely to post things like this and checkuser is only necessary in ~20% of these cases. I would like to know what you would do and why. I think it's one of the more revealing questions one can ask in an RFA. Best regards. Toddst1 (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have expanded on my answer based on your clarification. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful answer. It's truly a question about character and judgment. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 12:32, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Binksternet

FYI, I tried tell you about User:Binksternet's history of abusing rollback in content disputes. But he removed my comment in an apparent attempt hide the evidence. [41] Kurdo777 (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. That problem is solved now. Toddst1 (talk) 12:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Greetings. As you may or may not know, I am the victim of some of the negative behaviour of Binksternet. I see that he may be applying to have his privilages reinstated and am concerned that despite his history with me, and others as stated above that he may infact have his power reinstated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Guideline_for_removal_of_rollback.3F

I am very concerned that his behaviour will continue and hope that your input as a senior contributor can shine a light on his behaviour. You are a fair and neutral party with experience and I am hoping you could have some input on the matter. 123.243.203.94 (talk) 06:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I am also a "victim" of some negative behavior of Binksternet. We have been editing the Susan B. Anthony List article for some time now. He has engaged in WP:HOUNDING of me (see this alert I posted) and is now engaged in edit warring (1 2 3) for the same article using ridiculous rationales on the talk page. I noticed he has been blocked several times before, including today, for edit warring. Please advise. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 17:23, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The editor is currently blocked for 1 week for edit warring. If this behavior continues after the block is released, please let me know or file an RFCU. Toddst1 (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Hi there, It seems that you have deleted the FarStone wiki. I would have appreciated it if you took the time to give some feedback on how to make the page less like an ad. -FST —Preceding unsigned comment added by FST2010 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:CSD#A7 Toddst1 (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

CSD Declined - Justin Kelly

Hi. Just to let you know that I have declined the speedy deletion of Justin Kelly as notability has been asserted (albeit unreferenced) in the roles he has taken part in. Both appear to be leading character roles, so as a result the article is not a candidate for speedy deletion. If you think it should still be deleted, I would suggest PROD/AFD. Stephen! ^Coming... 15:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. The article looks much better now. Good call. Toddst1 (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Copyright for Advizor Solutions

Please dont delete the page I created for Advizor Solutions. I work for this company and have ownership of the copyrighted material. --Barnaby21 (talk) 18:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the source of the material you contributed and who the owner is for the content at Advizor solutions. Unfortunately we can't leave it at that if we're going to use the material. We need you to verify with the Foundation that you are the real copyright holder and understand the legal implications of putting your copyrighted work on Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation has established specific licensing guidelines that we need to follow.

If you still wish to grant Wikipedia the rights to this material, follow the instructions here. It has all the info you need. Be sure you understand the rights to the text that you will be giving up. Then, you'll be granted what's called "an OTRS ticket" that shows Wikipedia has been granted the rights to the text and then you can post the material verbatim (provided the subject meets the other qualifications for articles on Wikipedia such as notability).

We don't accept copyrighted work outside of that process in order to protect the holders of copyright, both from others posting their words on Wikipedia, and from unknowingly signing away their rights.

I hope you understand that refusing all copyrighted work until we have real evidence that it's been released into the GDFL is the best way to make sure we aren't violating anyone's rights.

Either way, please do not recreate this page with that material until this issue is resolved.

I hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We have now gotten OTRS permission for the content, so if you can restore Advizor solutions I'll add the OTRS tag for it. VernoWhitney (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! VernoWhitney (talk) 02:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Just got to a keyboard to let you know. There's only so much I can do with an iPad. Toddst1 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

re the article list, most of them probably are not reliable sources, but I was too lazy to look, and left that job to someone else! ;-) Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Toddst1 (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

regarding My temporary block from editing...

I wrote asking about the duration of my block.. please send me these terms. If possible can you send me the case report leading to my block ,thank you.Godhand11 (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you're talking about. You were blocked for edit warring for 24 hours based on this evidence. Toddst1 (talk) 00:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Eric1985 (talk · contribs)

I have read what he wrote, he is only telling his side of the story. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. I'm not going to spend 15 minutes wading through that tome. WP:GAB Toddst1 (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware of this but a couple of admins are involved in this and evidence have been sent to arbcom for what he did and I think an amendment for an arbitration case is coming soon. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I was completely unaware. Was my response inappropriate (not knowing the context)? Toddst1 (talk) 00:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no comment about your response, but I think any admin should know the entire picture first if you want to do something. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

talk

yes I apologise (though I also translated the text in English). The fact is, those two users have somewhat created problems on it.wiki, especially Harrison who was blocked for one month because of misbehaviour (as for Theirrulez I notice that he's causing controversies here too because of Croatian - Italian issues), and since I noticed that they were talking about me on en.wiki about a fact happened on it.wiki that led to Harrison's block and in which I was involved too, I just left them a "welcome" message to make clear there are no safe zones on any wikipedia chapters to chat at someone else's shoulders. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 11:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

The other day, you blocked 63.3.0.1 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for 3 months. He hopped over to 63.3.0.129 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and is doing the same bad edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:51, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jasmere.com AfD

I appreciate your several edits and comments regarding jasmere.com. The article is much stronger now than before. I do have a question, though. From looking at the AfD discussion, there were several comments on each side whether to Delete or Keep. But it seemed fairly clear to me that the breadth and depth of arguments for Keep outweighed Delete. Even you ended by saying that you tended to agree that the article is now notable as well as not overly promotional. Yet the person who closed the debate said that no consensus was reached. What do you think? I know it's very subjective. Is there anything I can do to see if others feel that the evidence more strongly supported a Keep decision? Jbernfeld (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do feel the article is significantly stronger now and worthy of a keep. The problem is those little local TV spots seem like the results of PR placements. Given the history of the article it completely fits. It would be great to find an article about the company, rather than a piece mentioning the company's product as a "tip" to save money or something. Just my $.02 worth. Toddst1 (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Shane A. Hammond

Todd, put my Shane A. Hammond page back please. He is indeed a New Zealand artist and I created a listing for him using information from his website. He is a friend of mine and I am helping him with his web presence. He's a really cool artist too.

Thanks

Angela —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angela Church (talk • contribs) 15:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Apologies

If you didn't know, I do apologize for insinuating on any double standard at ANI. Cheers, Tommy! [message] 00:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted, but not necessary. I apparently screwed up on that. It's good to point out stuff like that - keeps us honest. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 00:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate the honesty and openmindedness. :) Tommy! [message] 00:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Jerzeykydd

Thanks for taking care of Jerzeykydd, this was not my first negative encounter with the editor and I am glad you took care of it so quickly. Just on a sidenote, I noticed Jerzeykydd has been blocked twice in just over a month. What is the penalty for another infraction?--TM 01:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not cut and dry. Yes, there is a pattern of repeat disruption in a number of dimensions. That is why I've issued a fairly lengthy block. I'm optimistic that this will be a wake-up-call to the editor and s/he will return to be a productive editor without the disruption. It's clear the potential is there. However, if the disruption resumes, a much more lengthy block will likely result - although it is not guaranteed. There is a lot of administrator discretion involved. I can tell you that if I block the editor again in the first month after the block expires, it will almost certainly be an indef block. If another admin handles it, the outcome may be different.

If you see any further disruption there, please bring it to my attention. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Toddst1 - I and another user have asked on ANI to have this guy's block shortened - could you please reply to the thread there? Thanks. -- Y not? 22:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I will carry out my promises.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Please contact an administrator or pursue WP:DR before you violate your restrictions if you find yourself in a conflict. Let's revisit this in a few months and maybe we can lift the restrictions. Toddst1 (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Elie plus's talk page.
Message added 21:37, 30 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Deletion of Earl Hughes

No this is not Earl Hughes. I am an editor for the local paper in the town which Earl lives. I am rather new with editing Wikipedia so I apologize that I did not state why he was significant. Earl works for a popular local tourist destination that hosts hundreds of thousands of tourists a year. It seems he does quite well with his job as an entertainer/musician because I have received numerous (over fifty) emails from people wanting to know more about him. While he does have his own website, it is not of the quality information that people desire so I started to set out to create such a place. If you would undelete the page and allow me to improve it to Wikipedias desires that would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earlhughes (talk • contribs) 09:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Shelqet

Todd, it is great that you want to help out by translating articles, as you did with Shelqet. However, using the Google machine translation directly (I recognized it because I had used the same tool to try to make sense of the page myself) is almost never the right path. The resulting text makes almost as little sense as the original Albanian text. Better to just mark the page as needing translation and allow someone well-versed in the native language provide a better translation. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. That makes sense. The article was a mess. Toddst1 (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Block review: Off2riorob

I was thinking about hiding the discussion as it is really closed, over, and done. He made a mistake, he had it reviewed and it was over turned. I can imagine how I'd feel now. I think it's time for people to move on. Dlohcierekim 20:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I support that. Toddst1 (talk) 20:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)(edit conflict) I think it can be wrapped up. The injured party didn't even want it to continue, and there's been ample advice given. If someone wants some kind of further statement, they can continue via user talk. –xeno^talk 20:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Page protection on WP:POINT

Comments made regarding this at Wikipedia_talk:Do_not_disrupt_Wikipedia_to_illustrate_a_point#Regarding_page_protection_and_edit_warring in an attempt to cool down the conflict Triona (talk) 04:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandal alert

Sorry to disturb you, but can you block 115.147.229.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? This guy persistently putting the word's "Sole Survivor" into the Contestants section of the Survivor Philippines: Celebrity Showdown article, but the show's currently in its first week! This guy has already gone to my nerves already. BTW, he did the same thing using different IP addresses twice before, which is why I put the level 3 warning to this address immediately. Action needed ASAP. Thanks. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for both blocking the vandal and semi-protecting the article. I don't know if you're been to WP:RFPP before the semi-protection because I've set up a request there. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Hello, the first three links you've posted on my talk page were already "resolved", if they are the reason why I'm warned, you should retract the warning. The third one I do not shy away from. For said reasons, I would love to see DIREKTOR at least given the sanction you've threatened me with. I think they are necessary, but I will express my concernes on WP:ANI --Paxcoder (talk) 15:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what type of links you think are resolved, but edit warring on an ARBMAC article will result in swift action. Toddst1 (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean those quoted from the previous instance of DIREKTOR's complaint to WP:AMI and which were already addressed, and supposed to be resolved (search the archive for "paxcoder", that's the only instance). In short, only the last link titled "here" on my page would apply to this case. Also, is there any reason why your reply isn't posted on my talk page rather than here? --Paxcoder (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you're confused, Paxcoder. Look at the signature; I left the warning that included the links you're referencing, not Toddst1. Toddst1 issued the ARBMAC and edit warring notifications immediately afterward. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Paxcoder, this "Stepinac issue" is one and the same dispute, and your conduct throughout it should be viewed as a whole - its even part of the same thread on the same talkpage. Particularly since the last time you clearly apologized and stated you would not continue such behavior. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Morning Glory Greetings

Todd, don't know if you noticed the WP:G12 nom of Morning Glory Greetings just before you moved it, so I've replaced it at User:Carolynhamilton /Morning Glory Greetings. If you intended to decline both the A7 and G12 noms, please feel free to remove my renom, but it is a word-for-word copy from the url listed in the G12 tag and user pages are not, as I recall, exempt from copyvio problems. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Found it and deleted. Good work. Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And to you, too. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Got your note...

...looks like it was handled excellently without me. Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Why ZippCast?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:COI editor wants to promote her company. Toddst1 (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Why did you have to delete my ZippCast article? You claim that it was deleted because of advertising, which is something that was NOT intended as I was writing it. Instead of deleting it, why didn't you just FIX it? I'm not the best at writing Wikipedia articles, but apparently you are much better since you have the authority to do so much as temporarily BLOCK MY ACCOUNT. What was stopping you from just helping me?

Autobotprowl (talk) 03:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)AutoMe

I made a post here called "Why ZippCast?" a while ago, and it seems you haven't responded. I would appreciate if you took some time to read it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AutoMe (talk • contribs) 02:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Before I answer, what is your connection to ZippCast? Toddst1 (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Um, since when has having a connection to something been important to creating an article? Anyway, I was not involved with its creation but i have an account on the website and understand its features very well. I also believe it has become large enough already that it is worth having a Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AutoMe (talk • contribs) 02:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:COI. Toddst1 (talk) 02:37, 5 September 2010 (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.

Vinyl On Demand

Greetings, I assumed that the subscription based business model that Vinyl On Demand uses would make it notable. Do I need to make that more of the feature? They allow for 300 subscribers a year (and they get it) on top of what they sell to distributors. They are the only one doing this (on a large scale), their items are immensely popular to collectors, and quite expensive. I'd love some direct communication on what I could do to make this page last! Cheers!Theebradmiller (talk) 17:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Try getting some third party WP:RS in there. In the mean time I'll restore the article to your user space. You can find it in User:Theebradmiller/Vinyl On Demand.

It's pretty clear you're editing in good faith. Let me know if you have any questions. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much. I will work on it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theebradmiller (talk • contribs) 17:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I made some changes, added some references. I have not included the discography. It is partially complete (through 2004) so I have not added it to. Am I on the right track? Is it good enough to go live?Theebradmiller (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I see the word "successful" far more times than is probably appropriate. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 16:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. agreed. And not really needed in the first sentence since it's covered later. I deleted it. Only one use of the word "successful" now. Theebradmiller (talk) 21:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If you get a chance... swing by and let me know if I'm there yet, and if not... what I need? Cheers! Theebradmiller (talk) 17:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Problem edits

Hi, sorry to bother you but racist edits like this vandalism and this by Tajik and previously by Inuit18 [42], [43] are creating big problems in Wikipedia. They do this purposly and they don't fear being blocked, yet you allow them to return so they can vandalize the articles again. The source states under B. Demography and Population - Balkh has a total population of 1,123,948...The major ethnic groups living in Balkh province are Tajiks and Pashtoons followed by Uzbek, Hazaras, Turkman, Arab and Baluch... but Inuit18 and Tajik are constantly removing all these ethnic groups with bad intention and purposly falsify the section by stating Tajiks make up the majority of the province and uses a fake dead link to Afghan investment site. On Ghor Province the source states Ghor Province is located in western Afghanistan. The population of under 600,000 are consisted of Tajik, Hazara, Aimak, Uzbek, Pashtun and a variety of other ethniciites of lesser representation. They again remove Hazaras and ask for source when the source is there provided. They both have been blocked so many times and yet still they do these things like if it's just a joke.--Hazaraguy (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See the discussion about Inuit on ANI. I thought we should be done with that editor but consensus is "we like problem editors." I don't and I appreciate your frustration. Toddst1 (talk) 20:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) ...although I have trouble calling the edits "racist"... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I'd say tribal or partisan, not racist. Toddst1 (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but someone who purposly only removes certain people of certain race from Wikipedia articles is obviously an act of racism and so therefore racist edits.--Hazaraguy (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No, that's so far from the definition of racism that it borders on incredulous. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok let's call it vandal edits.--Hazaraguy (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Does it meet WP:VANDALISM?? It's more non-WP:NPOV (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's just call them "problem edits". Edit warring over something like that is definitely a problem. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

binksternet abuse again

Greetings. I would like to report I have been having trouble with user Binksternet (talk · contribs).

1. I edited an article about the Wife acceptance factor in which he kept vandalising my edits. I discussed this and explained why it was called a wife acceptance factor.
2. The user abused his privilages and incorrectly marked me for vandalism supposedly this was a mistake.
3. violated a 3rr and engaged in MANY edit wars not just with me but other users
4. I'm not familiar with wiki but enough is enough and I'm taking a stand against this thug. You can see he has a history of abuse and NEEDS to be stopped. Currently he is vandalising my edits on the wife acceptance factor page.
5. has edited out criticisms so they have not been seen.

Interesting links can be found here: Incidents http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Wife_acceptance_factor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#August_2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Memorex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#WP:AN.2FI_Discussion_Regarding_Your_Recent_Edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#rollback http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Binksternet#Request_for_mediation_rejected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Behavior_of_Binksternet_towards_IP_user In this link you can see he has removed my contribution completely and thus deleted what I had to say.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Behavior_of_Binksternet_towards_IP_user.

My user talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:123.243.203.94

Any help you can give to solve this situation would be appreciated. Also note I have tried to make peace with the user and concede to his overly PC views but he has not even compromised NOR apologised. The person needs to be stopped. 123.243.203.94 (talk) 10:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Any issues since the release of the recent block? Toddst1 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah he keeps edit warring despite me adding his PC trash in. Basically he filled the article back to spite me and edit warring.123.243.203.94 (talk) 23:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive633#Behavior_of_Binksternet_towards_IP_user. although, I'm sure you probably remember or already found it :-)   Thorncrag  23:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

On which articles are these edit wars currently occurring? All I see is you two are engaged in a content dispute on Wife Acceptance Factor. I do see that you have asked several admins to do something here - which is a form of disruption called WP:FORUMSHOP. Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

not to forumshop but to update those involved last time. He's edit warring despite calls not to. Regardless he seems to have a history of it and I want to know if you can keep an eye on the user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.203.94 (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't understand my question: On which article(s) is s/he currently edit warring? If you don't have an answer then you need to stand down, otherwise WP:NPA applies. Toddst1 (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

On the WAF article. If you look at his history you can see he makes a habit of it 123.243.203.94 (talk) 09:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Binksternet hasn't reverted since 1 September 2010. I think you have a content dispute with the editor. Please pursue WP:DR. Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion Question

Hello, I have a question about my Acoustical Solutions page being deleted ... the reason given was that it did not indicate the significance of the company. I would argue that the significance is that Acoustical Solutions is one of the most successful acoustics companies in the country and has (or has had) it's products in all four major television networks (ABC, CBS, NBC and FOX), IBM, Google, Smithsonian, Institute, Walt Disney World, NASA, Nike, Apple, The Mayo Clinic, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Yale University and New York City (ground zero site)as well as hundreds of other identifiable places is fairly significant.

Thanks for your time, Eric8042500 (talk) 13:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:CORP. Toddst1 (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Question about image deletion/posting edit warring, etc.

I posted a question about the block on my talk page, and the other editor's, and the noticeboard -- please feel free to remove two of those three! I'm not sure where the discusison whould be held. Thanks. (Also posted to user page of Urbanrenewal -- I'm not sure where this discussion should be held.) I'm the other editor who was blocked. I was blocked for repeatedly removing this photo, which has not been established is in the public domain. My question: Should the photo remain on the page? The other editor describes me as a new editor. (July 2008. Does that make me new? Or necessarily in the wrong?) He says I was uncivil, but the thread of edits on these pages shows nothing uncivil. Persistent, yes. But my edits were made in good faith, and I accepted my block gracefully and without protest. But I'm not clear on this: What to do now about that photo? Why do we allow it to remain if, as editor PhilKnight says, "I haven't been able to establish when it was published." You may see why a (newer) editor would be confused why all this is being discussed in the context of "disruptive image removal" instead of "disruptive image posting"? I removed the photo because its copyright status is not clear; the experienced editor reposted it, saying it was probably OK. I removed it and asked for evidence; he removed it and said it was clearly OK. Yes, we both were guilty of edit warring. But what I don't understand is, while the photo's legal status is in dispute, why is it allowed to remain? Should we not err on the side of following the copyright law? The user Urbanrenewal does not have any evidence of a publication date for this photo -- he is guessing that it "must have been" published at a certain time, because it was taken then. When it was taken is not the test, right? Now, down to brass tacks: Is the proper course for me to take to mark this photo for deletion from Wikipedia? If so, how? I see the note above referring to WP:CSD#G12, but at that page I don't understand what exactly one should do. I'm afraid to remove the photo, because that would be edit warring. (Meanwhile, the editor who disagrees is free to re-post the photo?) Thank you for your suggestions.BlackberryHacks (talk) 05:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion as to whether the photo should remain on the page. If the photo has not been deleted from wikipedia, the it can be used. Whether it is appropriate for that article is something else. The one thing that may be done is to add Wikipedia:File copyright tags to the photo (not the article). Do not remove the photo from the article. I'm not sure of where this discussion has gone, so don't take this as permission, rather these tags may be a resource to resolve the issue.

Maybe a better approach may be to take the photo to Wikipedia:Files for deletion and let the community decide. Toddst1 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please duke this out somewhere else. Toddst1 (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello Toddst, please take the time to restore the Yugoslav Partisans article to its (non-demolished) state from before the dispute. Thank you. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 10:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean I protected the WP:WRONG version? Toddst1 (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake... yes, yes you did. My version is right, his is wrong - it would take approximately 5 minutes' worth of actual checking to unravel that mystery. Look at the article: sourced info was deleted because he cannot happen read a note for free on Google Books, whole paragraphs were removed because scholars and historians were suddenly "proclaimed" as the lying scum of the earth. On top of all that, the guy thinks he's "won" and simply stopped discussing (just like they do every single time).

Just once I'd like the benefit of the doubt vs. the random nationalist POV-pusher. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, dude. Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! Could you at least comment on the issue? Look over the discussion and give your opinion? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again it becomes obvious that partial interest is a hell of a lot worse than no interest (as if that needed any more proving). Thank you for your time and assistance, apologies if this whole thing turned out too much of a nuisance. See you around, if ever I get indeffed, hope its you who does the honors. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Stopped discussing? Excuse me, but that is very rude of you, Direktor! I have a life and have things that I have to do. I can not bicker with you all day on wikipedia. Whatever I have claimed - which you denied - I have backed up by serious sources. You call my information ridiculous and made up. Then when you see the source is from a harvard based peir reviewed journal you disregard that. You are a one sided and quite rude person. Instead of discussing you go about raging. The only solution here is to go via mediation, just like you got shot down in the draza mihajlovic article. Mediation helped remove your POV communist propaganda, and that is what is going to fix you again this time. (LAz17 (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)).

You removed sourced text and replaced it with a sentence from an article you found on the internet. The sentence is nothing more than the author's personal opinion. The sources you removed were university publications listing primary sources and serious research - incredibly because you cannot read the references from the book for free on Google Books. Unbelievable stuff. You deleted whole paragraphs because you do not personally like the source. All this without discussion + edit-warring. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:42, 4 September 2010 (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.

TPM

Hello Todd, Saw the protection. Just so you know, I'd stopped editing and was using the talk page.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's all good. Thanks for the dialogue though. I'm trying to protect more pages in lieu of EW blocks these days. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Todd, the IP seems not to understand that I don't want him to post on my talk page. [44][45] In this one, I was getting help from an editor at the help desk when he came in with this: [46]. Any help would be most appreciated.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. Toddst1 (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that.Malke 2010 (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hi Todd, I just reverted a vandalism by this fellow [47] but I didn't see the Twinkle buttons. Is that out of use now? I've been gone for 6 weeks. Is there something new?Malke 2010 (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I fixed it.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

STOP!

You have been a total jerk and you are making no sense. First, you delete my article just because you didn't think it matched the Wikipedia guidelines (which you could've fixed in a MUCH more plausible way just by editing). Next, you threaten to block my account for having the word "bot" in it (Which wasn't even at the end and was part of another word, UNLIKE wikipedia bots.) Then, you close a discussion with a happy, short little "see WP:COI." You call that an ended discussion? Just stop making sure I'm completely destroyed, okay? I'm not very professional, but there are TONS of much worse users out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AutoMe (talk • contribs) 04:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Captain Underpants and the Terrifying Return of Tippy Tinkletrousers? Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What? That's the best book since the very short Curious George and the Electric Fence :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

AAA Cooper Transportation citation which you removed for copyrighted material issue

Can you please help me understand the action reference in the subject line? I am new to Wikipedia and I am unclear on why you have removed this site again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schylerhays (talk • contribs) 11:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:Schylerhays. Toddst1 (talk) 15:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

You've been mentioned in an ANI thread. Regards. [48] --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Andyjoe7and8

Toddst1, regarding your block of this editor, I unblocked and re-blocked, independently coming to the same conclusion that you did about him. The reason I did this is because of the appearance of impropriety in an admin that has made editorial edits to the same article (as opposed to BLP-related edits) blocking an editor of that article. I don't know whether this meets the definition of WP:INVOLVED. My reading is that it probably does, but I stress that it's the appearance of impropriety rather than any actual impropriety that bothered me (after all, I also thought an indef block was appropriate). But in the future it might be cleaner to pass these blocks along to someone else to begin with.--Chaser (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Edit war

With all due respect, I do not believe that reverting edits that removed legitimate information and changed correct information is edit warring. Yes, the situation got out of control, but my intention was simply to restore the stable version of the page after the anon. user altered it with no explanation. At this point, it has been saved and protected in its incorrect version. I did not template the anon. until he repeated the same unhelpful edits at least twice. He never attempted to explain his changes or offer sources for same. I realize where I erred, but surely the anon. is more to blame in this situation. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 23:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

please explain

There seems to be an unwarranted attack on the person, notability and reputation of Peter Lee (australian martial artist) your edits and those of other fellows are under explained. Even when sources are added, they are removed as if false. I greatly question the ethics and ability to judge... wkipedia seems to be a place where a few anonymous and unqualified people get to decide what is truth or not. even in the face of evidence. this makes wikipedia appear to be an entirely unreliable source of information. At least a dictionary has a postal address and people willing to take a stand. I've always hated the cowardice of anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dupisha (talk • contribs) 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

What is it you want me to do? Toddst1 (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Craig Agranoff

You tagged this article as a close paraphrase last month. I've looked over it and searched but have so far been unable to find a source it resembles. Do you happen to remember what source (or sources) you felt it followed to closely on? VernoWhitney (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember and a brief search didn't turn anything up. Perhaps I should remove the tag. Toddst1 (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I've just been working my way through the close paraphrase backlog, which is what led me to it. I'll go ahead and remove the tag and put a different tag on the talk page that it may still be a problem but no source has been identified, that way it'll still be on a list for further investigation, just on a low-priority list. Thanks for the reply! VernoWhitney (talk) 15:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Spirit of Jerzeykydd

Hi Toddst1, I just wanted to alert you to something we spoke about before regarding another editor. Jerzeykydd waited exactly 24 hours and 3 minutes to revert the Illinois Senate election again. I know he had a 24 hour - 1 revert rule put in place during his last incident and while this isn't technically breaking that rule, it certainly is against the spirit of the arrangement.--TM 03:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

User 209.190.1.206

I noticed that you deleted all the past warnings that IP User 209.190.1.206 had received. I hope this doesn't sound like an accusation, but was there a reason to this? I might have missed something, but I thought these warnings were kept to show that sufficient vandalism had been committed to block the user. Just wanting to clear things up, WM2 20:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

See the {{older}} template? That indicates that previous warnings have been cleaned up for readability. After the 1 year block expires, they're irrelevant. However, the block log and the {{repeatvandal}} template tell the story. Toddst1 (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I do see that now. Sorry, I became distracted by the other large templates and passed up the smaller one. My gratitude for the explanation, WM2 00:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

why

it was my sister that did it i did not do any unconstructive editing please remove it shes in 7th grade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.42.10 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Such is the nature of shared ip addresses. Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Malke 2010

I don't believe she was hounding History2007, but I did ask her to take a break from this topic. Would you be willing to shorten the block if she agrees to work on other things? History2007's name does appear in the edit history of almost every Catholic-related article, so it's hard for her to get away from that. I realize that this might look like hounding, but I'm not convinced. She's genuinely interested in helping to improve this topic area. Viriditas (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree she could have run across Padre Pio randomly (my aunt once gave me a card about him), but claiming that she did it because of a 5-year-old rejected move suggestion strains credulity. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the number of articles History2007 has edited in the past 3 days, it becomes very clear this was no random collision. Toddst1 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is developing for an unblock. We're currently waiting on MRG and yourself. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I have left you a comment on Malkes talkpage, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Binksternet

Hello, I had earlier contacted you regarding the behavior of User:Binksternet. His abuse continues on the Susan B. Anthony and Susan B. Anthony List pages. There is a long dispute between pro-lifers and pro-choicers about whether SBA was pro-life, and Wikipedia needs to report this dispute and be fair to both sides. However, Binksternet admittedly has no interest in being fair and is only interested in pushing his POV. Binksternet has been causing trouble for many other editors in the past. Please advise. BS24 (talk) 18:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there's anything that I can do. Perhaps you should start an RFC/U. Toddst1 (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Marty and Doug's New Religion

An article you were involved in a speedy deletion debate (and was eventually speedily deleted) has been recreated by the user. See "Marty & Doug's New Religion" Slyforeman (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• actually here as well Marty And Doug's New ReligionActive Banana ( ^bananaphone 22:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Unwarranted Blocking

Hey, I do not know this editor. I just stumbled across him while reading a talk page. However, as someone who often checks the recent revision page for vandals, this doesn't look like someone who deserves to be blocked. His "edit war" was simply returning his comments. I have been gone a while and dont remember the syntax for linking to users. France is the greatest (talk · contribs) --Iankap99 (talk) 04:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Obama_article_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Vandalism_by_DDK2. If the user wasn't a sock, s/he would have almost certainly appealed the block. Toddst1 (talk) 14:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Alex Kacaniklic

This page has just been created again. Thanks. —Half Price 18:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The article seems to be in pretty good shape. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. –xeno^talk 23:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Confused by Policy

Hi, can you clear up something for me? I'm a little confused by the NPA policy, when this report [49] of a user open saying thing like "you're slimy and insincere", "you're a clown", and many other personal attacks -- directly made in article talkspace -- languishes ignored for several days, even though the editor in question has a lengthy history of past offenses. But a statement made on an editor's own personal talk page, without naming any name specifically, about a "bee in his arse", gets an immediate, severe block. Could you help me to understand the difference in enforcement? Thank you. Fell Gleaming^talk 13:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Omar Sharif protection

Hi there, and thanks for protecting Omar Sharif a month ago. I'm wondering if it's time to reduce it to semi-protection again. If you have a moment, please take a look at my comments at Talk:Omar Sharif#Sherif.3F. I hesitate to reduce the protection myself as I may be missing some context you're more familiar with. Any input you have would be appreciated! -kotra (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Toddst1 (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! -kotra (talk) 17:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked user now appears to be using IP

After some researching, it appears to me IP User 98.248.61.157 is blocked user Hotel5500 (and other Hotel#### names). You might want to check edits for Santa Teresa High School and CSI Franchise to see where I noticed similar edits. If I'm wrong, I apologize, but wanted to let you know since you imposed the block on the Hotel#### bunch. Trista (user Triste Tierra - cannot log in at work) 24.176.191.234 (talk) 23:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

IP user 152.26.11.1 returns

Vandalism from User:152.26.11.1, registered to North Carolina Research and Education Network, started again as soon as the 6 month block that you imposed in February 2009 expired, namely August and September 2009, when the IP was again blocked for 1 year. As soon as that block expired, vandalism returned in September 2010 and continues. Not all vandalism shows up on the talk page. Recent unlisted additions to this saga include two edits of 20 September to the Kendall Schmidt article: 1 and 2, and others. --Bejnar (talk) 16:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed unblock of User:Iaaasi

Just to let you know that I have proposed an unblock of User:Iaaasi at WP:AN if you wish to comment, having been one of the admins who blocked him. Regards, –MuZemike 14:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Alexis0517

Was Alexis0517 ever actually blocked? Your unblock decline [50] was absolutely right on policy, of course, but I don't see any actual block message or block log entry. Spammers aren't really noted for their competence. . . . Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, no s/he wasn't ever blocked. That's pretty funny. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Ipsock GabrielVelasquez

Found another one. Viriditas (talk) 06:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bag it and tag it. You're halfway there. Toddst1 (talk) 06:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Un-rollbacking

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

I know, that rollback is privilege, not right. But I feel unjust about my "un-rollbacking" for these reasons:

1. It was done without my opinion.
2. I was blocked for edit warring two weeks ago and I was informed, that "Using rollback in an edit war may lead to the permission being revoked". From this point I ceased with using rollback and continued only with Twinkle (with statement of the reasons)and of course, I´m aware of edit war. It was because as I understand, that I´m blocked for edit warring. As I understand, if I misuse rollback next time, I can be "un-rollbacked". But last two weeks there was not any misuse of rollback be me.
3. I was blocked for 24 hours for edit war 2 weeks ago and "un-rollbacking" is another penalty for same offence. This is unjust.
4. WP:ROLL says, that "Administrators may revoke the rollback feature or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used." There is nothing about "second penalty for blocking" and there is not persistent failure by me.
5. I feel, that reason for Nmate request is my comment in ANI [51], because he don't like user Iaaasi and I´m on side of Iaaasi. This looks, like I´m punished for expression of view on ANI.
6. Nmate request is on edge of personal attack and he clearly don't understand difference between Twinkle and rollback [52], thus his request seems be invalid.

Thank you for consideration. I don't like vandals, as you don't like vandals, and if you look at edits, you can see it --Yopie (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a matter of justice, it's a matter of preventing further disruption. Toddst1 (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

My answer

Hi,

Howbeit, it is true that the user:Yopie is a POV warrior, whose rollback is used abusively, with a poor command of English. But my main problem is that he keeps wikihounding me even when I am not around on Wikipedia very often. Earlier, when he also followed me to an article, I became angry by his harrasment and called his deportment sickly. And Yopie ferreted out that I reported one another user for a violation of 3RR for what the user was blocked then.[53] And Yopie wrote that user to abet him to make a spurious report against me on wikiquette alert together without having encountered each other on Wikipedia. beforehand[54][55] The another user name is Iaaasi,who has been blocked from editing Wikipedia for indefinite time by now. Iaaasi contacted an administrator via IRC and recently, that administrator has made a pleading for Iaaasi to leave his indef-ban in abeyance. And Yopie, following me to that pleading type of discussion, gave a vote for supporting the return of Iaaasi to the Wikipedia in order that he expresses his gratitude to Iaaasi why he colluded him at that Wikiquette alert report.[56] Please note that Yopie has neither been encountered Iaaasi on Wikipedia beforehand ,nor has been done afterwards except that Wikiquette alert report. And when I was logged in to the Wikipedia yesterday, I recognized the situation and it induced my dudgeon and that proded me to fill that report at WP ANI but it was injudicious, obviously. However, In my opinion, it is a serious harrasment by Yopie. Regards--Nmate (talk) 21:32, 4 October 2010 (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.

Request for restore

Hello I was wondering if you could please email me the content of the page that was deleted. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tennisjj36 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your rapid response at AIV wrt 142.26.49.130. I hope it might get their attention. Best wishes, DBaK (talk) 16:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Users and IP's

I've seen cases in recent weeks where an edit will be censored because the guy was signed out and revealed his IP. Is that standard practice now, or does it require the user to have contacted an admin off-wiki? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be WP:Oversight, not redaction and yes it is standard practice. You would typically have to appeal to one of the oversighters directly I believe. I've only requested oversight a couple of times, so I'm not an expert on the operation thereof. Toddst1 (talk) 13:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Atlantis Group

Thanks for the quick action on the page. I just took a look at it (a user asked me to before you fully protected the page), and was wondering if a sprotect might not be more in order. The three editors who were putting extra links, removing criticism, etc. were just blocked as socks, so I would guess discussion with them is unlikely. Let me know what you think, and again, thanks! --TeaDrinker (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Toddst1 (talk) 13:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Politician articles, notability

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

Since you were involved in the Jerzeykydd block, I would like to request your help in dealing with the continuing fallout from this. ;-) Before he was blocked, I was running around trying to improve the five-second articles he had been creating which were nothing more than some cut-and-paste from the candidate's own campaign website, with no actually helpful links such as Project Vote Smart, FEC, Open Secrets - only the candidate campaign website link (and sometimes links to media coverage which referred to that same material). When I realized how many he was creating, I asked him to either create decent articles or stop, as I didn't have enough time to improve an endless number of articles, and I certainly didn't appreciate his downloading all the 'donkey work' onto me. I was trying to avoid deleting the articles, as I remember the Edit Wars from 2008. If someone's the nominee of a major party, I see no particular reason to argue over it even though the person is clearly only notable for the event (aka election). Live and let live. Note: I had earlier added the links for campaign sites and PVS for each of these candidates to the election articles, so those had more actual information than the candidate articles he was creating. Since he was the only person creating these articles, once he was blocked I wanted the articles I had not yet 'improved' to be merged back into the election articles, with a re-directing link to preserve the article's material in case someone else wanted to improve it to a sufficient standard. So, I was adding Merge templates. Meanwhile...Arbor832466 was marking articles for deletion. See User talk:Arbor832466#Deleting vs. Merging articles (and the sections after that) for how this 'second stage' started. Also see User talk:InaMaka#Personal attacks who is now ranting that I'm supposedly deleting all sorts of articles, which I'm not. I merged two (one Democrat, Scott Harper, and one Republican, Larry Bucshon), leaving Redirects, to show how these merges can both meet Wikipedia guidelines and inform our readers (as opposed to the 'speedy deletes' so often used in 2008 which did nothing but inflame passions and destroy the audit trail). InaMaka then made over 50 edits on the latter article. imo it's still not a good enough article (for example, InaMaka added election numbers and a 'selected' forecast, presumably in an attempt to 'fill space', rather than adding that material to the election article itself which is where it belongs, especially as that's where the links are to all the various polls and forecasts over time), but I was okay with that since she added the PVS, FEC and OS links. And then she attacked me, so she clearly didn't understand the issue. I provided her with links to the relevant Notability guidelines. More threats, and now she's deleted the Merge and Like Resume templates multiple times, refusing to discuss on the article's Talk page. She's also engaging in other 'edit wars' (Undue Weight and Unbalanced) - see discussion at Talk:Mark Critz. The moral may well be "no good deed goes unpunished", but I'm hoping you can resolve this before it all ends in tears. I have no interest in discouraging any volunteers, but I also have no interest in seeing Wikipedia used as an online source of one-sided campaign brochures, especially this close to the election. (Where were these people when I was creating election articles anyway? I could have used some actual help, as opposed to campaigning, and there are still unwritten state election articles to be done.) Thanks. :-) (added) See Talk:Stephen Fincher for yet another attempt to discuss the article's issues with InaMaka. Flatterworld (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me point out that Flatterworld one-sided description of my work is way, way off the mark. I added a whole new section to the Larry Bucshon article which attempts to be a starting place for where he stands on certain political issues. I have provided citations from independent third party reliable sources to support how I descibed his various political viewpoints. I did not use his Bucshon's campaign page. It was only one day's work, but at the speed that Flatterworld and Arbor832466 were attempting to eliminate articles--a minority of which did not deserve to be eliminated--I felt that I was completely under the gun to get the article up to speed as quickly as possible before Flatterworld eliminated it again. Please keep in mind that Flatterworld posted a notice at the top one day and then the next day he merged that article. There was zero input from other editors. He just did it. I feel like that violates requirement that there be a concensus to merge before it happens. Also, please keep in mind that at the same time Arbor832466 was placing "SPEEDY DELETE" on article after article--as you know if no one responses in seven days the whole article can be deleted and the whole edit trail is gone--putting at the risk some actual articles that should be kept. Also, keep in mind that I was part of a debate about whether Stephene Moore should be kept, merged or deleted. The result was no concensus. At any rate, Arbor832466 was part of that debate and she wanted to keep the Moore article, which I disagreed with, but I will respect the group of editors decision. But at the same time, Arbor832466 wanted to save an article about Moore, a Democrat with zero political experience, works a minimum wage job, and ALL third party political analysts give her zero chance of winning in Nov, but she wanted to eliminated an article about Bucshon, who is ahead in ALL polls, is a well-respected heart surgeon, and it beating the incumbent Democratic Congressman. I failed, at the time, and I still fail today to see how Moore qualifies and Bucshon doesn't--especially when you take into consideration that Moore has had virtually zero articles written about her and Bucshon has received national attention. Under the application of the politician notability rules that Flatterworld and Arbor832466 are using then Ron Johnson, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senator in Wisconsin would not qualify. It is so one-sided. Also, notice once again that they did not mark Krystall Ball for elimination!!!!! Why can't we just wait it out--stop all of the "speedy deletes" and all of the "merge" attempts for 22 days until the election and on November 3th, we can just clean house and eliminate all of the articles that do not qualify and that will include Stephene Moore and Krystall Ball.--InaMaka (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you be a little more specific (and brief) about what you want me to do? Toddst1 (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. :-) United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, 2010 is an example of how to handle candidates who aren't notable in their own right (imo). InaMaka insists on every Republican having his/her own article, padded out with material which belongs elsewhere, and refuses to engage in discussions. There aren't enough volunteers active in these candidate articles to be able to achieve a decent consensus, imo, and at this point we (along with Arbor832466) seem to be at loggerheads on how the guidelines are to be interpreted. So, I'd like mediation/interpretation of the guidelines for creating these separate articles, as I don't want to be attacked and I certainly don't want to be blocked if I do any merges. Neither do I want a stalemate in which these 'fluff articles' are left as is. I also want to avoid separate arguments over each article, as they're all very similar. I'd prefer someone familiar with how this situation arose (Jerzeykydd) to be involved in this. That would be you, apparently. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 20:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me assist in correcting misinformation. I have NEVER stated that every Republican should have his/her own article. What I HAVE stated is that it is about 22/23 days until a midterm election and right now is no time to arbitrarily remove information--especially if that information is notable and supported with a reliable source. Also, I have pointed out that Flatterworld and Arbor832466 have been attempting to remove or merge about 30 to 40 articles. What I have stated and I'm restating here is that for two fairly new editors to take it upon themselves to either "speedy delete" or "merge" 30 to 40 Congressional candidate articles 23 days before an election violates the spirit Wikipedia and sometimes violates the rules about merging an article or deleting an article. Merges and Deletes require community input and concensus. Among those 30 to 40 articles, there are clearly some articles that should be either subject to "speedy delete" or "merge" but there are articles about certain individuals where the individual clearly qualifies for an article. I have told Flatterworld and Arbor832466 over and over again that they need to slow down their effort to eliminate articles at this point in time. Wikipedia will be here for years and years and years. There is NO RUSH to delete 30 to 40 political bios 23 days before an election--especially if many of the Republican/Democratic challengers are serious competitive candidates. For example, Arbor832466 and Flatterworld have placed on their list for delete/merge articles about Stephen Fincher, Reid Ribble, Jon Barela, and Larry Bucshon. Now, all of these gentlemen are in very competitive races for Congress. All of them have had articles written about them personally. All of them are ahead of their respective Democratic Congressman incumbent. All of them have had sucessful careers before they entered politics. All of these men qualify for their own article in Wikipedia, but Flatterworld and Arbor832466 want to trash these articles. Now, I can understand getting rid of "fluff" articles such as the one about Krystal Ball, a 28 year old Democratic candidate for Congress. But please notice that Flatterworld and Arbor832466 did NOT mark that article for deletion/merger. Flatterworld has edited the article in the past--its right there in the edit history. But Flatterworld decided to spare the 28 year old who is merely famous for sucking on a dildo strapped to ex-husband's nose. She is clearly unqualified for her own article. Yes, the article has been marked for merger, but it was me that marked it that way--not Flatterworld or Arbor832466. They couldn't find it inside themselves to attempt to eliminate an article about the most unqualified Congressional candidate in the U.S., but some how or another they decided to eliminate the article about Larry Bucshon, a talented heart surgeon, who is winning his race against the incumbent Democratic Congressman handily. No, I'm saying there is bias involved in that decision-making process, but I will let you decide that on your own. Also, Flatterworld states that I won't talk with him or Arbor832466. But I have made comments and comments and comments all over Wikipedia. Arbor832466 has stated that she will not talk to me any more. I can't control that. Let's just come clean. I'm making sense and Flatterworld just does not want to respond to my comments. 23 days before an election is not a time to start deleting/merging articles. Just wait until the election is over and let's get rid of all of the deadwood articles, starting with the great Krystal Ball article. Talk about a "FLUFF" article! I guess what is considered a fluff article is in the eye of the beholder. I look at Krystal Ball's lack of credentials and her boffoonery and I see a fluff article. Flatterworld sees that "D" after her name and he just can't mark it "speedy delete". On last thing, generally, Wikipedians are not supposed to go around the lobbying for partners to "outvote" the other editors that are working on an article. It is bad form.--InaMaka (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh my goodness I am SO SORRY that I (unknowingly!) threw a match into the middle of this tinderbox. Essentially what happened was that I saw a bunch of campaign-site rehashes popping up all over the place, and I tried to fix it, unfortunately in a very ham-handed way. I went back and replaced all the deletes with merge-tos (after some gentle coaching from Flatterworld) and put in all the merge froms where they belong. I started initiating discussions on each of them but that was the point at which InaMaka kind of flipped out, which became discouraging enough that I just stopped. So, again, I am sorry if I made a mess. I was truly just trying to help. Let me know if there's any way I can help you guys out. Thanks! Arbor832466 (talk) 21:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

btw - I've tried marking the fluff articles with the Merge and Multiple issues templates, which InaMaka then deletes. I'm out of ideas. Flatterworld (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You know, I think I'm going to sit this one out and let you two work it out - someplace else please. Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2010 (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.

Anonimu/Moldova

Excuse me, am I missing something here? Where do you see "continuous edit-warring"? The guy has been making about one or two edits per month to that page, most of them simple clean-up and maintenance, and those that were reverts were about entirely unrelated issues each. Of the latest 4 edits, one at most appears to be a revert. I'm afraid I'm finding your "Stop your edit war on Moldova now" rather incomprehensible, and poor style too.

Besides, Moldova isn't even in the Balkans.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Your ridiculously confrontational tone aside, you may have a point:

• It appears I mistook [57] and [58] as repeating the same reversion. It's really not far off. That editor has been blocked for edit warring on that article before. You might want to read Balkans and learn that Moldova is considered Balkan.
• What I said was "Continued edit warring" not ""continuous edit-warring" - get it right if you're going to get in someone's face about what they said. Yes, I still believe it is edit warring - not within 24 hours but you've been around long enough to know the timeframe only applies to the bright line - especially with ethnic/partisan issues like ARBMAC.

Now, what's up with the tone? Toddst1 (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Get a thicker thin. Shrug. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And the horse you rode in on. Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If I revert this obviously inappropriate edit (as was my initial intention, expressed in the edit summary, but mistakenly left out while trying to save Serhio's good edits), would I be edit warring?Anonimu (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. Toddst1 (talk) 23:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Kosovo

To Toddst1. I am not claiming to be an expert on many things. But on this subject I am more or less an expert due to the fact I have worked with it since spring 1999. Kosovo is according to the vast majority of the IC (International community), ie UN, OSCE, EU, IOC and 122 of the worlds 192 countries, a Serbian province today. What it will be in a year or in 50 years, no one knows. As today as we speak, Kosovo is not even close to be an own country. Like I said, this could be changed. BUT, I thought that Wikipedia should reflect as close as we could come to the truth RIGHT NOW. Am I wrong ? Please reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.209.156.162 (talk) 20:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea if what you say is right or wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 04:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Political attacks and BLPs

Hey, I was hoping you could weigh in here [59] -- Essentially the issue is if Candidate A says X terrible thing about Candidate B, and then a reliable source reports that "Candidate A said X about B" without corroborating whether X is accurate (just that A said it), then is it appropriate to put it in the Wikipedia article about Candidate B? Technically, it is a reliable source, but I'm uneasy about putting something potentially defamatory on a BLP just because sombody's political opponent said it. Make sense? Arbor832466 (talk) 16:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's not WP:COATRACK. Toddst1 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is supported by reliable sources such as the Associated Press, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and Wall Street Journal. You can review the articles here: Blowin' in the wind: GOP pans stimulus cash for Carnahan sibling, Jake Wagman, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, September 20, 2010 and here: Louise Radnofsky, Wind Farm Generates Heat for Carnahans, Washington Wire, Wall Street Journal, September 30, 2010. and here: Wind farm generates controversy in Mo. Senate race, David Leib, Associated Press, October 1, 2010.

Without looking into the specifics, I see nothing wrong with saying reliable sources X, Y and Z reported "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit..." as long it is in the context of the article and not the point of the article and not in the spirit of other edits the proponent of the change might have made, pushing a particular POV. Toddst1 (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Justin230

Hi. I saw your warning to this new user. I also looked at the deleted versions of the article he created, Christopher Alcantara. Are you sure that's an attack as you asserted? It looks like it could just as easily have been an attempt to create an article about himself. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You could be right. Someone else already blocked him though. Toddst1 (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Whore of Babylon

Good call.^[60][61] I tried to sort that pair, their POVs and their edits out without much luck. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Amy Cahill (character)

Hello Toddst1, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Amy Cahill (character), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Fictional characters are not eligible for speedy deletion under A7; try PROD instead. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

And how much sense does that make? dōmo arigatō misutā Robotto. BTW, was that a template? Toddst1 (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies (yes, that was a template used by WP:CSDH). As for my declined speedy, I don't see how my rationale doesn't make sense, as WP:A7 is quite clear. I did consider redirecting (as another user has done now), but wanted to give the author a little more time to perhaps bring the article up to snuff (not that I had great faith it was going to happen). Dabomb87 (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bum wiper

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

JamesBWatson (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

science

Todd, Hello, how are you? It would be favorable to wikipedia's credibility if posts made to contribute to articles were discussed before being deleted. The claim that petroleum is a hydrocarbon of organic origin is the exceptional claim. My claim isn't one of origin, but one that the organic origin assumption isn't tenable and needs more evidence. Samples of petroleum taken from organic rich regions tell us nothing ... think about that. As for the deposition issue, Einstein's fundamental metric Tensor of General Relativity is pretty exceptional evidence, I'd argue. That's why organic material thousands of feet above hydrocarbons doesn't add up. If the hydrocarbons originated from above they should remain below. Whether or not one finds hydrocarbons in areas that some theorists claim is supposed to be an environment for creation of hydrocarbons is a red herring. I'm not trying to establish how it is created, only that it occurs deeper than originally thought and is not of organic origin. My reply was objective and was not advocating a "theory". The onus is on you to explain how it was created organically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BariumBasin (talk • contribs) 23:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See WP:V Toddst1 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Your last message is cryptic. Can you explain? There is nothing to verify. Nothing is being claimed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BariumBasin (talk • contribs) 07:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think he meant "the fact that petroleum has been already verified to be of organic origin, removing that would required a new verified, credible scientific claim otherwise." (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Thanks B. Toddst1 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy lives

Might be a good idea to inform Newyorkbrad of your restoration. As I recall, he was rather keen on it remaining deleted. DuncanHill (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I've left a note to that effect on ANI. and will notify Brad. Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also asked for LHVU's input as he was the deleting admin. Toddst1 (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. FWIW, I agree with your restoration. DuncanHill (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Please reverse that decision. You should not be reversing an ArbCom decision without going to ArbCom. - 114.76.235.170 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He has informed Brad. DuncanHill (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Show me an arbcom decision and I'll self revert. All I hear is hearsay and the action being requested is in contravention of policy. Toddst1 (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Would you be satisfied with something like this or does it need an official Arbcom stamp on it? Hans Adler 23:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that statement from NYB, but his qualification was "at this time." Since then, the editor has returned and is actively editing. That changes any RTV, and I'm still not sure that arbcom has acted. Unless arbcom has ruled, NYB has to follow the same rules the rest of us do. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Todd, no blocks, please. The issue will be sorted out one way or the other. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the page again for now, Todd, and dropped you an email. I think we should try to clarify the RTV guideline so that we know what to do in future. My own view is that talk pages should never be deleted, but should be moved in the case of RTV (or left as is), but I know there are lots of exceptions to that. Pinning things down in the guideline would help. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Slimvirgin - Todds1 is completely abusing his admin tools. Badanagram (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC) He had reconstructed my old userpage which I asked to be deleted for very good reason if the logs are checked Badanagram (talk) 07:00, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Don't sweat it. Been called worse by better. DuncanHill (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Todd, I don't think we've interacted. I've edited here for four years and have about 7000 edits. Do you consider it normal that when I post a request on AN/I, an administrator responds with nothing but asking whether I am gunning to be the first editor sanctioned under the new regime? I wonder how anyone can be expected to post a request to AN/I if that is the type of response they can expect to receive. Mackan79 (talk) 01:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Todd, please see also that Looie has now withdrawn and struck the remark which led to my complaint.[62][63] I would request for this reason that you remove your close which accused me of "trolling," since with this clarification I would not have made the request and would have withdrawn it. Thanks, Mackan79 (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Todd, I was hoping for you to respond. In my view it's rather problematic when editors can't expect to get a reasonable answer on notice boards around here, because admins jump right in with insults and implied threats before looking carefully at the situation. Looie's comment here was completely unexplained and in my view bizarre; credit to him for retracting it. Still, you have not retracted your accusation that I was "trolling" to say so. If there is something that led to your response I would at least appreciate knowing what it was. Mackan79 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikihounding

You are being completely over the top. I removed my old userpage for very good reason. You are abusing your admin status over one comment I made about some of your edits. Tell you what, block all of the accounts and delete them altogether because people like you have completely put me off editing wikipedia since it started, for better or for worse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badanagram (talk • contribs) 06:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you please stop this admin power nonsense and remove the link from my old account to my new account? Badanagram (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It is there as part of a proven {{sockpuppeteer}} notice noting evidence of your abuse of the IP address 86.11.254.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which you have used to make personal attacks. You cannot walk away from that. Toddst1 (talk) 07:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

My reason for deleting it (if you check the logs of why it was changed and the fact that this change was ACCEPTED) outweighs the need for the redirect.Badanagram (talk) 07:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the redirect, per your request. However the evidence of the sockpuppetry must stay. Toddst1 (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there's something confusing going on at User talk:Sandstein#Admin behaviour. Could you comment? Why did you block that person's IP, but not their user account? Thanks,  Sandstein  19:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Sock investigation

You previously commented at a sock investigation on this user, now there is another one, at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WikiLubber. Perhaps you may have some prior knowledge, experience and expertise to impart, with this particular case. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 22:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Will take a look this afternoon. Toddst1 (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Bum/hum

In view of this and this, you may be interested in seeing this. It seems that our disagreement was irrelevant, as unblocking has made no difference anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Bummer. :) Toddst1 (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

AtomicMarcusKitten

Hi there, taking a look at this user's talk page, I see that you recently blocked him for incivility. He's starting up again at Talk:Lady Gaga discography (I had to remove one message that consisted of nothing but attacks) and my own talk page - you might want to keep an eye on him. –Chase (talk) 19:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thank you so much! I'll leave it on my talk page for a bit and then move it over. Very kind of you. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Urdu

Why isn't proper legimitate citations enforced for the Urdu page in particular to Hindustani references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.234.140.18 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Global Peace Service Alliance

Global Peace Service Alliance and Global peace service alliance have been recreated... need protection made be?Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Real-Life Barnstar
		For your swift and sane reply to the most recent threats of violence. Keep up the good work! Basket of Puppies 00:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. It's situations like that where I wish I was a CU. Toddst1 (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hardy Bucks

you nominated it for speedy deletion

Articles for deletion nomination of Hardy Bucks I have nominated Hardy Bucks, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hardy Bucks. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Toddst1 (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

i think you have been proved wrong to do so by the success of the show and the tv show, alot of valuable information was lost due to your hastiness —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illuminati16 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

So you're gloating? This is the second time you're mentioning this. Perhaps you should find something else to focus on. Toddst1 (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Death threat case

So did Indiana Wesleyan University Police find User:Finmcaley12? Was he/she arrested? TomCat4680 (talk) 06:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Got your email. If the case is closed the edits need to be rev/deled. TomCat4680 (talk) 16:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. Done. Good work on that BTW. Toddst1 (talk) 16:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Erice statement

The facts, stated in the articles, with relevant sources, that 90.000 scientist and eminent politicians signed the statement is not enough for notability? --Pastore Italy (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Number of sigs is not a criteria for WP:NN. Toddst1 (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

IP:119.224.20.163

Hello, 119.224.20.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was only blocked for account creation and not for editing. That IP has been warned 8 times in the past 3 months. Veriss (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems blocked to me. Am I missing something? Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Just doesn't have the normal template I'm used to seeing...I'm probably just revealing my lack of knowledge. Thank you for taking care of it and for getting back to me. Cheers, Veriss (talk) 23:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I've added that. They were blocked either way. Toddst1 (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

MIRK (band)

Since you're the last one to delete this article I thought you might like to know: it may have been recreated at Mirk. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:07, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be in good shape this time. Toddst1 (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Orijentolog

Wants to be unblocked -- see my talk page. He's been trying to cooperate, I might support an unblock because of that. Dougweller (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on that matter. Dude was pretty disruptive. Toddst1 (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump and perceived legal threats

Please, correct me if I am wrong, but per WP:LEGAL the statement that someone makes "a fraudulent attempt to whitewash Marxist terrorism, in effect turning the discussion into an advertisement for terrorism;"[64] is a perceived legal threat, and even much more serious one, because propaganda of terrorism, by contrast to libel, is a felony. In connection to that, taking into account that both Andy and Justus can be considered as new editors, as well as because it was Justus who started his legal threats first, I request you to re-consider your decision.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Upon re-reading the Andy's post, I came to the conclusion that I have to concede that it was not wise to make such a statement. Whereas the Justus' numerous posts are just personal attacks and perceived legal threats, the last Andy's post was almost unequivocal legal threat. However, taking into account that the Justus' attacks were directed at Andy and myself in the same extent, and whereas I personally don't think Justus "left me no choice", the last Andy's post is a result of the lack of experience. Taking into account that both there editors are relatively new in WP, and that Justus repeatedly attacked Andy, I believe his agreement to withdraw this statement would be sufficient to lift the block.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Toddst1 (talk) 18:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Warning regarding conflict of interest on my talk page

I have no connection with Douglas Ousterhout. I have no financial or pecuniary interest in his business or its outlook. I do not work for him or with him or with anyone that, to my knowledge, works for him or with him. I have not talked to either him or anyone, to my knowledge, that works for him or with him in almost 10 years. I would appreciate if you would voluntarily remove that whole section containing the implication on my talk page that there might be such a relationship. Msnicki (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

What was your connection with him 10 years ago? Toddst1 (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I should also alert you that I have reverted your edits to the Ousterhout page and given the reasons on the talk page. I truly mean no disrespect by having reverted your changes. If you disagree with my points, I hope we can discuss and resolve. Msnicki (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Accusation of an edit war.

You've suggested that there may be a problem with my behavior as regards an edit war on the Douglas Ousterhout page. May I ask, please, if we could identify the edits I've made that you feel were inappropriate and discuss? I suppose it's possible you are unhappy with my having undone your own edits, but I have posted my reasons to the talk pages and would welcome further discussion on that page. My intent in simply to ensure that the result is a high quality encyclopedic article. Nothing more, nothing less.

You are right that there has been something of an edit war on that page today, but you're behaving as if you don't realize that the problem was someone else who you, yourself blocked. I did make several reverts, but I honestly tried to follow the rules the best I could and I also reported the problem. I appreciate you are trying to be constructive and hope you'll take my comments as reflecting the same good intentions. I really hope we can resolve this without a lot of big warning messages all over each other's talk pages. Are you willing to discuss, please? Msnicki (talk) 20:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The edit war same thing as for the past 4 years the whole web

I want to give you a feel about how obsessed this user is about Dr. Ousterhout. I am going to place a listing of every doctor who does this surgery on the talk page as all in fairness statement I am making there and I am very certain this user will make every attempt possible to remove it from the talk page since it let the world know there is more than one doctor doing this surgery and has been for over 20 years. There goes the claim he invented this kind surgery.

I am very well know for having a listing of every doctor doing this surgery on my website and have for years.

If you notice none of the listings she placed on the article talk about more than one doctor doing the surgery one sided to make it look like her doctor is the only one.

Toddst1 please do not be fooled by the users edits by this user she is very well know for promoting Dr. Douglas Ousterhout. She has taken off my link http://www.facialfeminizationsurgery.net/facialfeminizationsurgery.html from the article claiming potentially libelous material which in case if it was so libelous it would have been removed from the web years ago by the doctor office since it has been posted since 2006 check webpage caches of the site, Parts of my story have been posted on http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/ who is a doctor not in the same field even as Dr. Ousterhout who publishes mishaps like mine and also has a another issues published about the same doctor at http://www.annelawrence.com/twr/ffsinsf.html

Also note there is no Criticism only praise, praise, praise, and the user goes after everyone trying to chage that. What the user is trying to change is the fact that my website is in the top five ranking for the keyword facial feminization surgery on search engines. Which Mira the office manager for the same doctor has contacted people about and asked that they place links to spammed sites on the Dr. Ousterhout article to change that ranking on the search engines.

-- WP:OUTING material deleted.

So you might want to be aware she voluntarily had posted his or her own information, or links to such information on WP. Also all items posted are avaible on her pages that she has voluntarily posted on her webpages publicaly to see for the whole world to see. So per "WP:OUTING" she had posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia being her webpage then is trying say it did not have the affect I wanted so please take it back. Posting a dictect link to such information will cause people to visit and see who you are. If there is such a problem you would believe she would remove the link that provides all this linking to her site. It’s like saying here I am I want to be public and link to youself then when someone is saying you are a spammer you say all private but leave your website up and keep promoting the same issues with your link.

So it is hard be public providing the link to her own side then say she is private due to spamming when all the info is provided for everyone to see. If you want to be a private person you can’t add details about your self in links on WP to yourself and that information. Toddst1 you have really been conned on that issue by her take a look at the her edits and that she adding those links herself.

Sorry for all the drama about this has been going on for years with this person and this doctors office.

Trinity (talk) 1:12PM, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If you re posting your own links to WP of your own free will with your own personal information why are using the WP:OUTING tag since when you post personal info on your site then hide the fact you are doing so no admin can see the link and that you are spamming your own site personal info all over. So it is fine that you post your own site on the pages then say you can't tell anyone the link because it will show you are spamming. Neat trick to try and hide the fact you are spamming WP but how long do you think it will last.

(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC). --Trinity1rose (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Janemillert/Trinity1rose sockpuppet investigation

Hi. Possibly you may have an opinion on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Janemillert. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Quack! Toddst1 (talk) 03:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

One for the suggestion box

I'd like to make a suggestion that maybe you can pass along.

It was really difficult for me to know how to respond most constructively re: the Ousterhout page. When I spotted the problem and went to find how to report it, the page insisted (or at least, that's how I read it) that I had to post a warning first before making a report. This was problematic for me: I'm not a moderator. I don't make the rules nor does it seem like my job to judge other people here. I make contributions and people either like them, fix them or delete them. I really don't want to engage in the level of conflict that goes with posting warnings. It's seriously unpleasant for me and I don't want to do it.

More to the point, the requirement that I post a warning first meant that I had to engage with someone that was obviously angry and was probably only going to get worse. My saying anything was not going to help yet that seemed to be what the rules required. It would have been so much better if I could have simply reported the problem edits with the proper details and description and let you folks that actually serve as moderators make the call about what should happen next before I made it worse. It would have been really helpful if I hadn't (seemingly, anyway) been required to first engage with the individual for any reason.

Do you think you might be able to bring that up as a suggestion, please? (Or maybe you'll just tell me I misunderstood that page, which could be useful, too.) Regards. Msnicki (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, you are right. Policy states that to report someone to AIV, you are supposed to try to engage them and give them progressively more severe warnings. However, in this case, the issue was rather blatant and we have a policy called ignore all rules which I effectively, if not tacitly invoked to deal with the situation. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Thank you. I just read that page. Msnicki (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Article: Rima Das

Dear Todd, I have noted your amendments to the above page. This account has been created for Rima Das and my query is as to why the birth information, dates and community participation has been removed? Her birth in India and migration to Australia is imporant as she has obtained the identity of an Indian-Australian Community Bollywood Ambassador. The events and activities carried out are an important attribute to her status within the community as their cultural ambassador, so what is not true and so wrong about this article? References/sources that may be 'official', may not be recognised by wikipedia due to nationality or source - but the subject of the page does not want too much information available about her on unreliable internet sources (that is what this account was created). Please help on how the problems can be rectified as we have done our best & this article is important for the indo-australian community who is aware of her contributions. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rima das 25 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You need to read three things very carefully: Reliable sources, biographies of living people, and conflict of interest (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Is it possible to include date of birth and location because these stats are vital for the info page, however have been removed by Todd. Also a listing of the articles appeared in, schooling, and training information was entirely deleted? Still puzzled. Please assist further as this is an important access page for basic history, involvment and information regarding the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rima das 25 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source with her date of birth and I'll put it back. If not, doing so would be a violation of WP:BLP. As you wrote it, that article was a PR piece. Toddst1 (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

98.201.91.47 -- possible sock?

The edit it just made to your talk reminds me of User:RIPGC, who was a sock of Gaydenver. This IP seems to be based in Boulder, Colorado, and I'm guessing Gaydenver is somewhere in colorado based on their name so I'm more than a little suspicious here. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 22:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it seems like an obvious sock of someone. Gaydenver is a pretty likely candidate. Toddst1 (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

well, we have about a week before RIPGC's checkuser data goes stale, so I'll be filing a SPI. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 22:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

SPI filed. Access Denied ^{[FATAL ERROR]} 22:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion template removed

I have removed your speedy deletion template at Chris Scott (Actor). I think the article indicates importance in that it claims the subject is a television actor. However, if you disagree, feel free to replace it. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to revert your edit. Instead, I'll just delete it. The article doesn't even assert the subject passes WP:ENT which is the minimum criteria not to be deleted under speedy deletion. You should have at least added a {{unreferenced BLP}}. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hold on, please. WP:G7 clearly states that "the criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines." I request that you consider immediately undeleting the article. Thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Which of the 3 criteria of WP:ENT do you think the article asserted that it passed? Toddst1 (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please reread my quote above. It doesn't matter which of the three criteria of WP:ENT the article passed, as WP:ENT is a notability criterion page. Guoguo12--Talk--  22:47, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If an article about a person doesn't assert notability, it can and should be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7. WP:DRV is that way. Toddst1 (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

G'day guys, I'm new to making entries on Wikipedia... However I am the actor concerned (see my credits at IMDb) and had not completed the entry. Whilst I agree that the page wasn't complete, it seems rather brusk of you to delete it mere hours after having been posted. Might you at least be able to restore the said content to my personal space so that I can edit it and try to pass it through your checking process again?Bluefreesia (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Piranha X

Todd,

What is your problem?

Your deleting a page long before you could even read it as if you did you would know better. Are you a power junkie?

This page was creating following SEVERAL already posted pages... our effort is to maintain the same integrity but you just keep flexing your power to delete. If the Piranha X page is not meeting the requirements then I will turn in a list of pages for you to delete unless you play favorites.

Not acceptable Todd — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamieosbourne (talk • contribs) 22:44, 29 October 2010

"Our effort?" Who are the rest of you? Toddst1 (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

people/students who try to make pages that you delete before even reading. look at the time log no-way did you read, I am amazed at how fast you deleted... maybe your a "bot".

I have spent today alone over four hours making sure the page was as others already approved... you did not even provide enough time to ask for time/information on what could be done to remedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamieosbourne (talk • contribs) 22:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

When you post the exact same material, it's going to get deleted once again.

Let me give you some help here: When promoting your products/company on Wikipedia, it's a really bad idea to say "At MVX Labs, we are ..." It's a dead giveaway that you're acting as an agent of the company which is not allowed here. Toddst1 (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Well first I will say thank you for at least attempting to help. Second I am not an agent, I am a student in marketing and this company is a case study that has some notable interest. the founder happened to developed the term "micro marketing technics" and the formulations of what it is. Piranha X is an extension/new matrix of the Monster Energy Drink marketing which speaks for its self. Drawing a parallel line here: Red Bull was defined by a large corporation using traditional marketing strategies and Monster used a different one. Now you have AXE again owned by a large corporation who defined a market and again we (students/professional) see yet another company "Piranha X" but now with an even more refined program.

This is important on so many levels, think of the economic play here oh add the social shift and then wrap it up with the business world review.

I can make that change... anything else you could advise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamieosbourne (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Couple of things:

• Find some WP:Reliable sources and use them as WP:Citations to support the article. That's how you pass our test for notability of companies.
• Be sure and use neutral language - that article was not, as I mentioned before.
• You should start signing your posts on talk pages by leaving 4 tildas (~~~~) at the end so you leave your handle and your timestamp of editing.
• WP:Help has some pretty good tips too.

Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

One more thing - it would be a good idea to start the article in your userspace, like User:Jamieosbourne/Sandbox. Get the article to the point where it's ready for prime-time and then move it into the article space. Hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Chris Scott (actor)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Chris Scott (actor). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Guoguo12--Talk--  00:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll let the article speak for itself. Toddst1 (talk) 00:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:Mohammed Nazam

I'm gonna take a break from NPP for an hour now. Do I deserve a trout? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 00:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

nah. Your heart is in the right place. Toddst1 (talk) 05:52, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Your help

Many thanks for your kind comments and for your encouragement.

I may need some help on The Berakah Project document I am trying to get 'passed' at the moment. I am working on all of the references and facts and when I have something I feel can be posted may I ask for your help in looking at it first please?

I manage to get a stay of execution until I worked on it some more ;-)

Kindest regards and thanks once again for your time and efforts with a newcomer to Wiki!!!

30/10/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Space uk (talk • contribs) 13:01, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, when you found that times reference, I added it to the article and moved it back to mainspace. That should be sufficient for now, but I'm sure you can find more sources and add both more info and more WP:Reliable Sources. I've put a tool to help you find them on the article's talk page, Talk: Berakah Project. I recommend killing the trivia sectino completely. Good luck and cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 AFF Suzuki Cup squads

Hi Toddst1, hope you don't mind, but I've removed your BLPprod on 2010 AFF Suzuki Cup squads because whilst it contains biographical information in my view it isn't a BLP. ϢereSpielChequers 15:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for the heads up. Toddst1 (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Bosniaks language

Yes I have posted a comment in Croatian language. But the thing is, the people, for wich I commented, don't speak english, so in that comment I wrote also they write in English, becouse this is English wikipedia etc...--Wustefuchs (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

86.157.157.64

86.157.157.64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has resumed edit warring on Aphex Twin and resorting to personal attacks on the talk page [65] . Figured I'd let you know since you administered the last block. Some guy (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Whack. Toddst1 (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Berakah Project - updates

Hi Todd,

Please, if you have time, could you review my attempt at keeping Berakah Project in Wki. I have added references and more information. Just want to make sure I am doing it correctly.

Many thanks in advance,

(user space uk) 31st October 2020 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Space uk (talk • contribs) 16:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Big improvement! Good work. Toddst1 (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Odd acceptance of unsourced edit

I accepted the edit to Bosniaks because there was no citation on the actual total population, and I saw that the sum of the table below was approximately 2.9 million, and I figured the value came from the sum of the below numbers, as the edit summary on the edit I accepted suggested. I figured that the interval 2-3 million covers 2.9. I'm sorry if I accidentally facilitated an edit war, but I was aware of no such war. Perhaps this is a case of Ignorantia arma non excusat. PerryTachett (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam - Edit warring?

Hi! I noticed you added a pending changes setting to Jesus in Islam because of edit warring and a content dispute. While I'm not very familiar with the standards being used for the trial, I was not aware of significant edit warring at the page; there have been a few bold-revert-discuss cycles (ok, maybe bold-revert-bold-revert-discuss), but I haven't noticed any WP:3RR violations and it's been pretty civil as far as such things go. Just curious what dispute triggered the protection, or if it was done just to have another article to trial pending changes on. Thanks, and happy Wiki-ing,

-- Joren (talk) 19:26, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Cygnis insignis and Yousou

Cygnis insignis is an experienced and valuable editor here, and an administrator on a sister project. He does tend to become quite reactive when faced with abject stupidity, and that speedy deletion request fit the bill nicely. That's as far as I'll go here in defending him.

My concern is that Cygnis reverted an abjectly stupid speedy deletion request ten times and was blocked for edit warring. Yousou placed an abjectly stupid speedy deletion request, and then restored it nine times, and apparently didn't even get a talking to.

I suspect that this may have come about because Yousou templated the crap out of Cygnis insignis' talk page, making it look like he is a problem editor. He is not.

I have rectified the imbalance by blocking Yousou for exactly the same period of time as you blocked Cygnis insignis for. What I ask of you is that, in future, you put a little more effort into examining the data around the situation, and distributing consequences in an fair, even-handed manner, rather than just reacting against the person whose talk page is being blitzed.

Hesperian 23:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a point but not very far. It was the incivility in addition to the edit war that caused the block. The incivility was entirely one sided. We don't usually block for stupidity. Bad block there on your part. Toddst1 (talk) 00:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Incivility one-sided? Yousou repeatedly templated a regular whilst declining to engage in any substantive discussion. He utterly refused to engage other than through his Twinkle interface. You don't think that incivil?

Do you want Yousou to come out of this feeling vindicated? Feeling that he can safely place a tag ten times in a row, template the crap out of someone's talk page, refuse to engage other than through his Twinkle interface, forum shop for support, and he'll be backed up? No way, this is a good block, because it sends a message that obviously desperately needs to be sent.

Hesperian 00:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yousou was in no way incivil. Beyond that we'll just disagree. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of accepted version

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

Odd acceptance of unsourced edit

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

 Message read Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

That name/phone-number spammer

206.219.166.113 is a school-IP address (Horry County in South Carolina, US). After reporting the serial vandalism I started to think that it was possible that the user who was posting the information might have been in violation of posting personal information (not necessarily about themselves or to promote a business, etc.), but about someone else to somehow cause them trouble. Just a thought - Shearonink (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I don't think we need to oversight it though. I've tagged the page as a {{schoolip}}. That was definitely an odd situation and I wasn't sure what was up, but I invoked WP:IAR there. Toddst1 (talk) 15:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Please also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Klyyazici. Same MO, same vandal-edits. Shearonink (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Block error?

Can you confirm you've got this block correct please? I've already removed their talk page access, but I think you added it again. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Yup. I fucked up. Fixed now. Sorry about that.Toddst1 (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia (London Town Page)

I am curious why there is a london town page, but no page for the unincorporated area known as Edgewater (Maryland). London town (to locals anyway) is considered a "neighborhood" and the historic port (national registry of historic places and all of that). There is a londontowne community (along shore drive), and then there is the much larger area known as edgewater (maybe 15 percent of the edgewater population lives in londontowne), which includes some of the high rent residential areas like South River Colony, also the commercial areas (the grocery stores, gas stations, drug stores), and other neighborhoods southdown shores, withernsea, etc. Edgewater has the largest Elementary school in Anne Arundel county, and doesn't have a page on Wikipedia (although Mayo, Davidsonville and Riva do). 21037 as a zip trumps them all population-wise.

I thought I'd try to start creating a page, but got flummoxed by the codes and rules and realized that I was in over my head and that if I created a page, it would likely be kicked out because I didn't put the tilde in the right place.

I have a bunch of info in a word document that I could send -- it is referenced in a conventional sense, but not in the wikipedia code (census data, historic london town and gardens, etc.).

Any advice? My email is m.stephenson@patch.com.

Thanks Mitchelle

Oh, I am contacting you because I saw your name as one of the last updaters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchellews (talk • contribs) 15:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You're right. I think it warrants its own article. Right now Edgewater, Maryland redirects to Mayo, Maryland. Consider creating it. Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Calstar45

Every single edit by this individual has been vandalism. I notice he's been warned several times on his talk page but continues. What do you think? Time for a block? Msnicki (talk) 15:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. Another admin has just blocked the account. Msnicki (talk) 15:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

There's a venue for general reporting of accounts like that, by the way: WP:AIV. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I know, I've used it. But I also know that Toddst1 is an admin willing to make difficult blocks and this time around, I thought I'd see what happened if I tried reaching out directly. But I appreciate the comment. Msnicki (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

/* David Efron */

Hello, the page CorenSearchBot found is owned by David Efron. The content of the site url is public and has no copyright ownership. We are trying to start a Bio for Mr. Efron and not sure why there should be a copyright infringement.

Thanks,

javier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramosja85 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Moved to / replied on User talk:Ramosja85 Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ulysses S. Grant

Hello. I had previously started a Ulyssess S. Grant Civil War war article that I believe you put on hold. Is that article in existance or has it been deleted? The USG article is getting ready to put in a brief Civil War summary and put the current Civil War summary into its own article. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 23:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[66] You originally removed the rights from this editor for misuse. Another amdin and I agree that it now seems right to let him have them back, as the problems appear to be in the past based on recent activity. Clearly your removal was correct, and this is just a courtesy note (and an apology that really I should have asked for your opinion too before regranting!). Obviously if you disagree please let me know. Pedro :  Chat  21:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Lynn J Rothschild article

Lynn J Rothschild has now been informed of that article. Has anyone thought to approach Professor Rothschild?

Morbas (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Jerzeykydd again

Hi Toddst1, User:Jerzeykydd is disruptively editing again. He reverted my removal of his comment on my own talk page. See here. Thanks--TM 15:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently Namiba likes to tattle-tale. He has been very disruptive on wikipedia and he thinks he can get away with it by getting me blocked.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that he continued to add messages to my talk page after I specifically told him to stop. I would really appreciate action and implementation of the no tolerance policy previously agreed upon.--TM 15:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

No tolerance policy does not apply to adding messages on a talk page, which I am trying to warn against 3RR and numerous other behavior violations of Namiba.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it does, but badgering an editor you have issued personal attacks against before definitely does.--TM 15:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologized for that. Not to mention I'm not "badgering you" I'm warning you of violating wikipedia rules.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 16:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference between badgering and warning was the readdition of your 'warning' following my blanking of the section and calling it vandalism. Then you decided to put another tag on my page. Enough of this.--TM 18:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If an editor tells you to leave their talkpage alone, then additional templates/messages is badgering. Jerzey - stay off their talkpage. Namiba - stay of theirs too. If you need to message each other re:rules, ask an admin to do it directly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but for the record Namiba never told me to not post anything on his talk page.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For the record "I'd appreciate if you left the serious issues to uninvolved editors" means stay off of my talk page. I still hope Jerzeykydd will be disciplined for his flagrant violation of my talk page and the agreement he made after getting blocked and unblocked only 2 weeks ago.--TM 22:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"I'd appreciate if you left the serious issues to uninvolved editors" does not mean "stay off my talkpage". You have both been advised now, and any future interactions on each other's talkpage will lead to escalation to me. Next step is a total interaction ban which will force both of you to find entirely new articles to edit. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Need help, please

I've posted a request for help on the Admin notice board but the individual continues to be a problem. I'm trying to walk away but he's not letting me. Still trying to get a rise, he's escalated to outing. Can you help me, please? Msnicki (talk) 04:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Help on admin contact

I need to contact an admin in order to make a page semi-protected, so it could be changed only when user is logged on. The reason is I have noticed constant intrusions and malicious changes, that are reverted every time, either by me or other user, but always made from anonymous user (identified only by IP). Could you help me with this, or at least tell me whom I should write to? Adriatic mne (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

See WP:RFPP. Mechanical digger (talk) 11:07, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User talk:TCO

Hi Todd,

I'm going to look into this a bit more, but as of now, I think I'd like to take a chance on this user; blocked by you for personal attacks 16 months ago. It doesn't appear to be a community ban, so I don't think an ANI thread is needed if you're OK with an unblock. Do you mind if I give him a shot? Is there some additional piece of info I don't have that would make an unblock a dumb move? --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, looking at your recent edit history, it looks like you're editing even less right now than I am, and I don't see a compelling reason to wait a few days on this. It looks fairly straightforward, I don't think this is He Who Shall Not Be Named, looks like it was garden variety dickishness. At the risk of stepping on your toes, I'm going unblock him based on an assurance that the old behavior won't resume. If it does, reblocking is easy. Still interested in your opinion when you next log on, either in favor or against. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

That's just fine. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Peekarica

My articles

Dear Toddst1. You deleted Lange Jan, Lange Lies without any reason. The Olympic III wasn't an hoax, you are acting like a giant police officer to me. You never take the time and read them, now my other article, which wasn't an hoax named Lange Jan, Lange Lies is also gone. I am really pissed off with that. Every article gets deleted, and on the Dutch Wiki I have made a couple of articles. Seriously.

Olympic III was a really proposed ship, I had even contact with someone named David from Harland and Wolff that advised to contact one of the largest cruise ship companies such like Cunard Line. And now you see me as a hoax guy, you know what really makes everything low? That the username JetskiTradeCenter was blocked without a reason. You just deleting everything if it has something wrong. And if you think I write bullshit, then you really should go on the Dutch wikipedia and searching for Lange Jan and Lange Lies. I am finished with you. Peekarica (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Aw shucks. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Peekarica

Hi Toddst1 User: Peekarica is apparently impersonating the owner of the website his user name is name for. He is doing this because of an argument with this person. His apparent name is actually the internet nickname of the actual person, Dennis Lamers. http://www.peekarica.com/wiki/index.php?title=User:Antares His now deleted account name was also used to impersonate Lamers on a copy of his "WikiPeekarica" site, peekarica.wikia.com. http://peekarica.wikia.com/wiki/User:JetskyTradeCenter 1Matt20 (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2010

Are you sure this user is malicious, or just ignorant? Look here. There's a lot for a newbie to learn. I don't know--maybe he's savvier than I think, but those chimneys did exist. Do you think he deserves as apology for your accusation? --Yopienso (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The guy has gone around creating hoaxes with numerous accounts going to great lengths to fabricate sources. I would believe he might be delusional (honestly believing he's leading the creation of replica ocean liners) if he's not malicious. Have you read the fabricated sources he's created on peekarica.com?

He claims to be 15 years old on his web site. 15 year olds don't lead initiatives to build ships costing hundreds of millions of pounds. Toddst1 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I have collaborated with Dennis Lamers, who is 15 years old. I believe that he was building a "Replica Olympic" on Blockland.com and wouldn't let this person, actually named Justin (who DOES NOT own peekarica.com), to take part in it. He has also created a Wikipedia article on Dennis Lamers, which claimed him to be a Film director, owner of Replica Olympic, Peekarica and a member of the party Lange Jan and Lange Lies (now deleted, of course). The actual Dennis Lamers would appreciate it if this impersonating would stop. 1Matt20 (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You can do one of two things:

1. Take this issue to WP:ANI. Probably the better answer is #2.

2. See Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject) for a general overview of ways to get problems fixed (as well as an email address). The email address is info-en-q@wikimedia.org. The first thing Mr. Lamers will be asked to do is to privately establish his identity. Toddst1 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that details have been posted on this website. Toddst1 (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Olympic

Dear Todd, I am not trying to be an god or something else. But I know that people saw the Olympic III as an hoax. But I do know that isn't true but the reliable resources of that aren't posted yet. If there is an website of an shipyard that announced that the Olympic III will be rebuild as an cruise boat with cruise ship material, then I will send immediately an message to you.

Or if the keel is laid at minimum, could the article Olympic III come back? Thank you. Peekarica (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't get to make the call. There was an AFD discussion. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, I know. But it wasn't mean to be an hoax. But if there is any news in the air, I will send it immediately to you. Also something about Sarel Gous's Titanic II. The project from him was so close that hes dream was nearly reality, it's amazing that so many articles are still available on news websites or in Google searches. Thank you. Peekarica (talk) 21:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

request

Hi Todd, could you please semi protect indefinitely so that unconfirmed users can't edit or move the two accounts of mine that were widely publicized during the Arbcom election. User:Tomas Jennings and User:Diamond days - I might not use them but I think it better if they are protected a little bit. Off2riorob (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that they've ever been vandalized by anyone. From WP:SILVERLOCK:

Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view). Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users.

Toddst1 (talk) 15:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was of the understanding that that position is a bit flexible in relation to users talkpages, I presume you don't mind if I ask someone else if they are more flexible about this issue. Thanks for looking. I see you are retiring, good luck in your real life. Off2riorob (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite retiring, but nowhere near as active here as I was since early November. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Twin Oaks Plantation

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