User talk:Toddst1/Archive 6

This page, Toddst1/Archive 6 contains archived talk page discussions for Toddst1 (talk).
Please do not edit this page.

• Current time: November 17, 2024, 11:19 (UTC)

Lemme clarify

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.

Misunderstanidng of what an WP:EW is by Aditya Kabir.
Any further discussion on this matter should take place on User talk:Aditya Kabir where other editors have joined in.

---

I posted for a discussion User talk:Beyond My Ken, Talk:Bikini and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. and I did request for discussions every time I reverted, which didn't happen. I did post my concerns before reverting, while the other party went on to revert my other edits without participating in the discussion. It was natural to assume that the other party isn't interested in discussion, and okay to make another revert. The other party's answer to his talk page, which ended in - "I'm not interested in hearing from you, since your interest seems entirely selfish and not focused on improving the encyclopedia" - made that assumption even more natural.

You seem to have forgotten the very beginning of the relevant guideline - "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." (WP:WAR) I also have noted with some curiosity that while you templated me, you have done no such thing to the other party. I also was quite curious to see that you didn't find - "You've done it to Bikini and Bikini variant and Thong (clothing)-- which I didn't revert because it's already garabage. You apparently think you know what a good image is; you're wrong, but I can't be bothered to spend the time necessary to tutor you about what is a good image and what is bad" - to be a personal attack, especially because the relevant guideline is summarized as - "Comment on the content, not on the contributor". (WP:PERSONAL)

I have posted this to my talk page as well. I'm really surprised at this action. Can you, please, explain where I'm wrong? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You don't go back and re-make the edits until you have obtained consensus to do so. Great, you made the edit, it was reverted, and you started to discuss - unless the new consensus emerges to reinstate them, you do not go back and make them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Does that also include the only other party involved going ahead and reverting multiple articles on the grounds of "this is better" repeatedly while refusing to discuss, and the accused party repeatedly asking for a discussion, and waiting for the discussion. I have been here for some time, and made a few edits, but, seriously I haven't seen that kind of behaviour building any consensus. Perhaps you have forgotten that "Where there are clear conflicts in the opinions of editors as to material and wording in an article, the first place for discussion is the article discussion page." (WP:CON). And, if you have checked the issue, did you tell - "You don't go back and re-make the edits until you have obtained consensus to do so" - to the other party? I can't find any policy, guideline or tradition that I have violated. Please, let me what I violated. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. See WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 18:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that doesn't apply. Because, there was repeated attempt at discussion and eventually uninvolved editors taking part. You are wrong. And, there was double standards applied on your part. Very surprised and hurt at that. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 09:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Discussion or not, an edit war is an edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Lhb1239's talk page.
Message added 16:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(talk→ LesHB ←track) 16:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Lhb1239's talk page.
Message added 01:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(talk→ LesHB ←track) 01:31, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

AfD

[1] is probably worth going back to... Hobit (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Ron Ritzman's talk page.
Message added 01:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Three Angels Broadcasting Network, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page G-19 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

content comparrison

Todd, a small admin hat request - would you have a look at the deleted content from here and compare it with the article recently created here - Kris Herzog. I am wondering if it is similar or unrelated. Youreallycan (talk) 01:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries, now resolved, another admin has responded, thanks - Youreallycan (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, offline for a bit. Toddst1 (talk) 02:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I think there is a bit of a format mess at ani as elle has replied to some of your points in between yours, and it all looks a bit confusing there now. Youreallycan (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

CSD

Isn't it a bit hasty to add an A7 tag to this article just 4 minutes after it was created? Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Really? A 9 word autobiography? What do you think the average life of 9 word autobiographies is? Granted, most of my CSDs are on ~1 month old articles from the back of New Pages. Toddst1 (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't criticising you. I'm pretty new to CSD, but I do know about how we're advised to give new, short articles time to grow before throwing the axe at them. You're a lot more experienced than me so I just wanted to know what you thought (kinda playing devil's advocate here, I agree the article had to go ultimately). Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - there have been quite a few folks taking pot-shots at me lately. I guess I'm getting just a bit too used to it.

Typically, you are correct, you would generally give a few more minutes before considering speedy deletion. However there are cases like this where WP:SNOW applies and there's really no need to wait that long. Toddst1 (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. And don't worry, I sometimes feel like I have a bullseye painted on my head too. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 09:23, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Tagging lists

Your tags on the List of investment banks doesn't make any sense to me. What referencing are you looking to include there - this is a list of articles? Does each entry need a reference saying it is an investment bank? I am being serious. In the absence of some productive ideas, adding a bunch of tags throughout the article seems particularly disruptive. If you want to have one tag then add one tag but then I think YOU on the talk page should put some commentary. Specifically, I would suggest you figure out what kind of referencing you think is appropriate for a list of this sort. That page is a constant target for spam - I have been working on keeping the persistent spam in check on that page for years. Your tagging 4 times in the same page seems like overkill and doesn't address the issue with that page

Also, I understand why you removed all of the entries that didn't have articles although I wonder if you had any idea what you were doing as you went through the changes. Not every entry in a list needs to be notable necessarily and it would be better to remove spam and trivial entries rather than just take out anything that doesn't have a wikipedia article. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 05:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

<sarcasm>You are correct. I have no idea what I'm doing.</sarcasm> Toddst1 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Less sarcastically, "Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; so are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability" Toddst1 (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

• My sarcastic response would be if there is an issue go do something about it then. |► ϋrбanяeneωaℓ • TALK ◄| 13:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

David Rose moves

I think you should reverse your moves, for the reasons I indicated at Talk:David Rose#Premature move, I am mentioning it again here, in case you missed my response there. Please respond there. I hate to see ~150 incorrect links to a dab page being created, and then either left in limbo, or being pointlessly "fixed" (as is already happening), since it is very likely a proper WP:RM discussion will result in the musician being restored as the primary topic. --NSH001 (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to revert my changes. Toddst1 (talk) 04:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Metroman87 (talk · contribs): WP:DUCK?

...of either Bijuts (talk · contribs) or DileepKS69 (talk · contribs)? — Abhishek  ^Talk 15:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Could be. SPI is that way. Toddst1 (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have filed a new case at the SPI page. — Abhishek  ^Talk 15:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

why was Tunday Akintan deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.191.178.27 (talk) 10:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunday Akintan (2nd nomination). It also explains why you can't find other info for your research. Perhaps you should research something more notable. Toddst1 (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

query re deleted article

Hi, there - I'd like more information on why you deleted a specific article - on venture capitalist John Steuart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Steuart). Steuart seems to meet the A7 definition of importance within his industry, and within the technology startup word in general - any way this might be demonstrated to qualify the article for retention? Thanks for your help, LisaS 24.23.163.47 (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure. How did the article assert his importance? All I saw was that he worked for a company that was probably important. Toddst1 (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So an entry on an individual would need to distinguish the importance of what Steuart did, as distinct from that of what his company did as a whole. Makes sense... thank you. 24.23.163.47 (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Film.bollywoodspace (talk · contribs)

With ref to this I just want you to see the edits made by the user on the article. He keeps doing the same inspite of multiple warnings. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 13:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How does that constitute "any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."? Toddst1 (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Are Unexplained removal of images and appropriate categories a kind of content removal? Then how do you classify their edits. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 18:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it doesn't look like vandalism. It looks contentious, yes, but that's why we have WP:DR. Toddst1 (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you think that it can be solved by DR when the user no longer responds to any of the actions. —Commander _{(Ping me)} 06:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA

Hello. I am from the French Wikipedia. I am also calling for the resignation of people from the foundation after they decided that they should support the loss of our neutrality. If ever something is set up somewhere in order to secure that move, please let me know. Thierry Caro (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I wish you luck.

I didn't know about that fiasco they called a discussion about the blackout until it was closed. What a joke that was. Toddst1 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I also wasn't aware of the discussion until it was closed. However I do believe even an entity like Wikipedia has a right to self defence. Taroaldo (talk) 23:15, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Please explain

I was about to Get quite cross with you for calling me a meatpuppet, whatever that is, right out of the blue with no provocation on my part at all, until I noticed that you share my views about the disgraceful blackout, which has exploited the voluntary work of many thousands of volunteers like myself for political aims. I wouldn't have minded the blackout so much had the political aims not been so completely fat-headed.

If you please re-read my comment on the USP Networks entry, you will see that I'm just trying to explain why WPoel might have a legitimate reason for his entry, and doing no more than that. I know him, and worked occasionally for him, and he told me that there was a dispute over the entry so I went to have a look. Does that make me a 'meatpuppet'? It seems rather a harsh reaction and surely outside the guidelines you are given for relating to contributors to Wikipedia. AndrewRMClarke (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Wpoel has recruited a number of his buddies to help his cause which is clearly a violation of WP:meat. He's been blocked for that. I'm afraid that makes you one too. You seem like a borderline case so I am trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. You need to stop editing on his behalf. See discussion on user talk:Wpoel. Toddst1 (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of VP-Info

I removed the prod from VP-Info after finding a detailed 3-page magazine review and a number of passing mentions which suggest it's historically significant. I think it would survive at Afd, however the article is a mess and needs a lot of cleanup. – Pnm (talk) 21:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Sounds good. Toddst1 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

I did not know that there was any regulation of Userspace beyond "no copyright infringement". I shall not revert it, as I had/have no intention of non-adherence to any policies: thank you for letting me know that there are policies for userspace, and that my content violated them. St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 17:53, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'm confident that you have no intent to disrupt and this was just lack of knowledge which happens all the time here - even to an administrator like me. Toddst1 (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

VPN's Garage Deletion

VPN's Garage is a fansite about The Sims. Since Mod The Sims, Simprograms and other fansites are mentioned, in my opinion I think that the page about VPN's Garage should not be cancelled. Thanks.

--Friendly Yours, Enzoakavpn 21:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hey Todd, thanks...

...for your note. A new editor left me a message as well; we may see more activity in the article. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Ann Blackman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Hill and Scribner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Tenzingnineoneone

Hi,
just to get a clear picture, was there anything that connected Tenzingnineoneone and Petermcelwee besides them both editing the same page, and that Ryhaan was tagged as a sock of Petermcelwee as well? I ask because Tenzingnineoneone seems to be back back as Tenamaxtle .
Thanks, Amalthea 14:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there was the SPI. Toddst1 (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what I wrote was confusing. Ryhaan is probably correctly marked as a sock. What I'm asking is: is there anything tying Tenzingnineoneone to Petermcelwee besides them both creating that same page? Amalthea 17:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that was one of those ducks. Toddst1 (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Amalthea 17:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

"Edit war"

Hi! As far as "edit war" is concerned, I am only reversing changes of Internet meme, because 9gag users are trying to force their website into this article at the moment. I have adressed this on the talk page, but nobody responded; most changes come from first time unregistered users anyway. I also have linked to a post on 9gag, where there is an appeal to the other users to write 9gag into this specific article by force. Personally, I'd suggest locking the article for unregistered users, but that's not up to me to decide. I just find it annoying when online communities try to turn an encyclopedia into their personal advertisement space. Regards Hardring (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article. However, you are still edit warring. Toddst1 (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the article. I am definitely not edit warring anymore, I don't know what you mean. Hardring (talk) 10:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your followup. Happy editing. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Toddst1, I thought I'd message you to let you know that a "new" user, "User:Xoramdin13", has edited the Iraqi Turkmens article today to exactly the same edit as User:Twafotfs (i.e.User:Ledenierhomme). It looks as though this user will continue to disrupte this article in the future. Is there any long-term solutions that we can implement in order to try and deter this behaviour? I have tried to get the article protected on numerous occasions however it was always rejected.Turco85 (Talk) 23:50, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Banhammered and article semi-ed. Toddst1 (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I thank you very much for your help in this issue. But I have to blame myself too for making such rude comments. I apologize also. And I have apologized to Denniss for making rude comments with a cupcake of apology. But thanks again, I hope this issue was suppressed. TsarSrbinu29 (talk) 19:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Help

As you are totally uninvolved and active admin would you please review this section [2] i cannot take this anymore. There is an SPI and previous ANI as well. This needs sorted whether I'm correct or in the wrong, Edinburgh Wanderer 23:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wow. There's a lot there. I'm not sure I have enough time to sort through all of that right now but let me take a look... Toddst1 (talk) 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks he has been blocked for 36 hours anyway hopefully won't need another if the SPI is dealt with when reviewed.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

My apologies

Beers all around.

I am very upset with your behavior at ANI and that hasn't changed, but I didn't need to let my anger with you cause me to insult you by stating you don't have sense.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You are an honorable editor and worthy of kinder treatment than I have displayed. Please accept my apologies as well. Toddst1 (talk) 06:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate the gesture. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. The beer's on me (it's not real anyway--it's just a photograph..). Drmies (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

John Flügel

This article is not tagged for deletion? I see no reason why it should be. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk)

I agree. See the article's history. Toddst1 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok. I really not sure that slapping RfD tags on all the stubs will slow down that editor, who seems in perfectly good faith, but just a little too hasty. Perhaps negotiation might be more productive, for everyone concerned? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the CSD was a mistake on my part. Toddst1 (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You might wish to try and encourage that editor to slow down a but. But perhaps at least an explanation and/or an apology on their Talk Page might be in order? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoops - forgot about the notice. Toddst1 (talk) 21:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Great work on that Anti-Pakistan sentiment edit war. Shriram (talk) 18:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Help with this page

I was patrolling the new pages log and found this page, Testing for safety. What would you suggest with this article? It's not wikified and wouldn't seem exactly encyclopedia material. SwisterTwister talk 20:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have been addressed. Toddst1 (talk) 20:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

TTT (song)

Care to explain why you think I blanked content? A random IP user separated "album cut" and "single release". I reverted. The content is still available in the chart. — Status {^talk_contribs 21:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring, Goodies

Hi. You warned me not to edit war on the article Goodies (album) with some IP editor. I informed him of resolving the dispute on the talk page post I opened before I gave him his third warning, so I am at fault here b/c he didn't take heed, like vandals usually don't? Dan56 (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I am going to revert a recent edit to this article, an unexplained genre change made by another user. It should be reverted, and I don't want to come off as vandalizing/edit warring, okay? Dan56 (talk) 03:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't give you permission. Toddst1 (talk) 03:34, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Does that mean I can or can't? Dan56 (talk) 03:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you don't know what an edit war is. Toddst1 (talk) 13:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Your recent block of 24.66.38.142

24.66.38.142 is likely a sock of 24.66.6.42, currently blocked for 6 months. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems plausible. Toddst1 (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Guinsberg

Hi Toddst1, please see my final unblock declination at User talk:Guinsberg, where I invited him to continue normal talk page discussion rather than posting more unblock templates. He did not respond, and now cannot respond since you revoked talk page access. He seemed to be honestly asking for clarification of a policy point, and I wanted to give him the opportunity to converse about it if desired — but not inside an unblock request, which I made very clear. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Whoops - good point. I'll fix that straight away. Toddst1 (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I know how it looks, but several of those six unblock were posted all at once together without being declined, so it isn't as bad as it looks. I declined 3 or 4 of them in one edit. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:07, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry to bother, but I was wondering what kind of edit-warring was going on at the Golan Heights article that would warrant this kind of page protection for such a period of time. Thanks. -asad (talk) 00:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have responded to you on my talkpage. -asad (talk) 16:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. The section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ottawahitech_block_review. Syrthiss (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Toddst1, enough people disagreed with this that I've unblocked Ottawahitech. If you're concerned about the name, I think a thread at WP:RFCN is the way to go. If you don't feel like doing it, I suspect someone else will see it at ANI and do it instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. No problem on the unblock. That was one of those situations where I was really hoping not to block but the reaction to the inquiry was so incredibly unfortunate. Toddst1 (talk) 20:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey

Forget it. I'm out of Wikipedia now.

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Plot Spoiler's talk page.
Message added 22:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jayjg ^(talk) 22:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Blocked again

This is User:Guinsberg again. Another editor has blocked me from Wikipedia on charges of edit warring on the Anti-Defamation League article. But this is preposterous. I haven't made a single edit on that entry, or [any other in the last ~30h], though I have made edits on my own Talk Page and have talked to other users. Please help me out. 177.17.56.135 (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 15:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cyberpower678

I think that you and I were almost simultaneously on the case her, you just ahead. I cannot quite see why even a hacked or compromised account would draw attention by reporting itself at AIV. Can you? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

No. It's really screwy. I've reported it on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help and attention in matters surround Latif Yahia. I'm glad you've taken steps against the disruptive accounts, also protecting the page. Personally I've no doubt we've been dealing with the subject all along (so far, by the English and the penchant for posting on top), and that we'll see more SPA. I hope the page protection helps! Thank you again! JFHJr (㊟) 16:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

User:cyberpower678

Hi Toddst1. I've unblocked as per ANI and the user's unblocke request it was clearly a Twinkle error. Any problems let me know. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  20:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Good. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for caring though.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 514,678,945) 23:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's a good thing that I don't have to prove my identity because my identity string is currently not accessible. It is saved on a secure flash drive that is encrypted at my house. I cannot remeber it for it is a paragraph.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 514,685,116) 23:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Glad it worked out. Sorry for any inconvenience. Toddst1 (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Nah. It's only an additional block that's going to make me look bad in a future RfA of mine. ;)—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 514,748,203) 04:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

For the record, that block shouldn't reflect poorly on any RFA. Toddst1 (talk) 15:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

I have just seen my User page, and only now I see that you have included me, without any warning, in the sockpuppet category. First off, I would like to know of whom am I supposed to be a sockpuppet? and secondly, I'd like to defend myself by denying any allegation or suspicion of this sort. That I've evaded a block to warn you, as you later confirmed, that I had been unfairly sanctioned, is not, can not, by itself, be evidence of broader, more serious violations. I do have a habit of editing some articles -- e.g., Plato's five regimes or Johanna Schopenhauer -- using anonymous IPs but this has nothing to do with any ulterior motives regarding my relation with the broader Wikipedia community. My edits on all of the more controversial subjects, such as the ADL or Racism in Israel, have all been made using this account. Anyone who can check my user IP, the combination of my topics of interest, perhaps my writing style, etc., will see that I can't be confused with any other editor. Guinsberg (talk) 04:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Really? It appears pretty darn obvious that you evaded your block via the dynamic IPs (as I noted). Your notification of this blatantly obvious fact was the posting of {{sockpuppeteer}} on your UP. What exactly are you complaining about? The fact that you weren't indeffed for evading your block? Toddst1 (talk) 06:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there any problem if I edit my UP, without removing the tag, to, among other things, explain how did I get to earn that label?Guinsberg (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. In fact, you can remove the tag. Toddst1 (talk) 14:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Alpha_Quadrant. Thank you. —Taric25 (talk) 06:44, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much

For blocking him :) Cigaro Pizarro (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Blacklist?

Hi. You just blocked Starflixx for spamming. He also uses a range of anon IPs so he'll probably sneak round this. However almost all of his edits are to add his own papers which are published here. Is a blacklist appropriate and if so how should I propose one? Thanks andy (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's possible. If you think it would be worthwhile, give Wikipedia:Spam blacklist a read. Toddst1 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski

I don't edit without logging in. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Cool by me. You've got to admit that ANI thread was a bit strange. Toddst1 (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been editing here since 2005...nothing surprises me any more. Welcome to Wikipedia, where annonymous cowards can bring established users up for Red Guards-style criticism. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

More info on the ANI on Lihaas? What info do you want?

As asked above what info do you want me to provide? If you look at Lihaas' talk page, I asked him to stop posting on my talk page, I told him the issue in question he brought up was ended a month ago. Then he posted again, and aggressively. So that's why I want him blocked from posting on my talk page.--R-41 (talk) 20:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

• Todd, please see the ANI thread (and close it while you're at it). I have given R-41 for calling another editor "a fascist, National Socialist and thus an anti-Semite". Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

bans

apologies for vandalising some aspects of the pages and it will not happen again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.209.97 (talk) 23:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Butting in here, I don't see why this user – User:31.52.209.97 – was warned as a vandal for this? We lose editors this way, IMHO. The IP editor has apologised, I wish them well, and hope that they will want to carry on exploring Wikipedia, first by having a look at the Five Pillars and asking for help when needed - for example by putting {{help me}} on this page, and asking a question. Good luck. Nortonius (talk) 01:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you've confused yourself. While that edit wasn't particularly problematic, this is the one I warned him/her about.

Perhaps the college is known for courses in guinea pig throwing.

We lose lots of editors. The good news is I'm not on commission. Toddst1 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep you're right, soz - I confused myself, I shouldn't edit when this tired. And, soz you're not on commission! I'll try to clear that up. :o) Nortonius (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC) p.s. Actually there doesn't really seem to be any clearing up for me to do – I said something nice to them, w/o going into specifics, and... I apologised to you! All done? :o) Cheers.

Consensus for unblock

Per [3], perhaps you'd like to expand on your rationale. I'm not seeing a clear consensus for unblock unless you meant by strict numerical terms. I am perhaps seeing consensus to reduce the block length. —Dark 05:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I second this request. Even on strictly numerical terms, only 41% of the participants supported lifting the block immediately, with the other 59% in endorsing blocks between 24 hours and 7 days. This is not, in my view, an accurate reading of consensus. Could you elaborate in the thread please, Toddst1? TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 05:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Todd, you have unblocked bugs against consensus. You need to explain this action with all haste here. 76.118.180.210 (talk) 05:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think you guys are reading whatever you want into those numbers. 23 disagreed with the block (shorten or overturn) 6 endorsed. The block wasn't right. Toddst1 (talk) 06:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"Shorten" does not mean "pull the plug immediately" - even those suggesting shortening were saying 2-3 days. That is what I mean by no consensus, Toddst1. There were various ideas out there, and they hadn't firmed up yet. You unblocked before a consensus had time to form. Risker (talk) 06:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry, Toddst1, but this is not resolved. I have been watching this discussion very closely throughout its course to see if consensus would develop, and it most certainly has not. Why are you closing this discussion after only 5 hours? Let's try 24 hours before you do this. Sorry, but this isnt' consensus, it's you imposing your own preference. Please reopen the discussion now. There was consensus developing for a reduction in the block, but certainly no consensus for an immediate unblock. I am surprised that an administrator of your experience would have this much difficulty discerning consensus. Risker (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Lex Ritman-Carnac-Stonehenge,etc.

I absolutly have to study the rules about conflict of interest, etc. Sorry for that. It will not happen again. Just may be of some interest: www.google.com (images)

"lex ritman" books. Click. Also: www.google.com (internet): "lex ritman" trouw. Click and click again. Trouw is a newspaper with a review of one of my books. I only mentioned my name in Wikipedia in combination with books written by me(as source). I know now that that is not done. There are several more articles without my name and with additions by me and new work. I even do not exactly know where! At any rate I am not a persistent spammer and unreliable source as mentioned by Bob Re-born. See my article: William H. Mounsey. I also wrote a book about him, published in a co-production with Panda. The title is removed by Bob Re-born. It was: Major William Henry Mounsey-a British spy. I have visited his church in Carlisle and also the Dwarfie Stone with his name on it. Thank you for your help.Romeinsekeizer (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I said sorry to Bob Re-bob. I was focused on using the subjects I had published in books written by me. Bad manners.Romeinsekeizer (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Recall?

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

Are you open to WP:RECALL? If so, what are your criteria? --Surturz (talk) 06:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That seems highly reactionary. I'd be open to a discussion about why you feel it would be appropriate. Did you ask that only so you could include it in the Signpost? Toddst1 (talk) 14:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I asked without thinking about Signpost. I thought to add it to Signpost later. At this stage, I only want to know whether you are open to recall. I realise that it is virtually impossible to ask that question without ruffling feathers, so apologies if you considered it a threat - it was not. --Surturz (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As I suspected, a polemical reaction as evidenced in User:Surturz/AdminWatch. Toddst1 (talk) 01:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Brotherhood of Eternal Love

Hello. Would you please respond to my reply to you, which I left four days ago, in the talk page for this article? Sorry if this is not the correct place to address you, but I don't see another way to do so. I suppose I could leave another message on the talk page for the article, but that doesn't seem to work very well.

Thanks, - WA Wa-passage (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Signpost

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

Hi, just a courtesy note to inform you that I am mentioning you by username in the Discussion report including in the next issue of The Signpost. You can see the draft text here. Please leave any feedback on the talk page there. --Surturz (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you just say "Toddst1 is a fucking asshole"? It would be less biased than your original draft. Toddst1 (talk) 14:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I hope I have addressed some of your concerns at the article. It is still being written, of course, so apologies if you feel it is biased one way or the other. As per WP:ADMINACCT, it is acceptable for editors to question administrators about their actions:

Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

Cheers, --Surturz (talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for making the changes. If you look at my archives, you'll see plenty of areas where I've been questioned about my admin actions, responded, admitted errors or otherwise accepted constructive feedback. Here are two examples from the past week:

• User_talk:Toddst1/Archive_6#Guinsberg
• User_talk:Toddst1/Archive_6#Notice_of_discussion_at_the_Administrators.27_Noticeboard_2

Toddst1 (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2012 (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.

Thanks

Thanks for the rollback rights - I don't do much, but much when I do I try and do it right :- ) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 19:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Low priority notice

This wasn't a commentary on your block; there must've been some sort of "block-conflict". I usually see some sort of message in those instance where my block is conflicting with another. If my block has messed up any of your intended actions, feel free to make any alterations you think are necessary. See ya 'round Tiderolls 03:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Even if it was, you'd have probably been right. :) Toddst1 (talk) 03:37, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Swarm's talk page.
Message added 15:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Calabe1992 15:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

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

Bonusballs (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

List of fictional demons - deletions/ notability

Hi,

In order to comply with the requirements presented by this site with regards to editing content, I am unclear as to what evidence should be presented with regards to the edits that I made in the "List of fictional demons" (Feb 12, 2012 - 17:10) with regards to "notability". In no way were the edits created to vandalize or otherwise deface the content on this site.

Do you have any advice as to what should be included in order to ensure that the content is accepted?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.243.65.6 (talk) 18:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

As is stated in WP:NLIST, if you're going to include an item in a list like that, it should already have an article about it. Toddst1 (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear Toddst1,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and

Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's

Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we

teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community,

and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what

you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community

[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_82#Learn_to_be_a_Wikipedia_Administrator_-

_New_class_at_MSU|HERE]], where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my

students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training,

motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one

of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

• Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
• Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of

communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)

• All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will

never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.

• All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an

interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.

• The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics

review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have

been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak

with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I

will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your

name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be

more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Softerblocks

Hi Toddst1, when you {{softerblock}} a user, please remember to untick both the account creation and the autoblock thingies, because the template encourages the blockee to create a new account. If you want to prevent them from creating a new account you should use {{spamublock}} instead. Cheers. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I guess I've been a bit careless there. Thanks for pointing it out. Toddst1 (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited USS Pollux (AKS-2), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newfoundland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Dare

BLOCK ME THEN --Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I caught the "opps, forgot to unblock you" thing. Blocking time frames should really be longer like a month or year. A 24h block is really just a show of power. A month puts both users under the microscope.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

...for this. I don't often do username blocks and I couldn't for the life of me find the right notice template :P EyeSerene^talk 20:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries. It had been hanging at AIV and the user hadn't responded on talk, so it was time. Toddst1 (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - DRN

Thanks for letting me know about the situation with those two editors on DRN. I was looking at the situation, and it was a big mess. (I really wish I could be an admin sometimes.) I was having this nightmarish vision of a gigantic catfight all over the DRN. Hopefully, those two will be able to settle down. Thanks again. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I'm sure it's not finished. Toddst1 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I stay on DRN a lot, so I'll keep an eye on it. I might ask for your input if things start to get a little dicey. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for the prompt block on 67.85.20.7. However, I feel that he will only return and continue the behavior he's been engaged in for the last five or six months. I was wondering though if the vandalism and/or edits from this user, having been brought to the attention of administrators, will continue to be monitored? Or should I keep an eye on his edits to make sure he doesn't continue the same behavior? I must say that he's quite persistent with abhorrent behavior at the other places from where I know him. Thanks again! Emperorchaos (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Lauren Templeteon

Dear Users/Admins,

I would like to verify the authenticity of the Wiki Article Lauren Templeton and Scott Phillips. I have submitted permission as per guidelines, however, I have yet to receive any response. Is there a way I can expedite this?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

Troubleisopportunity (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Dear Toddst1

Is their any reason as to why I got warned but not Alarics? He was reverting my reverts. Pdiddyjr (talk) 20:08, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

My guess is I probably got distracted before I could issue the second warning. Sorry. Feel free to correct my oversight. Toddst1 (talk) 20:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

He made an inappropriate unsourced edit, I deleted it. He then reinserted his edit, taking no notice of what I had said in my edit summary. So I deleted it again. He has now copied on to my talk page the warning that you put on his talk page and addressed it to me. I think this is inappropriate so I have deleted it. -- Alarics (talk) 11:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, deleting it is considered to be tacit understanding that you read it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Albert Pujols

You removed the grossly insulting username from one edit on the page, but there was another edit by the same user, plus the two reversions of those edits include the username as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I think I fixed it. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

bot names

Hi. I think you are allowed to keep your real name if it ends in bot, aren't you? Secretlondon (talk) 20:57, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything that says that in Wikipedia:Username policy but it might fall under Wikipedia:Obscure Guideline 573. Toddst1 (talk) 21:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

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

Really? That was only used on vandalism. Feel free to check. About the editwar itself... there was no 1RR imposed on me when I made the second reverts (all three blocks were for that). --lTopGunl (talk) 23:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Only you are arguing that you didn't have a 1RR on you when you were blocked, but it's clear that you have one now. You are free to request restoration of rollback at WP:ANI. I'd already mentioned it there. Toddst1 (talk) 00:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

You took the initiative at your own, I think it was not the way to go. All of my reverts are with required explanations. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

TopGun, seriously: from WP:EW: "The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so". And, from WP:RBK: "editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war. ". If you're going to Wikilawyer, at least read the policies involved (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that would be against the wiki's interests given my usage of it... but oh hell, you've to be so bureaucratic about everything. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2012 (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.

Sockpuppets

User:ChronicalUsual, who you banned, has actually been banned before, but on different accounts. User:Geromasis and User:FreemanSA were ChronicalUsual's original. I am 100% certain that ChronicalUsual is FreemanSA, who created FreemanSA immediately after Geromasis was banned. FreemanSA then got banned, leading to the creation of ChronicalUsual. After a quick look at the revision history of the 2011 Syrian uprising, it looks like ChronicalUsual created another account to escape his ban User:FavorLaw. Can you please address this. This person has been a constant nuisance, particularly during the editing 2011 Libyan civil war and now the Syrian uprising. I believe he uses different ips to escape bans though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Geromasis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FreemanSA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ChronicalUsual

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/FavorLaw

Zenithfel (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Bones108 vandalism

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for blocking 'Bones108' who also vandalized the Wikipedia entry for 'Robot' (now cleaned up). Jpardey01 (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Toddst1 (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi,
regarding that editor, you blocked him for WP:Long-term abuse -- did you really mean that in the sense of the page, or only because his edits were ongoing for a few months? Amalthea 11:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

LTA, VOA, take your pick. Toddst1 (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it makes a vast difference! A vandalism-only account is handled with RBI. If you say long-term abuse you're implying that it's someone who is or should be on this list, someone who has been socking for years, is highly disruptive, and usually banned. Someone where the mere allegation that someone is a sock of a long-term abuser can make admins jumpy and block on sight.
From your response I read that I can really close the respective sock case page and there is nothing more I need to be looking for?
Thanks, Amalthea 14:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

In my defense, I will invoke Wikipedia:Obscure Guideline 573. I learn something new every day. Toddst1 (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No defense required, only trying to tie up the loose ends. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 20:24, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Resource based economy

Hello mister. Someone is pushing some internet group that is commercial here [4] Looks like a recreated article made for the sole purpose of this group with only self citations no 2nd or third party stuff. It looks like a non notable internet group looking for donations or commercial promotion. What you think? Can you do something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.41.47 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello? The article was deleted previously and the same people keep adding info back http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource-based_economy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.100.41.47 (talk) 10:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	For this block. All too often stuff like that is allowed to slide here and it's just not right. Noformation Talk 23:21, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Everton Song

Can i ask what the reason is you redirected this page? (in plain English not WP speak) Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

No indication that the song passed WP:NSONG. Toddst1 (talk) 00:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a comment

It would be fairly typical to say something like this and then move on with your life, with both of us eventually forgetting the IP even exists at all. So I was pleasantly surprised to see their reblock pop up on my watchlist—not because of the block itself, but because you were the one to do it. So thanks, I really do respect that you followed up on the IP as you said you would. Best regards, Swarm ^X 04:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a dick all the time. :) Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Dave Camp

Hi Todd, I asked that my edits exposing who the flame throwers were be left on the Dave Camp page and protected. Instead my edits and the expose of who was behind this were removed and the true nature of the "criticism" was silenced. Can this please be changed (i.e. can you please protect the page with my well sourced edits in place)? The zealots who started the "criticism" kept deleting these inconvenient, but true, facts without basis. Reacespeaces (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

As one who reverted, I disagree. Not that you need to hear me say it, but WP is not the place for an 'expose'. Our primary issue was one of length, particularly since Dave Camp is only mildly related to this controversy, much more time spent on it would lend undue weight, those interested want to use the article as a coatrack. Bakkster Man (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I make a point of always protecting the wrong version of any article. Toddst1 (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Falklands

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

Hi, The content you have just restored on the Falklands page is entirely irrelevant to the article. It also contains personal attacks. It's your decision of course but I reverted the inclusion of that content twice for good reason. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. it might be good to cast some admin eyes over that discussion, despite exhaustive attempts that discussion is just going round in circles - there was talk about closing as no-consensus (although that didn't go down well with some). Any insight you could provide to help resolve that discussion would, I'm sure be welcome. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Todd. Thank you for not blocking me. Both me and Poly reverted Keysanger's edits based on WP:TALK guidelines and WP:NOTFORUM. His message has nothing to do with the Falkland Islands. I apologize for the inconvenience, but thank you for taking the time to deal with the situation. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 01:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Todd, Thank you for restoring the Rule of law. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As you can see here Todd ([5]), people are discussing the information above Keysanger's disruptive posting (which has nothing to do with the discussion). Removing it is the most sensible thing to do as it is making it difficult to discuss the subject.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can it at least instead be included in a collapsible frame, so as not to distract readers from the continuity of the discussion? Polyamorph (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Polyamorph, I have to remember you that editor MarshalN20 introduced the WotP issue in the discussion:

...The "nationality" of the settlement is particularly dubious given the actual background on the subject. A similar situation happened in the War of the Pacific article, where Keysanger kept pushing for the inclusion that "Bolivia declared war on Chile" because a series of sources repeated the same thing (I called them parrot sources as they only repeated something without providing any insight). Yet, not only did other authors contradict this idea, but actually taking the time to read the literature demonstrated that Bolivia indeed never declared war on Chile. It turned out that Bolivia had only announced a state of war in response to Chile invading their territory; so that is what, by consensus, we wrote (albeit "announcing a state of war" is practically the same thing as declaring war, a slight difference exists)... ([6]) MarshalN20, 04:13, 7 March 2012

Do you remember it now?, Should this also be deleted or only included in a collapsible frame?. Why should editors read MarshalN20's opinion but not Keysanger's opinion about the same issue?. In my opinion, the editors have the right to be informed about the course of the discussion, about the background of the given opinions and first and foremost no censorship should be apply. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Collapsing it seems reasonable. Let me know if further disruption occurs. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Skirmish over collapsing

Hi Toddst1,

would you be so kind as to answer two questions about your shift of opinion:

• whose opinions are to be hidden from others editors?
• why are these opinion to be hidden?

Please, be exhaustive in your answers. I want to state that I consider your solution very discriminatory.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What opinion? I have no opinion on the article. I do have an opinion on edit warring and WP:TPO. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In your response at 15:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC) you wrote "Collapsing it seems reasonable. Let me know if further disruption occurs.". What did you mean?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It means that it's not uncommon to collapse long invective on a talk page after the discussion has completed. However, continuing to delete it / re-add it, edit-war or other disruption on that page may result in one or more editors being blocked (or re-blocked). Toddst1 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is my contribution concealed from the editors and not others?

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it comes down to several parties' WP:TE on that page (you being one). I think folks are tired of the bickering. Toddst1 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And if "it comes down to several parties' WP:TE on that page", why do you conceal only my contributions? --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but *I* hadn't concealed anything. My only edit was to restore a large chunk of text that was deleted (and shouldn't have been). Let me wade in and fix it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree your solution. Thanks for your time and your work for Wikipedia. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Toddst, I do not mind your decision, but I am disappointed that it came as a result of Keysanger aggressively pushing you to do it. Whereas both Polyamorph and I kindly notified you of why we thought your decision was incorrect (which instead caused you to ignore us), in this case you allow Keysanger to browbeat you into falling for his demands. I do not blame you, but I do find it rather dreadful that you don't find Keysanger's actions in your talk page at clear fault of WP:Wikiquette. None of us deserve to be bullied.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 21:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I don't feel bullied. After Keys asked me to look further, it's clear that the partial collapse isn't fair. In fact I wonder whether I should have collapsed more of that petty bickering going on. Toddst1 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Brotherhood of Eternal Love

Hi,

I saw that there was an editprotected request for this, and then saw that you'd fully protected it for six months. That's more than a little extreme for POV-pushing which started less than a month before the protection kicks in. Care to reconsider the duration? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the threats of violence associated with editing this article, I don't think it's extreme at all. See this discussion. I've made the requested edit. Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look through the talk history and didn't see threats of violence; same with the edit summaries in the article history. Am I looking in the wrong place? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Threat_of_bodily_harm. Toddst1 (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

One revdelled diff is sufficient these days to lock an article for six months? That's astoundingly unusual. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me as odd that even after it became obvious you didn't do your homework, you're coming in with such a strong opinion. Had you taken a cursory look at the history, you would have found reference to the ANI discussion. That's not the best position to argue that your judgment is better than the consensus formed from multiple discussions that have gone on around that page.

That being said, I would consider unprotecting it if you commit to the Pottery Barn rule. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those articles that will probably explode into yet another mass of mess if left unprotected. On the other hand, it's also clear that it needs at least some expansion. Chris, if you want to roll with it, you have my blessing. Remember when we had an experiment with stable versions (what was it, "flagged revisions"?)? It may be that the current version will be reverted to a few times. Good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the article will need watching. I was just somewhat taken aback by a three-paragraph article having been given the sort of protection we normally reverse for child abuse victims and then having been snarled at for daring to question the responsible admin's judgement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I asked you for some background. You pointed at a single diff which I wasn't at liberty to read. You now insinuate that I'm somehow at fault for not doing my homework, having followed all available content. What gives? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris, I would suggest that it's generally bad form to label the actions of other admins as "extreme" [7] unless you know the facts - which you could have easily gathered by reading through the talk page and edit summaries. Despite that charming opening, I've twice politely answered your questions. Your continuing that line of questioning here had become tiresome. My third answer expressed that but could have been worded better.

You've been made aware of discussions with consensus and been given my go-ahead to change the protections (which you don't really need). Drmies has weighed in on this as well. If you choose to insert your judgment over previous consensus on that article, I have asked that you manage the expected disruption on the article. I think that's only fair. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Your warning

Regarding your message to my talk page, I'm a bit lost. Am I suppose to let this IP user (who has been blocked for doing this exact same behavior on three different articles) repeatedly change the tense without bothering respond to messages/warnings? I was under the assumption that their behavior was disruptive and that reverting disruptive edits did not fall under edit warring. If not, I'll just dewatchlist the article and let them have at it. Pinkadelica^♣ 23:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO is worth reading. In many cases, one person's disruption is another's constructive editing. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Angardn2

Hi Toddst1, I left a message at the spi case linked above, please take a look at a time convenient for you. =)
Cheers,
Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed and commented. Toddst1 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:CEBR

Hi, Toddst1. Thank you for blocking User:Freedamordistat, although there is a chance that the user may add similar material as an IP or register for a new account. I also see that you blocked CEBR in 2009 on suspicion of WP:Sockpuppetry. I take it that WP:CheckUser wasn't involved or was somehow inclusive if it was? Anyway, after unblocking CEBR, you said, "I have unblocked you per your assertion of not being a sockpuppet. I am taking this on your word and will re-block if I see evidence of sockpuppetry or other disruption." Well, CEBR seems to be engaging in some sort of disruptive behavior since the unblock, such as removing things because he doesn't like them.[8][9] With that first diff, I am inclined to agree that the source, while reliable for some things, isn't reliable for that particular material. And with the second diff, he did take the matter to the talk page beforehand and waited days for replies, but his reasoning for removing the text doesn't seem very strong, and this led to him being reverted. Perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at this situation to see if his removal has any merit, but also whether or not his other recent contributions are abiding by the unblock? He seems to at least need some counseling on not removing things because he doesn't like them. 23.20.10.162 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A reasoned expansion would be appreciated

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

Hi Toddst1, can you explain, with reference to quotes from the discussion and cross-referenced to appropriate policy sections, the comment "5:1 sounds like a rather strong consensus" that you left on my talk page, under the edit summary "clue", please.

As far as I can see, with reference to the policy clauses on achieving consensus, the discussion has not concluded yet, and no reasoned consensus has yet been achieved. True some editors have refused to engage or negotiate compromises, but that surely means that their voice is lost, and that their initial unreasoned POV is discared. -- de Facto (talk). 10:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus Toddst1 (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Which takes precedence - a free online dictionary or Wiki policy? WP:Consensus says very clearly: 'but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)'. Don't you think it a bit harsh to judge a perceived policy transgression, not by what the policy actually says, but by an unrelated definition of a word? I thought I was adhering to policy, and indeed its wording supports my case? Here are some other quotes from the policy for your future reference:

• Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.
• The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. -- de Facto (talk). 19:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Apparently you are correct and everyone else is wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Freedamordistat again

He's back, just like I predicted. 107.22.58.115 (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

He's been blocked again,[10] but would you not mind semi-protecting the article since he's likely to return either as an IP or registered user? 107.22.58.115 (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. Being ignored is fun. I'll make sure to take my concerns about editors or articles to other administrators from now on, especially those who don't look down on IP-address editors. 107.22.58.115 (talk) 05:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi Toddst1 , do you think it's a good idea to WP:Canvass all the editors who opposed my views in the recent bitter consensus dispute in Metrication in the United Kingdom for their opinion on whether I should get a topic ban for that article? It sounds like a recipe for a rigged consensus to me. -- de Facto (talk). 16:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that's why I included VsevolodKrolikov and Alpha Quadrant who are not folks that you have made your adversaries. Unfortunately, the number of folks you've made your adversaries far outnumbers the others - which speaks for itself. Toddst1 (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- de Facto (talk). 17:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary

Wishing Toddst1 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 10:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

personal attack

Todd, Thanks for the warning on the users talk page regarding personal attacks yesterday. The user has repeated their attacks today at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_former_atheists_and_agnostics_(4th_nomination) thank you for your attention on this. Gaijin42 (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

To celebrate both Pi Day and to also thank you for taking swift action regarding the IP that I repored at AIV Hasteur (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mmmm. Web pie! Toddst1 (talk) 20:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

On Rick Hill

When you copied over my references fixes from its draft page, you also copied over the indented categories, which need to be fixed. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've undone the changes. Let's take this back to the article talk page where I've left you a message. Toddst1 (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for notifying LB and Drmies for me. I feel pretty damn retarded :P 174.252.59.29 (talk) 00:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. It's clear that you didn't avoid notification out of malice. BTW, did you forget to log in? Toddst1 (talk) 00:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually opted not to log in for two reasons. Firstly, I know this is going to heated and I didn't want to rub anyone the wrong way for agreeing to assist DeFacto. Secondly, I didn't want any horrid grammatical or formatting errors to be tired to my account :P If someone seriously takes issue to me being logged out, il gladly provide my username. 174.252.59.29 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for replying. It's pretty clear you're smarter than the average IP bear. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 00:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. A privacy-sensitive regular who's afraid of making typos because they're typing on an Android. So, a US user, perhaps of the league of copy editors. Then again, "firstly" is an anglicism--yes, definitely a UK editor, but do they have Androids over there? Todd, if I had to take a guess, I'd say Chzz, but he doesn't do the ":P" kind of thing. Interesting. We'll smoke you out, laddie! Drmies (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Good luck. Lurkers are a dime a dozen :) 174.252.59.29 (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Hehe that's true. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just thought you might like to know that

User:DeFacto has reverted your blanking of his user page and thus that table of grievances. Blackmane (talk) 10:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access was restored for future appeal (per UTRS #37), without prejudice to revoking again in the event of future abuse. It's fine. Toddst1 (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Understood that, just figured it might be useful to watch in case he decides to use that list again. Blackmane (talk) 14:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I only removed it after talk page access was revoked. At that point, it served no purpose. If it's part of an active appeal, it's fine AFAIC, especially with the redactions. The intent isn't to keep the list there indefinitely as a monument to the disruption, but to facilitate an earnest unblock request. Thanks for the heads up. Toddst1 (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Hello Toddst1. Back in Sept you blocked 187.141.102.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for six months. Unfortunately they have returned to the exact same editing pattern and have added false info to numerous articles today. If you would prefer me to go to AIV just let me know and I will be happy to make a report there. Thanks for your time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 15:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hello Toddst1. I had a question that I hope you would be able to answer. I am in a class and we are teaming up with the Association for Psychological Science in order to revise articles about psychology topics. You recently reverted my article, Pediatric Psychology, to a previous version as I didn't follow the Manual of Style. I was wondering if there was any one thing which caused you to do this. I tried to double check my changes with the manual of style and didn't find anything very wrong. However, I'm very new to this and I may have made a mistake. If you could provide some insight that would be very helpful. Thanks and have a great day.Enlowpat (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the version of the article that you edited, you may notice that it looks a wee bit different from other articles: You've inserted HTML markup to make passages red. In general, if you're not using wiki markup and find yourself using HTML markup, you're probably doing something wrong. I'm suspecting that your professor or TA told you to do it that way as several of your classmates have done similar things. Unfortunately that's not appropriate. I've left Davissutwiki (talk · contribs) a note to that effect. Hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Yes, we had used that so our in class peer reviewers would be able to identify what we had altered. Thanks for the heads up.Enlowpat (talk) 22:10, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

That would be OK if you had made copies in your userspace / sandbox. However, these are live Wikipedia pages that are accessed from all over the world and strikethough text and red text for your class's convenience isn't appropriate. However, if you look at a page's history, you can compare revisions. Toddst1 (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Teacher's mistake in advising students to use bizarre markups

--Davissutwiki (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)First an apology and second a thank you. I regret my instructions to my students to use red to indicate additions and strikeouts to indicate deletions as they began their first edits of articles we had selected throught the APS Wikipedia Project. I am a raw novice and they are even more so, but the fault was entirely my own. I believed that these indications would assist their student peer-reviewers (also novice) in seeing what was changed. In short, we talked about this in class this week on Monday and Wednesday and I requested that they remove the color and strikeouts and proceed with edits less aggressively than some had begun. I had thought that adding the banner that it was a class project would deal with this. I apologize for the problems we caused and the use of your time. The "thank you " is for what I have learned from this, but more importantly, what my students are learning. They have been stressed, but I have encouraged them to see this as another learning experience that is an advantage of the Wikipedia model and an opportunity to engage in a type of collaboration that will benefit them in the future. Thank you very much. Davissutwiki (talk) 13:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

It's all good - part of a collaborative effort. I hope the students weren't too discouraged. Let me know if I can be of assistance with the project. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 13:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I am revising "The Experiment" page as a part of APS initiative for a class I am currently taking. I understand that the red font is against wikipedia policy and I will change it. However, if you could avoid changing the page that would be greatly appreciated as it will affect my grade. On the other hand, if you would like to give me tips that would be wonderful. Again, please do not revert the page I am working on. Thank you Kayeedee (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2012 (UTC)Kayeedee

Hi Kaydee. Unfortunately for your class, anyone can and will change that page - don't let your grade depend on it. If your prof thinks his or her students can WP:OWN pages for their grades, s/he's sadly mistaken. This class sounds like the teacher hasn't done his/her homework and you poor students are bearing the consequences. You need to get this prof straightened out quickly. Toddst1 (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits are welcome! But reverting the page will effect the progression of this project, and my grade. Unfortunately, this project is a first for my professor so we are quickly learning as guinea pigs by making editing mistakes like mine. Since Wikipedia doesn't determine my gpa, I have to go by what my professor says, whether it's right or wrong. Kayeedee (talk) 01:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)kayeedee

FYI

See my reply at ‎Email badgering by DeFacto. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Toddst1. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

User:PPdd

Hello. I happen to have User talk:PPdd on my watch list after we interacted a few weeks ago: I am otherwise quite uninvolved with them. I was surprised to see that they have been blocked for sock-puppetry, and in particular I am concerned by your analysis of their behaviour at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Hart. As far as I can tell there are only two anonymous IP edits at that page, [11] and [12]. One of those is openly adjusting one of PPdd's previous edits with summary "modify comment", and the other is responding to a comment by User:Location by asking for clarification. In neither case could this be described as an attempt "to appear as a different user supporting your positions": indeed editing while logged out is perfectly legitimate and I see no attempt to deceive in either of these two diffs. I have not reviewed the situation at Talk:Allied Artists International but I suggest on the basis of what I have seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sean Hart that you may have been precipitate here. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC) Additional: I have looked at Talk:Allied Artists International and I think the mixture of logged-in and logged-out comments, while not ideal, did not seem to me to be deceptive. Cusop Dingle (talk) 07:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, things have got distinctly weird now. I'm content to leave it all in your hands ... Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Tanthalas39 was right. Toddst1 (talk) 21:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand that. Cusop Dingle (talk) 09:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a quote on my user page - and no I'm not referring to you (no more pronoun problems :) Tan was an admin - one of the best. Toddst1 (talk) 13:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see -- thanks for that. Cusop Dingle (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Note

Regarding your note on such-and-such's page that was recently commented on by user so-and-so... let's just say I thought your comment on such-and-such's page was remarkably restrained. :) P.S. If this message does not self-destruct within seconds after you read it, feel free to destruct in manually. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Remarkable how that clique closes ranks. Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Although, just to show how little attention I've been paying, it's been 2 months since such-and-such left, and I only learned about it a couple of days ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

About Vocalcom

Hi Toddst1. The deletion log. Your thoughts? --Shirt58 (talk) 13:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I considered salting it when I deleted it, but I suspect the company might pass WP:CORP if we get past this promotional nonsense. Toddst1 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. If it passes the guidelines, then "the neutrality of this article is disputed", not "the existence of this article is disputed".--Shirt58 (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You there?

Are you sure? Heironymous Rowe (talk · contribs) is a constructive editor, and the IP's edits did look like vandalism and he reported them to AIV. Our articles List of U.S. states' largest cities by population and List of U.S. states' largest cities by population say NO is the largest city, and the edits did look like vandalism. And did you see the insult to Hiero on the IP's page? Blocking an experienced editor with no warning doesn't seem a good idea at all. Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, multitasking here and was away. Let me try to tease the issues out:

• Heiro has had a ton of 3RR warnings. S/he knows the issue pretty well and tends to push it like in this case. EW is the one issue that tends to get experienced well-intended editors in trouble. I'm sure you know this.
• I don't see the IP's edits as a deliberate attempt to disrupt wikipedia. That's just not evident. Maybe push a POV, sure but that's not an exemption to 3RR.
• The insult is inexcusable and has earned that editor a 4im warning for it. I've watchlisted the page and will quickly block the IP if disruption continues. I understand s/he is pissed off and has a right to be (and I should have caught the 5 yo comment) This is a pretty obvious case of WP:BITE on heiro's part.

Let me know if you still disagree with this. Toddst1 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, maybe pov, he's from that area. The IP is from Baton Rouge which explains I guess why the IP was replacing New Orleans with Baton Rouge. The last 'warning' was a reminder from me, the one before that from someone who said they had a right to 3 reverts and that I'd warned - as I recall, Hiero wasn't at 3RR then. Heiro usually listens to me, I'm sorry I didn't know about this as I probably could have prevented it. But as you've seen, he's ok with the break. I still wish it hadn't happened (if for no other reason than I needed his help with some Native American stuff!) Dougweller (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You have my permission to unblock if you see fit. (not that you needed it). Toddst1 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

IMO Heiro earned that insult. He/she handled the situation entirely wrong. No, I won't ever dish insults like that again, but giving me a first and final warning? This was my first foray into editing a Wikipedia article. I can tell you right now, given my treatment by people like Heiro, it is definitely my last attempt at an edit. 174.75.118.177 (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)KodaKarr

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Fry1989's talk page.
Message added 21:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FWIW, Fry has apologised for his behaviour and is now begging for you to cut him some slack. Supreme facepalm of destiny... Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 21:03, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI

You should probably have a look at this. → ROUX ₪ 00:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Sigh. Toddst1 (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I was kind of hoping for more of a slap on the wrist than an indef, but I suppose he made his bed. → ROUX ₪ 02:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock deals are just that. If you blow them then .. Toddst1 (talk) 03:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

In many ways unblock deals are like the unbreakable vow from the Harry Potter series; only except of ending up dead you are just indef blocked. Good block; they had made their bed and now they have to lie in it. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 03:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's just say I'm not known around here for being lenient. Let's hope this doesn't become a pattern. :) Toddst1 (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I do hope that the restrictions will have the effect of you never having to hit the "block" button for that user again. Barts1a / Talk to me / Help me improve 04:23, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) His rope just keeps getting tighter and tighter but yet he wonders why and how come? In the final analysis, he only has himself to blame when the very noose he keep tightening finally strangles him, eh? See also his edit summary (and I quote him: I resent you accusing me of "damage") when removing my advice to him and you'll see what I mean... *sigh* --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Contributors who Bully Newbies

I made my first attempt at editing a Wikipedia article this week. An editor very quickly responded to my changes and, eventually, reported me to the higher ups, and I got a pop on the wrist. If any of you have the opportunity to review the exchange between me and this editor, please do so. It's clear that his experience and knowledge of Wikipedia far exceeds mine. In my opinion, he used that knowledge to bully and bruise me. This was not unlike using a sledge hammer to kill a fly. This editor was out of line. When I responded, accusing the editor of behaving a like a five year old (gasp), and suggesting that he get a life (gasp), I was warned that I could not make comments such as these because it denigrates the overall culture at Wikipedia. I wonder, though, what are the consequences, if any, for the editor who provoked this incident. Apparently it's a minor thing for an experienced editor to bully and slap around an inexperienced editor, but it's another entirely for someone who's been mistreated to accuse his attacker of childish behavior. Given my treatment by Wikipedia, I will never again make an edit on this website. There's just too much drama and too many mean-spirited people. This is a real shame. I have a long career in academia; unfortunately, the culture on this website, particularly among editors and administrators, is hardly the culture that I've grown accustomed to. Folks, really, look at people's behavior on here. Ask yourselves the questions that you should be asking: when an experienced editor bullies and abuses an experienced editor, is that right? Shouldn't that editor, at least, attempt to educate inexperience users - not by walloping the person upside his head, but by talking out the issue. I am very, very disappointed with the entire situation. What's more, I am shocked that "get a life" and "you are acting like a five year old" are considered "unforgivable" comments. Ask anyone - these are pretty tame. 174.75.118.177 (talk) 12:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)KodaKarr

I'm tempted to say "If you feel that way, then 'stop acting like a 5 year old' and 'get a life'." using your own "tame" expressions but I won't. :)

Seriously, you were treated roughly by Heironymous Rowe (talk · contribs). There's no question about that. However, that's not an excuse for namecalling, statements that the editor needs therapy, etc.. We don't tolerate personal attacks here, not even against folks who have treated us poorly. Toddst1 (talk) 13:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

why did you blank my privacy/civil liberties info

I spent like two hours compiling and editing that data. The "About the Board" section was way out of date, not mentioning anything since 2007. That was lame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawyerpants (talk • contribs) 17:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my error. I meant to back out only one of your edits - not 3. It should be better now. Toddst1 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

ok no worries. I haven't done this in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawyerpants (talk • contribs) 17:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I have, and I still fuck it up pretty frequently. :) Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/File mover

Is it possible for you to review my request here? It's just that I have made quite a large number of media rename requests which haven't been completed yet and I am eager to start moving them to the appropriate names. Thank you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 21:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Sure, you seem to be doing decent work. Toddst1 (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted revert

What happened? There was NO "vandalism". So what exactly are you talking about or seeing? You totally disrespected me and my edits (and actually think I would put up with it). You reverted my edits, with NO explanation except to say "identified as vandalism". Huh?  ?? no vandalism... your revert was vandalism. As it totally violated WP policy, on so many levels. No joke. You slandered me, by calling what I did "vandalism", which it wasn't (not in ANY sense). My guess is that you did not even really see my edits most likely. And because of some personal bias (probably), you disrespected me, with no regard at all to the validity of the edits and good-faith fixes. There were refs that were not showing correctly, I merely fixed them. What's with you? Was that some kind of a weird joke? Or were you just weirdly mistaken? There was no "vandalism" at all. I never do that. So not sure why you're hallucinating that in there, and disrespecting me like that. I do not "vandalize" articles. I work hard on them. I put a ref per discussions...and I fixed messed up ref displays. How was that "vandalism"?? My guess is that you did not even bother to actually see the edits, but have some personal bias against me (for whatever reason) and that it has NOTHING to do with actual valid WP policy, examination, or practice. Not cool. I did not "vandalize" anything. I've been contributing and working on this article for a while, putting good-faith and accurate edits and fixes, and modifications. Why the hell did you do that? Where exactly was the "vandalism"? Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You attacked me by slandering me, and calling my accurate good-faith edits and fixes "vandalism". And reverted me unwarrantedly. Admin or not. Thanks for dodging my point about "where was the vandalism, and why did you do that?". It's very simple, Todd...there's no need to do what you did or to follow me like that, or assume things, because of past whatevers, that you may or may not even right about. Personal bias has no valid place in WP edits or assumptions. I'm serious. Stalking, and baseless reverts, and slander, are grounds for for blocking, according to WP policy. Admin or not, you seem to have issues. Personal biases. You never explained why you did what you did. There was NO "vandalism". Yet look at what you did, to me and my edits. Disrespecting me and my hard work, that you reverted (with no real specific explanation of what was wrong with them) calling them "vandalism". For others to see? I fixed ref displays that were not correctly showing. What was "vandalism" about that? I wasn't sure what was going on. I thought maybe it was a mistake. But I'm only human, and naturally upset. You dissed my edits. As "vandalism". Not sure exactly why, or what you saw. But it was uncalled for, sir. So my natural reaction. I did not even know you were an Admin. But seeing that you are, it just makes me wonder more so why you did that. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Geez pal, done with your rant yet? Sure reject my apology. Fine. Enough with the personal attacks. Toddst1 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What apology? I did not see any... As I said, I thought it was maybe some mistaken assumption, because of being busy, and not seeing it correctly, BUT mainly from some pre-bias against me. But the problem with that is I NEVER "vandalize" articles. Not even un-intentionally. But again, I saw no apology. Maybe on my page, I don't know. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, saw it now. This is what I wrote back:

Ok, not sure why you saw it that way. My guess is some pre-bias against me from months ago. I'm a sincere editor, not perfect, but I do try hard. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember anything about interacting with you months ago. What was the context? I came across your edits on that article on Special:RecentChanges. this edit did not make sense and did not match the source you were citing. I meant to revert that - didn't mean to revert all three of your edits. Toddst1 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No, that was a chapter IN that source, to make it more clear where to go. It was a chapter link, on the left side of that page. Regards. Hashem sfarim (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi folks; I've been asked to comment as an uninvolved admin. Please give me a little while to read myself into the situation. TerriersFan (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Folks, I have now read myself into the discussion. The trigger for the concerns was this revert which was marked as 'vandalism'. I am satisfied that this was a constructive edit that should not have been reverted. This is fully accepted by Toddst1. I understand that Hashem sfarim is upset, entirely reasonably, by the edit summary. I have taken two steps to repair the situation. Firstly I have removed from public view two edit summaries [13][14] so no non-admin editor can see the suggestions of vandalism. Secondly, I have reformatted the reference here in a neutral, and hopefully more helpful, format. I am satisfied that the contentious revert by Toddst1 was an error caused by a misreading of the edit, of a nature that we have all been guilty of when working under pressure. I am not privy to the previous history between the editors but I see no evidence of bad faith on either side. Toddst1 has profusely apologised and I hope that that apology can now be accepted and that we can now move on. I am happy to help with further concerns. Best, TerriersFan (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 05:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

1946-47 WIHL season speedy deletion nomination

Hey Todd, I saw what appeared to be a non-notable article with no references about a particular season of a regional sport league that had been identified as written from a fan's point of view. To me speedy deletion seemed appropriate under A7. Clearly to you A7 does not apply here. I edit in good faith, and I'm familiar with the criteria for speedy deletion. Could you explain to me how A7 is not applicable here, or in other words, how does this article "indicate why its subject is important or significant" let alone satisfy the requirement for verifiability. Thanks for your time, Johnathlon (talk) 23:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

As a season of a professional sports league, the the article inherently asserts importance, just as stating someone is a professional athlete asserts importance of an athlete. I'm not saying we should have a stand-alone article about that season (I suspect we could do without it), but it's clearly not an A7. WP:AFD is the proper channel to delete it. Toddst1 (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

Hi Toddst1, you blocked User:Heronbird1961 and the IP User:81.159.239.75 for edit warring on Echo & the Bunnymen and sockpuppetry. Well it appears he may be back[15]. May not be a problem yet, but could become one. --90.220.200.125 (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice

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

I am aware of the fact that you are not uninvolved with respect to Hashem sfarim. But given that you may be aware of his background, could you please point me in a suitable direction for help. I have had issues with this user over references being WP:RS or not, etc. and the responses have been quite unexpected - to put it mildly. I did ask him not to follow me around any more, and this edit clearly breached civility, calling my edits "...." etc. This user seems to breach civility very easily. I did warn hm about it, but he does not seem to want to heed the warning. I really, really do not want to interact with this user. And I do not want him to follow my edit trails, but he thinks he has a right to do it. But I do not like to interact with him at all. And in my view his comments are just uncivil, and he seems to think he has a right to use "..." words. Your suggestions as a user (rather than administrator) will be appreciated. What do you think I should do next apart from quitting Wikipedia so I do not have to interact with this user. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Since I'm involved in this, I felt it necessary to speak here. No disrespect intended. Hi Todd. There was that misunderstanding from days ago that Todd admits was an error on his part. No biggie. It happens. I thought it was over something else though. But anyway, just before I saw this that History2007 wrote to you here, I already wrote to History's talk page calling a "Truce"...and this below is what I wrote to him...

== Truce ==

Hi. Look, I'm sorry things got like this. It was not my intention. Maybe you're right in a way. Maybe it would have been smarter or better for me (for the time being) even if I meant it in a neutral or cool sense, for me not to peruse other religious articles (that I may be interested in) that other editors that I know (such as you) have been dealing with. But again, I did not mean it quite the sense that you probably assumed. Meaning that you really did NOT have to react the way you did. I know I'm not perfect necessarily. But iff you think you were perfect here, then there's not much I can say to you, and I will try hard to steer clear of you. Though we did have a decent working relationship in the past. Cheerio. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically there was nothing precluding me from perusing religious articles that I may find interesting, that editors I know were writing in, just out of curiosity (with NO malice at all intended), and by chance to lend my thoughts in a respectful manner (as I did in my FIRST comment regarding "Mediatrix"), with no hostility at all or meant. And it was a comment meant for ALL to see, not just History2007. But he reacted VERY UNCIVILLY and coldly to my well-meaning chime-in and comment. Naturally I got upset, because I was already over the stuff from before, but apparently he wasn't, and he assumed I meant something that I didn't. His reaction was not really cool or called for. Hence my reaction back. But I wrote him again as you see calling a truce. He and I always had a decent working relationship over the months. So it's a shame that nonsense like has to happen. I'll make sure to respect his wishes though. Thanks. Hashem sfarim (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I harbor no ill will towards Hashem. It appears there is history here that I don't remember. Given that, I'm recusing myself from any commentary or administrative action against or in favor of him/her. Toddst1 (talk) 04:09, 16 April 2012 (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.

Not vandalism?

Hi Toddst1, regarding this, I have replied on my talk page. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Recentism, Hookers, and Secret Service?

Hello Mister, In good faith I write in opposition to your revert of my edit to the Secret Service Page. You was saying that it be "Recentism." yes, the hookers were recent. But nothing like this has never happened in the past. It is a really big deal for these people to be hiring hookers and you have a bunch of people from the agency making public statements about it. Basically: the hookers are part of the Secret Service history. This be a wiki--it isn't any old promo bid for the government. Thank you, in good faith, assalaamu alaykum.

Dvorak keyboard

The only thing that's cited to microsoft is that a keyboard editor exists. Everything else is from a self-published book by Cassingham (see WP:RSN) and a few other sources, all of which either fail WP:RS, relevance of the material to Dvorak after the non-cited material, or both. If you think any specific source holds water, feel free to pull them up, but the sourcing is terrible. 86.** IP (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

MikeWazowski

Hi Toddst1,

He had filed at 3RR NB which remains open. I have commented there and wonder if you would reconsider. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Replied on 3RRNB. Toddst1 (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Unexplined

The whole section was removed with things that were referenced, I can remove the twins though if you think it would be best. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Hacks for free

User:Hacks for free has just vandalised my User page. After reverting, I went to his page and saw that you have just blocked this vandal. Thank you. Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries. S/he's just here to screw around. Toddst1 (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully gone forever? Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. If that person is really pathetic, s/he may create another account at some point in the future. The IP address that the user logged in from is also disabled for 24 hours. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

War of 1812

Are you telling me that canadians didnt partecipate in the war? This is an insult to canadians to sustain that it was the Brits who did everything and that the Canadians didn't take part in the war. Please add an acknowledgement to Canada in the battles and war of 1812. I know Americans don't like it but it was Canadians that burnt down the whitehouse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.27.138.218 (talk) 15:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

All is good if it's WP:V and WP:CITEed. Toddst1 (talk) 16:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

do you really asking me to stop? why don't you check why the edit war is going.I am giving references to be reverted?????????????????--Skashifakram (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Another DeFacto sock

6 foot 6 (talk · contribs) has now reappeared as 6feet6 (talk · contribs); another block seems called for. - David Biddulph (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably not the last. The guy is clearly obsessed. Toddst1 (talk) 02:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Elizabeth Gilbert

What is your problem? Elizabeth Gilbert writes in her own autobiography, that made her famous, that she is divorced. Check the wiki page yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.154.210 (talk) 14:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Fish

Whack!

:)

hf24 14:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A salmon would have been better - they're bigger.

:Toddst1 (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Crunch, crunch!

Here are some chips to go with your fish!

(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I swear I'm going to accidentally block myself one of these days. Toddst1 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

the block

I'm glad you blocked the IP, but my guess is they'll be back. I see they reinstated the other edits I reverted. Dougweller (talk) 16:59, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 18:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Cabbagetown

Thank you for placing the autoconfirm setting on the page! Keizers (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit War?

I would like to appeal: I apologize if it sounds like I'm in an edit war, but I am greatly distressed about how a user reverted my edit because his was a "book source," which was preferred over two internet sources. What's more important is what is more accurate, not how "notable" a source. I apologize if I have broken your "three-revert rule," but I am not an expert with wikipedia rules, and I would prefer not to memorize them all at once, but learn them over time. Can we at least get on a same page and sort this out before we start arguing over who's right? --96.242.163.228 (talk) 21:41, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I am going to remain an uninvolved admin on this issue. Work it out on the talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The questions I ask on article talk pages never receive answers. The same thing happened with Talk: Israel: nobody ever replied, or even made the change. --96.242.163.228 (talk) 22:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Toddst1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:April 2012

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

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at TheJJJunk's talk page. --21:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The World Tomorrow article Armstrong vs. Assange infringement

It appears you have a personal connection to the Assange source and article. You have made several factual errors and continue to ignore facts while spin doctoring this article in particular. You then falsely accuse another of sock puppetry while you are guilty of sock puppetry yourself. Why are you so obsessed with the newly created Julian Assange World Tomorrow page, and The World Tomorrow (1934), Garner Ted Armstrong pages? And, why won't you accept the fact the shows producers have changed the title of the Assange program from The World Tomorrow to The Julian Assange show. Don't you an your fellow editors at Wikipedia want all Wikipedia articles to reflect truthful and accurate information? In this case, it appears not. And in ignoring facts pertaining to the correctness of these Wikipedia articles, you have made yourselves guilty of the very sock puppetry of which you falsely accuse. Which in itself, is name calling. The article very soon now will be titled The Julian Assange show, with no further infringement on The World Tomorrow whether you like it or not. You, Toddst1, and your companion Barek have edited these articles so much in recent weeks, you should be banned yourselves for blatant malicious and selective editing, and showing favoritism toward the infringing Assange article which you have deliberately elevated to overtake the original article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.33.96.134 (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yep. You found me out. We're sockpuppets of Assinage. There are hundreds of us. We're all the same person. We should be banned for all those reasons you state.

Then again, maybe not. Toddst1 (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Sennacia banko

Hi Toddst1! I deleted the template (which I did not realize it was a template) because we have had vandalism in the corresponding esperanto article in wiki/EO, and I thought it was vandalism too. Very sorry for the trouble I caused to you and wiki/EN. --89.224.174.28 (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC) (Dominik)

WP_Editor_2011

Hello, I'm not sure who I should contact about this, but a user named WP_Editor_2011 left an official-seeming message on my talk page about an edit I made four years ago changing BC to BCE and AD to CE on a page. I was under the impression this was official policy on Wikipedia, but maybe not? Anyway, he claimed it was disruptive (which it seems not to have been, as no one commented until now) and that I have a history of vandalism (I did vandalize multiple times years ago, I'll admit, but I don't do that anymore) and that if I ever do it again I will be blocked. From the user's page, he doesn't seem to be in any position of power here; is he allowed to do this? If you check his contributions, he's been doing this to multiple users for similar years-old edits changing BC to BCE, etc. I was just wondering if this is being done by some rogue user, or if it is actual Wikipedia policy that AD and BC should be used and those using other terms will be warned. Thanks for your time.J'onn J'onzz (talk) 04:53, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, in looking up WP_Editor_2011's history on this[16], when he was banned for it previously, apparently he has mentioned that WP:ERA says that dates shouldn't be arbitrarily changed without mentioning it on the talk page unless there's some inconsistency in the article with BC and BCE or AD and CE. I guess it is a violation after all, and he is trying to find all of the people who have ever committed it. I understand a little more now.J'onn J'onzz (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The message I left for you was a series of templates. They are pre-written messages prepared by the administrators for copying and pasting onto pages. Indeed I'm not in any position of power and that wasn't the impression I was attempting to convey. I was just trying to tell you that you broke the rules and shouldn't keep doing so. I'm not a "rogue user", I corrected a genuine breach of the rules. See WP:MOS. You were in the wrong and nobody had caught you out until now. I was banned illegitimately for a few hours by a rogue administrator (User:EncycloPetey)who was abusing his power and was subsequently told off by other administrators for it. I think it's quite hilarous that you've now gone to his talk page to complain about me when both of you were in the wrong. (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

I seriously doubt that J'onn J'onzz was "in the wrong", or that he made any edit out of maliciousness or a desire to gleefully violate WP:ERA, in all likelihood the editor may not have even been aware of it (which considering how many hundreds of policy and guideline pages there are, I wouldn't be surprised). Also, it isn't a clear cut case of WP:ERA, and certainly not when the edits were made, I had to dig through the entire history of the article just to see what was going on, and even then we had to come up with a consensus as to which version to use, before this consensus it wasn't clear and certainly not something to template a user for. So I think what's done is done, there's no sense templating someone for something like that. If they were to go back and change it back, then it would be appropriate to revert with a message asking them to kindly see the talk page consensus, and to discuss it there if they disagreed, but nothing more than that. - SudoGhost 05:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

But he marked it as a minor edit and lied in his edit summary. Furthermore, at that time (late 2008), pretty much evey one of his edits was deliberate vandalism.(WP Editor 2011 (talk) 05:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

Even if WP:ERA was clear and a consensus was in place, this is not vandalism by Wikipedia's definition, and I don't think he was lying by any means. Also, it was over three and a half years ago. Placing a "only warning" template for something that happened that long ago is a bit inappropriate; if you have an issue with something an editor did, it would help if you started a discussion with them instead of simultaneously placing seven templates on their talk page and accusing them of "hijacking" and "lying". That's a bit much, and if an editor placed all that on my talk page for something that happened that long ago I wouldn't exactly be receptive of their message. - SudoGhost 06:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I admit the "only warning" template probably shouldn't have appeared, although I didn't know what it was going to say because I had never used it before. The description for it says "Longterm pattern of vandalism", which is what J'ohn J'onzz did. I prefer templates to a discussion because numerous people have already thought of the ideal wording for the templates and a discussion would force me to hang around and discuss the issue on the talk page, which is something I don't want to do since I'm just a casual editor.(WP Editor 2011 (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

I have replied on your talk page, to give Toddst1's talk page a break. - SudoGhost 06:26, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

FleetCommand block

I've moved the discussion to WP:ANI, which is more highly trafficked. --RA (talk) 21:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thx Toddst1 (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

FleetCommand

I will try to keep up for a while but let me know if I miss anything. I'm hoping my gentle but direct approach will get the point across, and that he can see that I'm really giving an outside observation that his off comments are unacceptable. Since he didn't actually revert more than once, I didn't see a reason to labor that point and just focus on his comments, which seems to be the problem in this instance. I appreciate your willingness to meet in the middle and help defuse the situation. Hopefully he will make it so we don't have to do this again. Feel free to drop by my talk page if you have any comment about the situation or my handling of it. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 00:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in here. I was really only pissed off about RA. Edit warriors and bullies are a dime-a-dozen, but an admin unilaterally deciding they know more than their peers, especially after being called on it is heading for a recall. Toddst1 (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I did want to make one observation now that the dust is settling. I didn't bring it up at ANI because I didn't think it would be helpful, and I won't labor it here, but it is worth mentioning. I agree that FC made a mistake, but it was just bad judgement, but I didn't see it as a major lapse in judgement. For example, I would have chewed FC out over the posts, but as it was three days later, I wouldn't have felt comfortable blocking him, as it could be seen as punitive. Obviously, I wouldn't have left this [17]. Perhaps this is just because I have a different way of doing things, being an old timer with a new mop, but I hate to see someone blocked unless it clearly the only way to prevent immediate disruption. If for no other reason that it looks punitive as it wasn't urgent. As for RA, you both have already dealt with that issue, so it doesn't need rehashing. Dennis Brown 2¢ © 11:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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

The black-banner thingy. Well, not being a true computer programmer of any sort myself, yet, at least that I managed to learn a new computing trick, of great advantage, upon that particular day, upon the ways of circumvention. Autumn, or the Fall, or Winter, it was, I believe. — 99801155KC9TV (talk) 15:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I may have copied it from someone but glad you like it. Toddst1 (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The question is: who were you that you're trying to circumvent something? Toddst1 (talk) 19:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Not a block! No, the Blackout! That I learnt to use the "Escape" key! Sorry for being a little long-winded! — KC9TV 23:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

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

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

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

User:Class_Avesta

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

Of course not. I can't see the UTRS Ticket but your judgement is fine. Thanks for checking. Please unblock. Toddst1 (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Let me clarify. Of course I don't object to that user being unblocked. TP, please use your judgement. If your judgement is that the user remain blocked, as it appears, I am fine with that. If my message above was ambiguous, I hope this straightens things out. Toddst1 (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Ohh thanks, I got it. I was just emailing them on UTRS before unblocking them to make sure they agreed before I unblocked. They seem to be complying and so I'm going to go ahead and unblock and I'll keep an eye on them. Thanks!--v/r - TP 16:17, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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

User:AA193 continuing his revert war at Afghanistan

• AA193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

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

Churchmen, or members of the clergy, and COI.

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

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

Edit-yes. Push POV-no. Toddst1 (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This is complicated. Rather British (English, in fact), and highly theological. Probably takes one whole day for me to do so (and difficult too, as I am suffering from a fever from some complicated reasons; ironic, given that it is partly oral and dental). But, anyway, do they have to clearly declare themselves as members of the clergy? Details to follow. — KC9TV 00:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

This might be better taken to WP:Village pump Toddst1 (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I see. All-right, I thank you. Well, do forgive me, for I am still relatively very new in all of this, being a former long-term IP-only editor. — KC9TV 00:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

KC9TV, How is there a conflict of interest? Is it a conflict of interest if a computer programmer edits an article about computer programming? Should he warn everyone beforehand to keep an eye on him in case he decides to say too much about computers? The very fact that you questioned whether people who dedicate their lives to studying theology should be restricted from contributing their expertise to Wikipedia is bizarre and illogical. Should I immediately stop editing articles related to my areas of formal training too, just in case an unqualified wannabe catches me trying to be sneaky? (WP Editor 2011 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC))

I am not accusing any one. No name is yet mentioned by name, and probably never will. — KC9TV 05:08, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Except for this allegation against User:Timothy_Titus which I found in the page history of Talk:Church in Wales? Elizium23 (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Look, these is all a misunderstanding. I am NOT accusing him, or any-one. — KC9TV 05:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The proper way to withdraw comments on a talk page is to use strikeout markup. Removing them, along with replies from other users, is frowned upon and typically considered vandalism. Elizium23 (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The 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

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

No worries, they're a dime a dozen. More worrying are these bozos. Toddst1 (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, what fun! Rather you than me. Cheers DBaK (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Whitespace Concern

Hi Toddst1,

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

The thread [18] that discuss his behaviour, I felt, was closed too soon because I had a few comments to make. Below are the comments:

This discussion was unfortunately closed too soon. I do realize this is an very active discussion nonetheless. I think we need to look at User:Beyond My Ken more closely. User:Beyond My Ken continues to add white space to the articles (see here at the bottom after the last entry of ==External links== and the top of the first navigational template). Obviously this is against consensus because User:Beyond My Ken has been told not to do this. Here, User:Beyond My Ken files a Sockpuppetry Investigation because multiple unrelated editors have told him to stop inserting idiosyncratic formatting. On the Sockpuppetry Investigation, an independent editor User:Viriditas says: "Many, many, many users have complained about Beyond My Ken's edits. This does not mean they are all the same users. It means, Beyond My Ken needs to stop making those edits.". Currently on the talk page of the article in question, there is consensus that white space is unnecessary, and undos of the article indicate the nonstandard of User:Beyond My Ken's formatting: removed here by User:91.10.47.34, [19]Curb Chain (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

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

My apologies: Is this sufficient? Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Additional_discussion_about_BMK.27s_behavior Toddst1 (talk) 02:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you kindly and I appreciate the grace. I am sorry I never realized he was "whacked". Thanks for "reopening" the thread but I do think that being "whacked" does not mean he will stop the behaviour.Curb Chain (talk) 15:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

User:Ihardlythinkso

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

Long history here. Replying via email. Toddst1 (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

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

Suspected Block Evade

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

Unblock appeal by Ihardlythinkso

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

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

Rollback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Rollback.
Message added 16:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi TopGun. Toddst1's availability is currently limited, so you may want to tell the other participants in that thread that he may not give a prompt response. Regards, AGK [•] 21:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks AGK, I just read this... I'll note it there. It is about the rollback right that Todst revoked, I think I've justified a reinstatement, so any admin is invited to comment. I'll wait for Todst's response here however. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:29, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

• Looks like you're back... that discussion got archived as of the link above. Please leave your reply to my justification here. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Commented there. Toddst1 (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've clarified (incase you're not watchlisting). --lTopGunl (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Athens

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

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

kingz kounty records

	kingz kounty records
	Can I put information about jaz-o record label? Ace2cold (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

huh? Toddst1 (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

A promise you made

From your RfA:

8. Will you list yourself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open for recall?

A: Sure. Accountability is good. We need more if it in this world. I feel that if I can’t be held accountable for my actions, I don’t deserve any authority.

I checked the edit history of the recall list, finding no evidence you ever added your username. Did it slip your mind? Are you going to make good on the promise you made? (If so, when?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I am no longer a member of that category. Toddst1 (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thx for the link, I was looking in the wrong place. My mistake; sorry. (You kept your promise on the same day you were promoted to Admin! Remaining on the list for 5 days shy of 4 months.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

ugnazi

Thanks for locking it, but an edit I made regarding the additional attack on Wounded Warriors was not included in the current version. If you click the links in my edit, you'll see that it was completely true and not vandalism. Thanks. --108.2.117.37 (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Please

I saw from the past situations that you are neutral, direct, and familiar with ARBMAC. Therefor i am asking for your comment or reaction. For any possible question, proposition or solution, i am here, as i was before. If you doubt anything, ask. --WhiteWriter^speaks 21:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Commented on ANI - forgot to note it here. Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Nico Kroeker

Good Day! I was just wondering why you deleted Nico Kroeker as a blatant hoax? Many eyes scanned the article and as far as I am aware, this is the first that I've heard that it was a hoax... so was it blatant? Also, there was evidently an ongoing deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nico_kroeker. Although regardless, consensus appeared to be to delete anyhow. I was just merely curious about the hoax thing because it would mean I missed something - which bothers me! Cheers!!!    Thorncrag  21:27, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. It was clearly an error on my part. I followed a vandalism report and ended up making a bad block and a bad deletion. I fixed both.Toddst1 (talk) 21:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Have a beer and chillax, the cavalry has arrived. I know your pain with regards to this kind of article. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 15:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Mmm... Beer.. (hic) Toddst1 (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cimmorelli Across Multiple Languages

Thank you for your help with the non-notable Cimorelli's. I'm not sure what to do about it, but it looks like they have created articles about themselves on six foreign-language Wikipedia sites. I known that for copyright violations, images can be deleted across Wikimedia. I'm not sure if they is away to delete this band across all Wikipedia languages. NJ Wine (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cimorelli on German Wikipedia

Cimorelli on French Wikipedia

Cimorelli on Spanish Wikipedia

Cimorelli on Finnish Wikipedia

Cimorelli on Dutch Wikipedia

Cimorelli on Turkish Wikipedia

Groan. I have no idea how to handle this. What a mess! Toddst1 (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm Cimorelli's mom, and I must say I was a bit shocked to read this from you, "I have a theory that most of this pablum is placed by this group's mother who is their agent/PR and her buddies." Ouch! I did not start nor ever contribute to this page nor any other Wiki pages, nor do I have any idea who started the Cimorelli page nor any of the foreign language pages. Also, I am not their agent nor their PR person; they are signed with CAA and Universal Island Records (you can find them on the Artist page on Island Records' website). I read the guidelines on musicians being eligible for inclusion here, and one of the qualifications was that they have a song or album that has charted. The CimFam EP, released in Dec 2011, charted internationally in the Top 25 on itunes, and went as high as #6 on the US itunes pop chart and #5 on the Canadian itunes pop chart. It also charted in the Top 20 in places such as Germany, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Mexico, France, and Belgium, among others. Cimorelli has been on Billboard's Social 50 chart for 30 weeks; this week they are at #16 (2 weeks ago they were #9). They were featured in an article in Billboard Magazine on May 18, 2012, titled, "Ryan Seacrest's Bieber-Off Helps Cimorelli Make Social 50 Chart Gain". Cimorelli is also the most subscribed girl group on youtube right now, with almost 700,000 subscribers. Whatever you guys decide on whether to keep the article or not is obviously up to you, but I did want to clear that up and cite a few things that I think take them out of the "non-notable" category and place them at least slightly above "garage band status". We use Wikipedia all the time in looking up producers and writers that we are asked to work with, and we hope that their pages are accurate, and if our page does stay that it will be accurate, too, and without extraneous hype. Thanks for your time. LynCim (talk)LynCim —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied on User talk:LynCim. Toddst1 (talk) 01:57, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

For the record, echanged email with Lyn. All is good. Toddst1 (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:208.118.126.19

Hi, I missed that this as a Webster Academy address. How did you deduce this, please? TerriersFan (talk) 22:10, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly a school by that IP's vandalism patterns (literature, historical figures, etc. during school hours). Bigpipe is used by a lot of western Canadian schools as well. It's not much of a leap to deduce that since 2/3 of that ip's edits are to Webber Academy and it geolocates to that area, that it belongs to that school. Toddst1 (talk) 22:19, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! TerriersFan (talk) 22:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 Looks like a duck to me. Toddst1 (talk) 00:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

edit war policy

I saw ur mssg on Anupam (talk · contribs)s talk page and was inquisitive check why you posted that message. I find myself in a position where my edits are being reverted continuously without any discussions. How should this be managed ? -Ambar (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Status's talk page.
Message added 19:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Don't know if you happen to be watching my talk or not. Statυs (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Chipmunkdavis

Can you please revert Chipmunkdavis on List of heads of state of Eritrea back to the proper title "President of State" as opposed to just "President". This issue has been discussed between me and him countless times, he's freely admitted there are sources showing "President of State" is the proper title, and the only reason he keeps removing it is because he thinks it will "confuse readers", but he's never sufficiently explained how it would confuse anyone. He has removed the title dozens of times for months and months without proper explanation, and it has to stop. Per his own free admission, it's sourced, and it should be used on the article. Fry1989 ^eh? 21:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I am still waiting for a reply. Fry1989 ^eh? 20:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Calvin999's talk page.
Message added 23:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aaron • ^{You Da One} 23:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

I think you have already noticed it, an IP has started a thread at ANI. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive831#Personal Attacks from user:Toddst1 -- Dianna (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi, I've just seen the above, I was amused. Just a quick question, if you don't mind! At WP:AFD, how many 'Keeps' would you say are needed to call a WP:SNOW, I'm assuming it varies from time to time depending on the keeps and deletes, but on average? --Chip123456 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It's hard to say. There's a good writeup at an ulikeley place: Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Is there something you'd like an uninvolved perspective on? Toddst1 (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

To the former, I will take a look at it, thanks! To the latter, no thanks, I was just wondering as I'm trying to get more involved in the process. I have made a few NAC's. If you don't mind, for future purposes, if I need another set of eyes or if I'm unsure, can I come and drop a line?--Chip123456 (talk) 19:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I'm not promising to have any insight there though. I close so few. Toddst1 (talk) 19:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you more involved in speedy deletion?? Your admin deletion stats for deletion are quite high! --Chip123456 (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done quite a few. These days I'm usually busy blocking vandals and trolls. Toddst1 (talk) 20:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, probably right. When I'm looking to RB edits, there does seem to be a lot of them about. We are training, actually over at WP:CVUA users to become aware of this to 'crack down' on them. --Chip123456 (talk) 20:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk page abuse

Hello.

You may wish to consider disabling talk page access for User talk:94.4.117.83 due to blatant talk page abuse. Thank you. 69.155.141.125 (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Indef full protection?

On Cimorelli, indefinite full protection seems like overkill even against BLP violations. Any chance you could switch it down to a few months (say), and then reapply it if it remains problematic? Indefinite full protection seems very much against the spirit of anyone can edit. —Tom Morris (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur perhaps indefinite semi-protection instead? ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 00:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I've lowered it to semi. That article has been a bit of a cesspool for quite a while and I was shocked to see an established user, Archangel (talk · contribs) (re-)adding unsourced dates of birth about minors. Protection beats handing out blocks any day. Toddst1 (talk) 01:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Todd, that was Anarchangel (talk · contribs) rather than Archangel. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Apologies to Archangel. Thanks Ed. Apologies for my dylsexia. Toddst1 (talk) 04:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for keeping a weather eye on 2012 Quebec student protests. I am also keeping it on my watch, so hopefully between us we can keep that fire at a kindle. Tgeairn (talk) 06:24, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Riyas202

User's Bio keeps being removed. Stated reasons for removal are a far reach from User page Guidelines of what is not allowed. Content is within norms for Bio info on a User page. Request independent look by respected non involved admin. Also any comments on civility welcomed. 46.249.56.24 (talk) 02:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not facebook or webhost. FWIW, I've invited two other Admins to comment on the matter at User talk:The Bushranger/Archive16#Question, unlike the misguided IP's accusation that I'm vandalising a user page which I've not accused the IP user of vandalism, if that is what he was hoping that I'd have done. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 02:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
• This IP has opened WP:ANI#User:Riyas202 despite having two admins besides Todd say that they were wrong.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't weighed in on this. Toddst1 (talk) 03:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I shouldn't have implied that you did.-Jasper Deng (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record...

I thought this was a nice touch of class. Hope it all turned out alright. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Bishonen | talk 14:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC).

Thanks. Lyn and I exchanged email. I think it's cool. Toddst1 (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

IP block

Hi Toddst1,

Through a discussion with another editor, I noticed an 178.128.156.85 (talk · contribs · info · WHOIS) had blatantly vandalised Tito Vilanova. You recently blocked the IP for a period of 2 weeks, due to vandalism. However, it may be worth noting that the IP also vandalised their own talk page by selective re-wording the templates with foul language (as shown in this diff). With that in mind, I'm wondering if their talk page access should also be revoked, or the block increased to indef, as it is clear that the IP has only used the IP for vandalistic purposes, and going off the foul language, shows no intentions of changing their ways once the block expires. Regards, Wesley☀Mouse 18:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't indef IPs (whether we should or not is an interesting discussion). As it is, the two-week block for the first block is pretty hefty. It doesn't seem like the IP vandalized his/her talk page after the block, so removing talk page access would not be appropriate. If that happens, please let me or another admin know. Toddst1 (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Toddst1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Statυs (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Another Statυs (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Mark A Wallace

Thanks for your work on Mark A Wallace, the hospital executive. Since there are several articles on people named Mark Wallace, I am considering moving the existing Mark Wallace page to Mark Wallace (business executive) or [[Mark Wallace (lawyer) or Mark Wallace (diplomat), and creating a disambiguation page at Mark Wallace which would include

• Mark A Wallace (which might be moved to Mark Wallace (hospital administrator) or Mark Wallace (hospital executive), since there is an unrelated redirect at Mark A. Wallace
• Mark Wallace (cricketer)
• Marc Wallice, American pornographic actor
• Mark Wallace, Australian musician and member of Weddings Parties Anything
• Mark Wallace, American physician and husband of Jan Garavaglia

On the other hand, perhaps Mark Wallace should remain the lawyer/diplomat/business executive and the disambiguation page should be created at Mark Wallace (disambiguation). Your advice would be welcome; if you wish to create the disambiguation page yourself, please go ahead. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the DAB page would be appropriate. My €0.02 worth. Toddst1 (talk) 02:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

LANA DEL REY FORD MODEL

I wasn't aware of that rule. But how are we supposed to mention that she was a Ford model? It goes with her many personalities before she was famous.--MrIndustry (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't until you have a reliable source per WP:BLP. Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki spam

Hi, not sure if this is an issue for ANI or anything can really be done about it, but I noticed some peculiar interwiki activity on Avril Lavigne - page history shows bots adding mass amounts of iwlinks for very obscure language wikis, so I investigated and found all articles were created by the same user, Vitor Mazuco (talk · contribs), and all have exactly the same content: Avril Lavigne is a Canadian singer-songwriter. (with a ref to AllMusic) - in English! The edit summary on creating the articles was "please help me with translation!" Example page history So I know that enwiki has basically no administrative power over other wikis, so I guess there is really nothing for us to do but put up with the spam now and watch them be slowly deleted over the next weeks? Or should I attempt to clean them up myself? Elizium23 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Mark A Wallace Wikipedia Page

^{Superscript text}

Every time I make an edit to the Mark A Wallace page it gets deleted. I am using correct and reputable information as well as citing it correctly. Why are my edits being deleted? It is really important that I get his page updated ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revaverma (talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you read your talk page? Why is it so important that you get a page about him (not his page) updated ASAP? Toddst1 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

World Tomorrow

I'm a bit confused by this edit summary. The link seems to be to the official YouTube channel and therefore not infringing on any copyrights. —Ruud 15:22, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. I've restored it. Toddst1 (talk) 18:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you do me a favor?

For some reason, nobody is getting what I am talking about. Run the World should not be redirecting to Run the World (Girls), as there is now an article with the exact song title Run the World (song). Run the World (song) should be moved to Run the World. Can you please do this for me? Statυs (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like Run the World should be a WP:DAB page that has links to both Girls and songs. Toddst1 (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal attack

With all the respect Toddst, I don't think my comments on User talk:Calvin999 were personal attacks. I think there's a big difference between stating my opinion and accusing and editor of doing something. Till I Go Home ^talk 02:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Hypnotherapy in childbirth

An article that you have been involved in editing, Hypnotherapy in childbirth , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Lineslarge (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure you got the right guy? Toddst1 (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, not very recent, but you did do a series of cleanup edits around this one Lineslarge (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ha! You are correct - I just didn't look back far enough. I had zero memory of editing that article. Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail

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

Till I Go Home ^talk 01:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I've taken it to WP:AN/EW. Till I Go Home ^talk 02:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Till I Go Home ^talk 03:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

• You still haven't replied, or addressed the issues at the noticeboard. And after all this, the Heidi Montag article still contains the WP:BLP and WP:WWIN violating content it initially had, so nothing's even changed! And accusing Status and me of engaging in a "tag-team" edit-war is bogus. Plus you and gave us warnings for trying to maintain the article, yet the user who broke the WP:3RR didn't even get a warning from you, let alone a block, and he's off the hook. Sorry but I think this needs to be taken to a resolution noticeboard to address the issue. Till I Go Home ^talk 03:27, 1 July 2012 (UTC) I'm kind of over this. Question: if I remove some nonsense content from the article, will it be okay or will I get blocked. Till I Go Home ^talk 04:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Till I Go Home ^talk 04:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Block reduction mail

Thanks for your mail May 29th in reply to my mail and you asked to reply on your talkpage, it was regarding User:Intoronto1125 for whose block reduction I had mailed you.For ethnics and transparency I have to tell you that ,I had discussed this issue with User:JamesBWatson after I mailed but before you replied to me as I have not personally dealt with the user his reply is this and that made me wait for another month before contacting you.He/She is a major contributor with 34000 edits 76% to them to Articlespace and 653 articles all my request was as per WP:AGF can you unblock him or if you are unwilling reduce the block from indefinite to a more reasonable definite one .Unlike in the past when the user was unblocked quickly this he/she has been blocked for 2 months and believe the user will get it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2012 (U

Thank you again for your consideration.I understand you are busy.Please take your time and I would be greatly obliged you if you could get back on this.

Hi Pharaoh. Sorry it took so long here. I was dealing with a fiasco a few days ago. I tend to agree with James' comments. That editor has had tons of chances to improve. I just don't see anything changing in any meaningful way. I'll leave a note on User talk:Intoronto1125. Toddst1 (talk) 16:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Hahc21's talk page.
Message added 23:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Hahc21 23:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Notification of a relevant MfD discussion

Hello there. Considering your recent edits regarding the conduct of User:Hahc21 and User:Status, I feel that the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Hahc21/Deseo may be of interest to you. I should hope that this notification does not violate WP:CANVASS. SplashScreen (talk) 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/190.199.81.50

This IP user was Hahc21 not noticing that they had logged out. Now, Hahc21 cannot use their main account. Statυs (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Understanding edit warring

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

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Hahc21 06:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Calvin999

Please read the discussion at Calvin's talk page, where everyone is objecting to it; that's the discussion in question. Nyttend (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Status

I closed this SPI investigation [20] as I figured you already knew more than we did and had it under control and didn't really need more venues open on the subject. Just wanted to let you know it exists. If you want it unclosed, just ask. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 22:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No, that's cool. The IP is Hahc (confirmed by email) and I've given him/her the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't up to no good. Thanks for the heads up. Toddst1 (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Hahc21's talk page.
Message added 01:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Hahc21 01:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

I just read the entire WP:Rollback guideline and nowhere does it state that "Rollback requires a thorough understanding of WP:EW, WP:3RR and to some extent WP:BLP". The only reasons it gives are:

• "A persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used", and
• "Editors who edit war may lose the privilege regardless of the means used to edit war".

I am very disappointed with this considering I didn't break either rules. If you were so worried about me having rollback rights, then you should have put me on probation (or something similar like that), but removing out-of-the-blue without any valid reasons is pretty ridiculous. Till I Go Home ^talk 06:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Till I Go Home ^talk 06:05, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I read through the thread as well as your rationales myself and I can't find any remotely decent reason why you removed TIGH's rollback. Unless you can provide a good one it's going to be re-added. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 14:46, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Restored

To simply quote what I wrote at the ANI discussion:

"I've restored rollbacker rights. I'm going to assume this was a good faith mistake by Todd and just move on. Todd himself admitted that no abuse had taken place, so there is a flaw in the logic of removing it. Todd had previously said he was taking a bit of a break in an email, so I'm assuming he won't be around to reply. I'm the type of admin that gives permission to any other admin to correct my errors, on my user page, and I will just assume that Todd is as well. Since I am assuming the best of faith, and that Todd made a simple mistake, it should seem obvious that this isn't wheel warring or a comment on Todd's faith, only a correction in the name of fairness. If there is a concern with my actions, I welcome further discussion on my talk page."

I think we would all do good to just assume good faith, and move forward. I do not think that Todd was acting in bad faith, but a mistake is a mistake. The rights are restored, so no harm, no foul. I welcome anyone to correct my mistakes in the same manner, and give a proper notice like this as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:19, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Status

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the recent conduct of User:Status; I understand that you've been involved in his conduct lately. Thank you. SplashScreen (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Barnstarbob back?

FYI as an admin who was involved in the previous SPI investigation - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Barnstarbob --Biker Biker (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Hahc21's talk page.
Message added 00:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Hahc21 00:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

My RfA and SplashScreen

I think this gone well too far. SplashScreen appeared on my RfA and wrote a testament about Status, Home, Calvin, Tomica and myself and some stuff. He said that my comments on his AFDs were revenge, but I see the opposite: His comments at my RfA are some kind of revenge. Please stop this, since this is going out of hand and I'm not interested in bringing up another ANI about Splash and his behaviour. I'm teribly sad about his comments; maybe I'll do something else today since he took away my energies with such harsh actions. —Hahc21 01:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I see it has already been redacted but I looked at it in the history. I'll make a couple of comments - please take them as constructive because that's the way I mean them:

• Probably the most important thing I can say is take a look at the first section in WP:NOTNAS. It applies to RFA candidates too. It's unfortunate, but it comes with the territory. Cheer up. In a few days this will be behind you.

• While in this case, they're extremely blunt, I think BWilkins' comments are pretty much right on the money (as usual). I probably wouldn't have used the word "clueless," but it isn't inappropriate. The things I pointed out on your talk page about your misunderstanding edit warring are a big part of it - Making misinformed comments like those I pointed out to you in that dispute definitely contributed to a significant escalation of the situation. I don't want to rehash the whole ordeal, but one of the things an admin - or even a seasoned editor - should do is to try to de-escalate drama when possible.

• If you haven't figured it out by now, your answer to #7 is probably grounds by itself for the RFA not passing. Nobody said if the reverts were BLP issues or not. In many cases, short-term page protection is the first step to sorting something like that out. The blockhammer is one of many tools you have at your disposal as an admin and you have to be careful about where and when to use each of them.

• Rather than drag this out, you might consider withdrawing the RFA.

I'll tell you that I've been impressed with your ability to think through things after things have been pointed out to you. Your statement that you changed your position and supported my block of Status - after you brought my behaviour to ANI shows that you're willing to learn. I think with deeper understanding of policy, perhaps thinking through things more thoroughly (and removing the emotionality you mentioned) other editors' perceptions of you can and will change over time.

One suggestion is to move away from the pop-culture fandom articles into more substantial subjects. Those music and star-related articles typically have some of the weakest editors on the project and I doubt you'll get much in the way of growth there.

Just my €0.02 worth. Toddst1 (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I withdrawn the nomination. I will work on the weaknesses raised there and keep working as usual. I learned many things on that RfA, although i think i won't come back for a second time. One is more than enough for me. Cheers! —Hahc21 17:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice

An issue in which you were involved is under discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#User:Fry1989, User:DrKiernan. DrKiernan (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Now moved to WP:ANI. DrKiernan (talk) 22:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

unprotection

You protected Dress shoe 2 years ago because of a disruptive anon editor. While I don't intend to edit the page, I don't see why it should remain protected any longer. 78.148.148.145 (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I believe that was an oversight on my part. Toddst1 (talk) 00:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN

WP:AN#Edit warring over User Page. FYI since you deleted the page. --auburnpilot talk 06:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm hoping you had a better reason for deleting the page then WP:UP as that is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Monty₈₄₅ 07:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work

I was not involved in any way, but I think the way you handled this issue should be a model for incident/dispute resolution at wikipedia. You cut through the back and forth, granular analysis of NLT and simply provided the editor in question with a solution and closed the section to prevent further escalation. If I had a barnstar, I'd leave it right here for you. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:39, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you kind sir. Toddst1 (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

"No evidence found"

Hi.

could you just please qualify by what you meant by "No deliberate falsifying of evidence found"?

If it was found that I did not actually do what Dennis Brown accused and I had created a redirect etc according to policy, could I at least have that struck off my record as it is prejudicial?

I am sorry I missed the premature closing of this as I had not been online so much in the past couple of days.

Thank you. --Bridge Boy (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No. WP:STICK applies. Toddst1 (talk) 23:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I think you deserve this from me. You have made an incredible job helping me out in many tricky situations i have been sadly involved. Thank you. —Hahc21 00:07, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Calvin999's talk page.
Message added 14:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Minor clarification

I wanted to quote my comment in full rather than by diff because think has a habit of taking things out of context. In any other situation the diff would have been perfectly adequate. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. I totally agree. Toddst1 (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Request

Please avoid the snark/joking in the context of your admin role. User_talk:The_Blade_of_the_Northern_Lights#Re_your_coupling. It indicates a lack of seriousness and respect for the editor (respect for Wikipedia, actually). This is not an endorsement of their behavior; it's that you (as an admin) are not their social equal in the situation, and joking around by superiors is inflammatory to subordinates. It's best to simply let the editor have the last, incorrect word. Experienced Wikipedians aren't going to simply accept a criticism of an editor/admin just because it's written, so a lack of response to unreasonable criticism will not be taken as a sign of weakness -- rather it telegraphs confidence and strength. See also Wikipedia:Other Duck Nobody Ent 11:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind sending me an email or temporarily enabling email to you (if you don't want me to see your email address)? Toddst1 (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Email enabled (sorry, should have re-enabled when came off my last break) Nobody Ent 15:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Hi - Just a note to let you know - I was disappointed in your recent involvement - without any need for you to have involved yourself and when we have historically related quite well and occasionally agreed and I have supported you on contentious issues - diff - your comment that I asked to be blocked so your leaving a note to let other admins know not to unblock me was misleading and totally unnecessary - and well just wrong all round - I was baited by the admin not the other way around - sorry that you felt the need to add that to the issue - Youreallycan 18:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry you didn't appreciate my involvement, but your comment was indeed daring the admin (if not other admins} to block you and pretty WP:Battle.

You're right, we have interacted very positively on contentioous, but while I appreciate your support on issues, please don't give it out of any sense of allegiance or friendship - only out of merit.

I look forward to positive interactions with you in the future. Toddst1 (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No I would never do that, I just wanted to let you know what I feel about your involvement in that issue - All admins should be able to rise above escalating such issues through using their tools when involved in the discussion/issue or they should give the additional buttons back. In that case the User Magog was part of the problem and not part of the solution and sadly you supported him. Youreallycan 19:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Got a DreamMcQueen Jr.

A little over 2 months ago a Move/Merge Request Discussion was ended at Talk:WNEM-DT2 with no consensus for move or delete. The discussion was started by User:Spshu, and was closed by User:Drmies, an admin. Today, I receive this post on my talk page (a little over 2 months after the discussion was closed) saying I was attacking users and gaming the system (sound familiar?). Spshu tried to get consensus, failed, came back 2 months later with this fun little page and more edit-warring at WVIR-DT3. Now he has taken me to ANI, yay. Can you help? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

You look like you need some good food

Time for a Carolina treat Country style pork ribs, smoked them myself. Don't let the talk page get you down, instead look at mine and laugh. I used to could edit articles here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 01:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Mmmmm. Looks tasty! Thanks. Toddst1 (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Now that looks good. Get a side of mashed taters and some country gravy and a couple cresent rolls and you have yourself a good meal. :)

ANI Thread Closed

I just wanted to let you know that the ANI thread regarding me has been BOLD closed by User:Selket‎. Just making you aware since I posted about it on your talk page. Hope all is well. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

IP edit

These genres aren't sourced, can you revert it. I've already made one revert on that article today. There are also unsourced. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 22:36, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

FunnyJunk redirect

Hi there-- you are listed as the admin who deleted and salted FunnyJunk. Can you make it into a redirect to The Oatmeal and FunnyJunk legal dispute? I recommend permanently semi-protecting the redirect. Thanks! Jokestress (talk) 19:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Not me. Toddst1 (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

COIN

Someone made some vague accusations about a Toodst1, a user that has never existed, saying that they were being brought up on civil and possibly criminal charges. If I had to guess, these claims are totally false and baseless but I'm guessing they meant to point the finger at you. Maybe you can shed someone light on the discussion and perhaps close it if you feel comfortable doing that as an allegedly involved administrator. OlYeller21^Talktome 21:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sent to ANI for disposal. Toddst1 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I wasn't aware at the time that NLT applied to editors as well. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Bake me a file in a cake please. :) Toddst1 (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, will do. I'm guessing it was for this. The IP belongs to that company. OlYeller21^Talktome 22:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps. I've blocked dozens of IPs from that ISP that geolocate to Ottawa. I suspect it's one of those. Toddst1 (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

reamMcQueen== Seems DreamMcQueen is still edit-warring after his last block (you were the blocking admin). These history sections show ongoing edit-warring. Another block (48 hours this time) is necessary. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've put a stop to that for at least the next 96 hours. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. :) Have a Good Day...Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

TALKBACK

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Fairlyoddparents1234's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 15:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

DeFacto SPI Behavioral evidence blocks

Block of Pother

After checkuser found that Pother was unrelated to DeFacto, and indeed located thousands of miles away from both Ornaith and DeFacto (which the checkuser said were "likely" but not certainly linked), do you mind explaining why the account was blocked? Kahastok talk 17:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Behavioral evidence points to a sock/proxy or meatpuppet. Geolocation, checking browser & O/S combinations can only do so much. There are plenty of ways around those measures. A prolific socker like DeFacto knows that. 17:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

They can tell us quite a bit. For example, it seems unlikely, you seem to be arguing, that an editor is travelling thousands of miles in a matter of minutes. I trust you will not object too strongly if I ask for this decision to be reviewed? Kahastok talk 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Those metrics tell us a lot, but there are easy ways to get around them with subterfuge. Have you ever heard of hosted desktop service? I can open a desktop on a virtual computer in another continent with different hardware, different O/S, different browser, etc. Throw in a VPN service and those become meaningless.

At the end of the SPI, a judgement call was asked for and is what I made, having had lots of experience with DeFacto. If you feel compelled to have this reviewed then you will. I'm not going to defend it if you want it reviewed. Toddst1 (talk) 17:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Ornaith

In relation to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DeFacto, Ornaith edits from North America, and the other account edits from Europe. No proxy use was in play, with both accounts using dynamic IP addresses from legitimate, mainstream ISPs. Given that I stated this explicitly (with a big fat  Unrelated on the investigation page), why did you block the accounts? There is such a thing as behavioural evidence, and I am afraid I consider this a serious misjudgement. Please revert your block. AGK [•] 18:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Todd. AGK [•] 18:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

When you ask for someone else to make a call on the behavioral evidence like you did, you will get it. If you don't want it, don't ask for it. Toddst1 (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW (and it's not worth that much yet) the UTC edit timestamp distributions for Ornaith and DeFacto (checked via two-sample Kolmogorov–Smirnov) were essentially identical (results on Ornaith's talk page). I need to put a lot more work into making this timestamp analysis robust, but with that evidence plus DeFacto's socking history plus the similarity in editing styles and content I think blocking was the right call. GaramondLethe 19:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I think you made the right call on both accounts. I had reached similar, admittedly amateur, conclusions from looking at edit histories side-by-side. Mcewan (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I am at a loss as to how to respond to the last comment at at User talk:Ornaith#Why have I been blocked again? Any suggestions? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• To be clear, Toddst1's original decision was correct, and it was my first set of results that was incorrect. I asked Todd to revert his action because it sat completely at odds with the technical evidence (as it stood at that time). Guy, I have chimed in on the blocked editor's talk page; and I imagine we would have little to gain from continued interaction with the individual behind that account, unless he or she intends to submit a block appeal. AGK [•] 23:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I was thinking the same thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

hola

Zsfgse — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.204.249 (talk) 00:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Please Put Yourself Up For Recall

As per your answer during your request for adminship, please put yourself up for recall. [21] Bibbnm (talk) 17:21, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Just incase you forgot the question and your answer, they were;

Will you list yourself in Category:Wikipedia administrators open for recall?

A: Sure. Accountability is good. We need more if (sp by the way... in a request for adminship... a little sloppy NO?) it in this world. I feel that if I can’t be held accountable for my actions, I don’t deserve any authority. Bibbnm —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I have blocked Bibbnm indefinitely. AGK [•] 23:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I was but am no longer a member of that category. Toddst1 (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Edits

Hey I was editing because it made for a more neutral point of view, the content was linked to an opinion blog as a source. I was not vandalizing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.170.86 (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

DreamMcQueen...again

Yet again, he is edit-warring. A look at his most recent edits show the revisions. Last block was for 96 hours, perhaps a week? Maybe this needs to go back to ANI. I will gladly let you handle that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you are offline for the evening, I have forwarded the issue to ANI. You can find the thread here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just want to update you on all this. DreamMcQueen is now indef-blocked and it turns out he was a sockpuppet for User:Rollosmokes (which makes sense). So, that is one less sock in the drawer. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 13:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. There were definitely problems there. Thanks for the heads-up. Toddst1 (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. :) Thanks for your help with the blocks. :) Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Can you remove this genre addition by User:TulisaMarshall please. The song doesn't premiere until Thursday, so no critics can comment on it yet, so I don't know how she knows it is an R&B and Hip hop song. Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 18:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me show you: [22] Toddst1 (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI

User talk:Sundostund#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Sundostund. Max Semenik (talk) 16:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Now at WP:AN in the thread where you acted upon the initial request. Hasteur (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Implied personal attack..?

I was looking over my edit history an I came across this with the words "this one's for you, chuckles :)"[23] Would you consider that a personal attack? I think he is using his talk page to make indirect personal attacks at me, or he's making a mockery over the fact I was briefly blocked the other day. What do you think?--Golfballz (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Move on. Toddst1 (talk) 20:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing discussion

Who can close a discussion? and for why? Since, DreamMcQueen started a thread on Style and formatting issues, Neutralhomer took it on himself to close the discussion do to DreamMcQueen being a sockpuppet. There are a few other editors the have made comments and me, I made another comment today. Neutralhomer how ever was on the "loosing" side of the argument. Spshu (talk) 22:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't really know what the rules are there. Toddst1 (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

John Duffey?

I'm a member of the unreferenced articles group here on en.Wikipedia. Aside from copyediting, creating infoboxes, etc., I saw the article for John Duffey as yet another BLP unreferenced article. One of the things we strive to do (when remembering to do so) is to add a couple of referenced to such articles. Just looking back at my last few edits, I noticed you added an additional banner which implies WP:COI or some such thing. As you are an Admin., and I am not, I will assume good faith, but I have only tripped over this article while doing other things, and the sources are just what they appear to be- the first apparently reputable ones I found on Google. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Findagrave is a remarkably unreliable, self-published source. Any amateur genealogist can publish anything there. It's like Wikipedia without the WP:V. For example, the article you cited on Findagrave lists Duffy "Decades Active: 2000's." That would be a remarkable feat for a guy that died in 1996.

There is no COI tag. I have no idea why you infer that.

The Washington Post had at least one article on his passing which is much more reliable. I remember reading it. Toddst1 (talk) 18:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The banner you added stating that these may be self published sources is what I am speaking about. "Self-published" in my world, sounds like either the subject of the article or someone connected to him. I'm not familiar with the Find a Grave site. I recall now having used it because it was the only "source" already in the External links section. What surprises me though, is that since you knew Find a Grave not to measure up to our notability standards here, why you didn't just delete that source rather than hang yet a third banner on the stub. I mean this very nicely. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleting others' additions can be seen as confrontational. There's a reason we have those tags.

As far as self-published, WP:SPS doesn't imply anything about the subject being involved, rather the writer published the info without editorial review. In this case, find-a-grave is effectively an open wiki. WP:SELFPUB addresses someone writing about themself in a COI manner because many folks publish puffed-up material about themselves and they they're inherently unreliable. If you read further, WP:SPS talks about self-published materials about third-parties as in this case (although they're not living). Toddst1 (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for rolling up your sleeves and working on some decent references there. I never heard of Duffey till I bumped into the article and frankly, find a lot of other musicians who are influential world wide whose work I deem more important-- (IMHO- like Jeff Beck or someone). Thanks also for a friendlier tone than some editors use. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Take your sarcasm and move along. Toddst1 (talk) 03:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

No! Wait, I meant that in all sincerity. There are editors who criticise but don't really attempt any real work. I'm now SO PUZZLED! I say something nice and am told not to "be a dick". Figures. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, my apologies. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Three Angels Broadcasting Network

A few months back, I restored your deletions based on WP:IAR. Do you look at the finished product after your mechanical deletion of challenged materials? Look at the current version again. You're having the controversy section begin with "On July 19, 2010, Tommy Shelton turned himself in to police..." It makes no sense--not even having introduced who Tommy Shelton is. (3ABN's founder is Danny. Tommy is his brother.) Tommy admitted to crimes which occurred during his pastorship in Virginia, and then a civil lawsuit was filed alleging molestations during his time at 3ABN. This whole thing cannot really be detached from the establishment of Save3ABN website which exposed both Danny's divorce and Tommy joining 3ABN and 3ABN suing Save3ABN. Details about all these may only be carried by Save3ABN, but the basic points (someone built Save3ABN, 3ABN sued Save3ABN) can be substantiated by other sources.

Further removing everything left about "controversies" would be a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. To have this section you must include the basic facts about Save3ABN and the lawsuit. HkCaGu (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So fix it - with WP:RS. It's not being censored, just held to policy. It seems that the guy was a SOB pervert. If so, I'm sure you can find some real sources that document it. Toddst1 (talk) 03:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Intoronto1125

I was rather surprised you unblocked User:Intoronto1125. In any case, he/she is back to his/her disruptive edits here and here, violating a consensus that Intoronto1125 knows very well. StAnselm (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I am also one of User:Intoronto1125's mentors and User:Intoronto1125 promised me he will not get involved in the particular page again.Shankar2001 (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It was based on my request that User:Intoronto1125 was unblocked as he/she is a major editor in particular in the multi sports area.I have told him not to make to changes and he/she has undone the changes .To discuss the naming issue in the discussion forum and make changes only after consensus.I will tell him to work where he is good at in article creation like this GA Review I will also speak with User:Kanatonian who agreed to mentor him .Sorry for any convenience caused.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, whoever is mentoring him should tell him that telling others not to write on his talk page is completely inappropriate. StAnselm (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave it to someone else if admin intervention is required here. Toddst1 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

You reversion of 2012 Quebec student protests

Hi. I noticed your edit here where you reverted an edit on the grounds of blanking. I was going to do the same thing when I first noticed the edit, but upon taking a closer look I think the editor was removing some biased information. Plus, "perceiving Quebecers in general, and the students in particular, as receiving more than their peers and complaining about it" sounds like a repetition of the previous sentence "these transfer payments have become politically charged, with people in provinces that give more than they receive in federal transfer payments." —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 16:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmph. Good point. Lemme address that. Toddst1 (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

My block

Hi, Todd, please take a look at this closure at 3RRNB, paying special attention to my indefinite block of User:Fry1989, which was based on his block log and this discussion in April. Given that you were the unblocking admin, I'd like to confirm that I acted correctly. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your actions seem entirely reasonable. 1RR seems to have been ignored, and comments like "use your damn eyes" are not within the spirit of complying with "the most severe WP:CIVIL restriction imaginable" as recorded in his/her block log. It's not an egregious violation of CIVIL, but in context, not appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 18:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Todd. The editor first appealed and then reverted his appeal saying he'd come back in a month. The contents of the reverted appeal weren't promising.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

A month passes by so quickly. Fry has made a detailed proposal as part of an appeal of his block. Although I asked one obvious question, and he responded, I'm not sure how or who should address his proposal. What do you think?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

It's your call. S/he had a deal for unblocking previously. What's different now? Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

(It's a he.) The essence of the proposal is in return for more severe restrictions than before (for a limited time), he would be unblocked in a month. After that limited time elapses, the old restrictions would go back into effect.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Unprotect request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello Toddst1, I hope you can help me. On 30th June you protected User talk:DeFacto, the reason you gave was "Persistent sock puppetry". Looking at its history, there were two messages added to that page by alleged sock puppets before you stepped in. Given the passage of time since then, would you consider unprotecting it again now please? It had a trickle of legitimate contributions there previously, and I want to start a discussion there relating to the processes, policies and evidence used to support the block and subsequent ban of DeFacto. I have some new insight and data to bring to the table. Thanks. 82.132.249.193 (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Note that I've already declined this at RFPP, and personally see no reason why an IP needs to edit another user's page. Are you Defacto, 82.132.249.193? Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I cannot see any current reason for keeping that page protected. And as I said, I want to start a legitimate discussion there. That DeFacto is blocked is not a reason to stop others posting there, and indeed, before the page was protected, the odd other did occasionally make a contribution. And no, I am not DeFacto, and I resent that question and the implication - based solely on my interest in the account; an academic interest, kindled by recent events elsewhere which brought that account to my attention. Please give me the benefit of any doubt you might have - assume good faith. Wait to see how the discussion develops, and then make an informed judgment based on the facts, and not on supposition. What is there to fear? You have the powers to intervene again if the page is abused. Please think hard about this. 82.132.249.193 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to start a discussion relating to the processes, policies and evidence used to support the block and subsequent ban of DeFacto, start an RFC. Toddst1 (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

An RFC on which discussion, on which talkpage? We need to have the discussion first, and only escalate it if there is any dispute. Or have I misunderstood you? Remind us why the user talkpage needs to remain blocked, quoting chapter & verse, and why you don't want me, or others, discuss anything there or even to post anything there. 82.132.249.199 (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You can start an RFC on anything you want. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment

As far as unprotecting that page, the user has been banned by the community and has repeatedly returned to Wikipedia and has vandalized that page more than once. If the user wants to appeal that ban, s/he may contact Arbcom directly. I see no benefit to the project from unprotecting that page. Toddst1 (talk) 20:28, 15 August 2012 (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.

We haven't had a chance to understand your reasoning yet! Will you open this discussion again please, so that I can help you to realise why your last comments are mistaken and/or irrelevant, and thus we will be able to easily remove those particular objections. 82.132.249.199 (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Discuss it on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Your call. 82.132.249.199 (talk) 20:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't, it's semi-protected - did you know that before telling me to do it? What else can I do? 82.132.249.199 (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize that. Oh well. Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't sound very concerned that I will not be able to clarify a few points there though. What else can I realistically do - other than attempt to conduct a discussion through edit requests? 82.132.249.199 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U on DeFacto. That's it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have no complaint against DeFacto. All I want is DeFacto's talkpage unprotected so I (and others) can start discussions there. You protected it, yet are apparently unable or unwilling to provide a good reason for keeping it protected. I was not impressed with your handling of my request to you here, and am even less impressed with your wording of the ANI and the fact that I am denied a say there. At least it'll be a good test of the thoroughness and impartiality of the ANI process though. I'll just have to sit back and await the outcome. 82.132.249.199 (talk) 21:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want me to place a statement in that discussion, post it here. I'll transcribe it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey Todd, I guess the Oniken article should be undeleted. The game was released and has even featured on Indie Royale (which also have a link to Oniken). If you thing more articles from the web are needed to verify Oniken's relevance, I can provide that. Bet regards, Thais. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunhildr (talk • contribs) 16:31, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Bodhi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi. Thanks for your message. The reason I removed the template was because whoever posted it has not explained (as they should have done) what exactly they mean by an 'unclear citation style' because they have not left an explanatory message on the talk page. Looking at the talk page it seems as though you are a supporter of this template (perhaps you put it there in the first place?). Can you explain to me what you want doing to the footnotes so that we can rectify the matter and remove this template from the top of the page as it is rather ugly? Thanks. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 21:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a numbering system used in citing the material in the article. There are two numbering systems presented for References and Web References. It's really unclear where the citation for ^[2] is. It couldn't be more confusing than that. Toddst1 (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you drag your cursor over the superscript number in the main body of text the new little pop-up info box will tell you which footnote reference the number refers to. Confusion arises when one is not aware of this.81.106.127.14 (talk) 22:17, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That only works if you have Javascript enabled, which is somewhat difficult in the printed version. That's why we have numbering schemes. The article was tagged as "The references used may be made clearer with a different or consistent style of citation, footnoting, or external linking." Toddst1 (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

In both the online and print versions the ordinary superscript numbers refer to the footnotes in the section 'References' whereas the web references are denoted by the form [web 1], [web 2] referring to the section 'Web references'. I think this is pretty clear. What is your proposal for improving this scheme? 81.106.127.14 (talk) 23:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

One harmonized referencing scheme in the document (which is usual) marked up by <ref> ... </ref> and {{reflist}}. See WP:Referencing for beginners. Toddst1 (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You should go right ahead and do it! Nobody else will make the changes you are suggesting because you have a definite idea about what should be done yourself and only you can make that happen. What you are talking about is a question of style rather than clarity and if you feel strongly about it you must do it yourself rather than leave a template without explanation and expect someone else to do it. From the explanation you have given me there is no further reason to keep the template at the top of the page where it has languished for eight months. Since both print and web versions are clearly footnoted in an acceptable style protocol please make the changes you want then remove the template. Thank you. 81.106.127.14 (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually there are hundreds of thousands of editors here that use citations that way. Leave the template or fix it. Toddst1 (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2012 (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.

66.87.94.7

At User talk:66.87.94.7, you used SharedIPEDU, saying "this IP belongs to an educational institution." No it does not! If you'd bothered to look up the rDNS, or even the WHOIS for that matter, you'd have seen that the IP very plainly belongs to Sprint PCS, a cellular provider in the United States. Not trying to be mean or pick a fight, just trying to provide some constructive criticism because I can imagine it makes us look pretty stupid when we mess up like that. So here's a trout.

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

PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:38, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you realize that Sprint has a wireline business service that delivers home and businesss wifi? That specific IP is static and it is a wireless broadband ip [24] not necessarily mobile device. It can be a wireless broadband network, a wireless broadband service (such as a Starbucks) or a mobile device. More details at http://whatismyipaddress.com/wireless. Since it's static, it's most likely a wireless broadband network for a business, very possibly a school. Behaviorally, my guess is it's a school, but I certainly could be wrong.

Speaking of looking pretty stupid, you should remove the mobile template. Toddst1 (talk) 15:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The rDNS for the IP (as seen at lookupserver.com, which I personally consider to be more reliable than whatismyipaddress.com) is 66-87-94-7.pools.spcsdns.net. It seems that "pools" would indicate a dynamic IP address (although if you want to be thorough, it also could mean that it's wi-fi at a public pool), and spcsdns.net would indicate Sprint PCS (and not the Sprint wireline backbone you mention that I am very well aware of). But alas, perhaps the ISP template would be better since there's . Silly schoolyard like vandalism doesn't just come from school computers. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

See Pedantic. Toddst1 (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Maryland Pride

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Another ANI thread

Hi Toddst1, I thought you may want to review this one as you were the previous blocking admin. Cheers,
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Since you were the last admin will you please comment on this one way or another. Blethering Scot 17:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Aleenf1

Looking at the contributions of Aleenf1 (talk · contribs), it seems s/he was simply reverting an undiscussed change being made repeatedly by a multiple IP hopper who has made no attempt to communicate, not even in edit summaries. Based on this observation, I am inclined to unblock Aleenf1 (or reduce the duration) and semi-protect the article, if that's OK with you. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Looks like I fucked up. I will apologize for Aleenf1. Thanks for pointing it out. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Supercomputer?

That's high praise for our state. Didn't know we had such a thing. Thank you for the block on that Truthteller. 207.157.121.92 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that's an impressive name for the state-run academic ISP. It looked more like a stuporcomputer network today. Toddst1 (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

JonFlaune

I think that the blocking note should be restored also this editor need explanation what is vandalism.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 16:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING allows removal of block notice. Feel free to explain Wp:Vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANI premature closure

I was only discussing something about it. What's wrong with that? Bleubeatle (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please bleubeatle I beg you for your own sake to let it go for the next few months as we all agreed on. Now you do it all over again and bring it up at the noticeboard, clearly disruptive and if you continue I will support a block for not following the agreements made concerning the article in question, technically you are already in contempt of the agreements. Im really disappointed with your behaviour. That is all I will say about that.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to thank Toddst1 for handling this situation so swiftly. But I am quite shocked that an ANI report was submitted and not one of the users listed where notified about it. Isn't the procedure suppose to be that the reporter (Bluebeatle) should have posted ANI noticed on CT Cooper, BabbaQ, and my own talk pages? That alone is disruptive underhandedness. I'm seriously considering making a request for an interaction ban or even a topic ban to be imposed against Bluebeatle as a result of his behaviour. Wesley Mouse 11:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is. However, since it was such an obvious case of Bleubeatle (continuing) rejecting consensus and forum shopping, it seemed the most expedient solution was to shut the discussion down with a warning to Bleubeatle. I'd support an interaction ban but it would be bi-directional. Toddst1 (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't even know how to go about such interaction bans, but I'll see if things settle down with the warning that I've noticed you have issued the user. Does this mean Bleubeatle will no longer be permitted membership of WP:ESC, as all 4 of us are members of that project? I have informed the other two users too about the warning so that they can familiarise themselves with the conditions and prevent inadvertently wandering into unwanted territory. Hope I have done the correct thing there. Wesley Mouse 19:13, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but it means s/he shouldn't be following you around. Toddst1 (talk) 22:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Dance Again World Tour and Alxthss (talk · contribs)

I look for help in this, as this is very recurrent and i'm not able to solve this. Look, this user, Alxthss has been editing against consensus on the page Dance Again World Tour adding dates from another separate tour by Lopez, claiming that they are the same. Several users, including me, have reached the conclusion that those dates doesn't belong to the article bu to their respective tour. SO, this user has been adding the dates constantly, and so far has done this than 5 times in the last days. Another admin, Worm That Turned, protected the page and the problem stopped. I adviced the user on his talk page to gain consensus before adding the dates and he just deleted what i wrote. As I, along with several users have tried to talk to him unsuccessfully, i ask your advice on what can I do to solve this dispute. Should I go to DRN? Or there is another method to solve this? Thanks. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Two warriors blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, i wan't asking or making reference on blocking users. Also, Status wasn't warring against Alx, because if that were true, then you'd block me and Tomica either. I considered that a warn or other measue on Alx's and Status' talk page was way better. Also, a 72 block for Status is quite high, IMO, considering that what both Status, Tomica and me were doing was going with consensus, something that Alx didn't. SO, technically, the only user warring was Alx. I'm not telling that Alx was the only one to be blocked, I'd prefer none of them being blocked. Although, i'd have preffered another admin to block them, but what is doen is done. — ΛΧΣ21™ 01:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This really does seem to have been a case of one warrior vs. a group of four editors that had hammered out a consensus. What make you decide that Status had been edit warring? He certainly was reverting, but was doing so in alignment with multiple other editors, explaining the reasons that he had done so, and communicating on talk pages. There's a boundary between enforcing consensus and tag-team edit-warring that can be hard to draw sometimes, but I think you drew the line in the wrong place this time.—Kww(talk) 03:44, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to unblock or otherwise adjust. Status has a track record of edit warring on NOTNAS-STAR-type articles and the post-block invitation to stay off Status' talk page is a bit over the top. That said, your judgement is fine with me. Toddst1 (talk) 03:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Knowing Status as much as I do, i know exactly how he felt. That said, i consider that his invitation was exactly the behavior you would've expected after blocking him three consecutive times, and being the only admin ever who has blocked him since in 2010. What is completely astonishing is that you didn't saw this before blocking him. Additionally, Kww, i understand your reasonings on Satus' talk page, although i consider them irrelevant on the matter of the unblock. Your personal preferences cannot guide your actions and, as far as I know, they don't. Although, i either know you are not bound to unblock him. Regards. — ΛΧΣ21™ 05:01, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I had to come out of my Wikibreak (haven't edited since 23 August) to opine to this. You cannot block an editor with no sound reason provided by claiming that they were "edit warring", when in reality they were enforcing consensus that had previously been established. But worse, responding to the matter by saying "feel free to unblock" is quite ridiculous to be honest with you, and suggests you're aware that you are in the wrong. I think there's a possible conflict of interest going on here, hoping that someone will investigate this further. Till 04:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, I have unblocked Status; see the unblock template on his talkpage for the reasoning. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 08:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for handling that. For the record, it seems a few folks are misunderstanding policy here: There is no execption in WP:3RRNO or edit warring in general for enforcing consensus. However, there are times to IAR. Toddst1 (talk) 17:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Editor you blocked continues bad behavior

Hey Todd,

You recently blocked User:JonFlaune for 24 hours for edit warring and violating 1RR on a contentious article (Rachel Corrie).

He has continued with further bad behavior.

• Removes referened content and reliable media outlets like The Telegraph, with the edit summary of "Fixing POV." In other words, reinserting his/her biased POV, which was documented on the Edit Warring thread.
• Harasses me on my talk page by giving me a "warning," saying that my revert was "vandalism." It was quickly removed by another editor who recognized it wasn't vandalism. But now I'm subjected to more drama from here.
• Evidently upset that I contributed to getting him blocked, he WP:WIKIHOUND me here - disagreeing with me on the talk page of an article he has NEVER edited.

Perhaps a longer block from I-P articles is necessary, in my opinion...

Thanks. --Activism1234 17:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. --Activism1234 17:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Just one more thing... Would it be possible for this NPOV discussion that JonFlaune opened up against me right before he was blocked to get closed, as the editor who filed it has been blocked for edit warring and his behavior against me? I don't think it's necessary to stay open, as it was just needless drama by a blocked, upset editor. Thanks. --Activism1234 17:27, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to have someone else deal with it. If you're in the clear, it will be resolved quickly. Other eyes on this situation are good. Toddst1 (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok no problem. Sounds good. --Activism1234 17:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Me

What do you have against me. All I do is edit airports and airlines and all the sudden you come in. That guy called me an idiot, that is a personal attack and he called another user a bastard. And that edit at Southwest Airlines was because that info is simply not needed and I told him that already. If you think I "own" Southwest Airlines look at Alaska Airlines and some users, look at SJU airport. You are clearly stalking me so I would appreciate it if you would stop because it starting to seem like you are bullying me. Kairportflier (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

There's a difference between WP:HOUND and following up on a previous block - which is what I'm doing. Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thats helps. On another note you have looked at all my bad sides but you haven't acknowledged some of my good edits which is the best way to help someone improve. If you look at Southwest Airlines page from January and look at it now it has so much more fluid information and is much more organized. I have also contributed to wikiairports and wikiairlines.Kairportflier (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Paul Ryan protection

I see that you semi-protected this article. There had already been a request for temporary full protection given the edit war over material about Ryan's RNC speech and it was not the only edit-warring recently. Most of the edit-warring involves auto-confirmed editors so semi-protection will probably not prevent the edit war from continuing. Consider making this fully protected for a brief time.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Didn't see the RFPP. I'll fix it. Toddst1 (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

SWA

I do not own Southwest Airlines. I am either first to update it with breaking news or I am always working to fix it. If you don't want me to fix wikipedia incorrect information or add important information just let me know and I'll stop fixing incorrect information. Also, I am not bullying users, I give them a warning that there edit was wrong. If I am categorizing incorrectly then how about you help me and don't just say your going to block me. Kairportflier (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Did you even read the messages I've left you? I could have easily left you the series {{Uw-tempabuse1}} but I took the time to leave you personal notes discussing exactly what the problems are. In this last case, you can't call people vandals when you disagree over content. Toddst1 (talk) 19:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the biggest thing I don't understand. You blocked me before for edit warring at EWR but I was correct. Now you are telling me I was wrong for changing someones edit to the correct information. If I am fixing something why am I getting warnings? Kairportflier (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You can't edit war, just because you think you are right. Please read WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 19:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Its not that I think I am right, I am right. Kairportflier (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Kairportflier, lets say you're right. Still doesn't give you the right to edit war. Toddst1 isn't allowed to edit war either, even if he is an admin. Can we get along now, please? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I have not been in any way WP:INVOLVED in any content dispute or edit war with Kairportflier. Toddst1 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Never said you were, either. :) I just pointed out that what went for Kairportflier went for you too, so there wouldn't be the old "So he's allowed to edit war?" question from him. :) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Ok. Yes. I have to play by the same rules (and then some additional ones) as an admin. Toddst1 (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1, Let me give you an example, A user changes correct information to incorrect information. I undo it, he redoes it, i undo it and he redoes it. What am I supposed to do. Last time that happened that user wasn't blocked, if I go past three I get blocked. That leaves the vandal free to edit and me blocked while I was trying to fix it. How can we prevent this in the future? Kairportflier (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Add a citation and pursue WP:DR. Toddst1 (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just remember that the vandal is subject to the same rules that you are. If he goes past three, you can report him for WP:3RR vio at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but while admins are indeed subject to the edit warring rule, (as far as I know, at least) I'm pretty sure they usually have good reasons for going past three reverts. I'd say they are still subject to the rule because if they are reverting simply because they want it a certain way (and for little to no other reasoning), I'm pretty sure that is edit warring. Seriously though, correct me if I am wrong on that. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

You are correct: "they are still subject to the rule because if they are reverting simply because they want it a certain way (and for little to no other reasoning)". Is there a particular incident you have in mind?

I've never seen an admin go over 3RR (they'll usually protect the article) and I've seen an admin get rebuked for a second revert. We're in theory held to higher standards. Toddst1 (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me understand this. Instead of an edit war, admin's can just protect a page. This is what you call a "higher standard"?!?! This is really a conflict of interest. NO ONE should be allowed to protect a page that they are editing. It goes against the spirit of wiki as admins get to influence contect using tools.Ollew (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

You are correct that an administrator cannot protect a page that they are involved in an editing dispute on. I've only seen the protection done when reverting vandalism. I guess my comment could easily be taken the wrong way. If you see an admin protect a page that they are involved in an edit war on, you should take it to WP:ANI immediately. Toddst1 (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Cimorelli

Never seen a admin go directly from indef semi to indef full, at least, not without prior timed full protections. Considering that, I think it might of been a bit preemptive of you to do so, but remember that that's my opinion on it. Perhaps at least knock the current indef full protection down to a temporary full protection? I wont mind how long the timed prot would be, but indef just seems a bit preemptive, given the circumstances. :) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 19:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Cimorelli_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29.—Bagumba (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but I made that request. Just wanted to see if Toddst1 had anything to say on the matter. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Responded there. Summary: No objection to lowering protection (again) provided another admin keeps an eye on the article as that material keeps creeping back in. Toddst1 (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

As I said though, it was more or less that I prefered it be undone from indef full and set to timed full. I've decided I don't honestly care about the protection at this point. Feel free to leave it as is if you wish, Toddst1. :) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:24, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Ban User:Rollosmokes?

After going through a nasty time with User:DreamMcQueen (see my talk page and edit history), it has come to my attention that he is a sockpuppet of User:Rollosmokes. A lengthy review of edits and cases has led me to determine that he should be banned from the Wikipedia all at once. I'm sending you this message because of my personal feelings that I have been abused very harshly by him and is seeking full procedures to ensure all articles within the scope of WP:TVS. I am asking for your opinions on this manoeuvre, which I believe may not be necessary, or should be reduced to simply a topic ban. Please respond here and inform me via my talk page. Note this message has been sent to two other users as well. Thank you! Fairly OddParents Freak (Fairlyoddparents1234) 16:46, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you should at least request a WP:SPI. Toddst1 (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Todd, Rollo has already been back with another sock since DreamMcQueen was indef'd, User:Oogie Pringle. Before DreamMcQueen, Rollo had User:Runteldat. All taken down by SPIs and by yours truly. :) I suspect there are more sleeper-socks out there. A ban for Rollosmokes would be ideal for everyone because it is evident that he isn't going to stop socking. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:48, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you might be a bit premature on the banning. No CU has ever been done, there are only a few cases in a few years. He might piss you off personally, but it isn't an overwhelming case that demands a "ban" is required or will accomplish anything. No one is going to unblock him anyway. I can point to over a dozen people who have had more socks just in the last month than this guy, so I think you might be wasting time on a ban. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis: A CU was done (for the connection to User:DreamMcQueen) but it wasn't logged (I requested it via IRC, hence the lack of a log), though one could be done and logged if needed. The one connecting User:Oogie Pringle to Rollo was requested on Courcelles's talk page and logged there. That log could be transfered to the main Rollosmokes SPI Archive. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

My main point is that this is a minor sock, a pain, but banning is overkill. Normally, a CU should have logged it at SPI but sometimes they don't. They are given leeway in this. But again, I think you are worried about "banning" when in fact it won't really change anything. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:43, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

@Dennis: I know it won't change anything, but it will let us more quickly revert changes and delete articles he/she makes in the future. I wish breaking out the banhammer meant he was gone for good. We would be using that thing on alot of people. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

1) Why did you write only to me? Edit war => two users. Where inform for user Plk? 2) I read BRD, it does not concern me, but user Plk. My version is stable version, existing from the month. User Plk entered new changes, later exist revert. This subject to Wikipedia:CYCLE - edition, revert = discussion. 3) I several times showed compromise version, I tried to get along, I after the discussion introduced partial changes partly accordance with the opinions by user Plk. What does user Plk - only clean full reverts. This your message on my discussion is a scandal and injustice. I apply Wikipedia:CYCLE - edition, revert = discussion, user Plk don′t. Franek K. (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop reverting. Toddst1 (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop reverting? Please immediately write this in Plk user talk. Franek K. (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. You wait on next revert by user Plk? If you do not write to him, he does it. Your behavior is very suspicious and unacceptable. Sorry. Franek K. (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Done! User Plk got a the same warning. Franek K. (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Good. Toddst1 (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring

User:63.226.79.47 is continuing to add SkyWest information on World's largest airlines and List of largest airlines in North America. This is wrong because they fly under legacy carriers so the information is wrong. I will be honest before you warned me I passed the 3RR rule at World's largest airlines but you taught me to report this so post your warning I have not passed the 3RR but before I do it again can you do something please, Thanks. Kairportflier (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Could you rollback all of this IPs edits?

Hey Toddst. I just reported the ip 50.90.193.16, and you blocked it. I was wondering if it's possible for you to rollback all of the ip's edits, so I don't have to rollback each of them separately. Thanks for the help! Please get back to me Endofskull (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

h Monkeymatt1mr (talk) 01:40, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Request

Todd, since UAA's not getting so much attention, can you please block User:Fuckmehardyayblowjob (you just blocked his sock)? Thanks, Electric Catfish² 20:29, 21 September 2012 (UTC).

Done. Thx. Toddst1 (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Donald Cruickshank

Hi. I see you rv your PROD notice. I would hold that as a Knight Bachelor, Sir Donald is notable per se, but I will try to improve the article, which was created quite a while ago. Yours, Quis separabit? 23:31, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Reading more carefully I saw that he was chair of London Stock Exchange. That's significant and I added the {{findsources}}, which easily turns up sources like this. Toddst1 (talk) 23:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

My edit

Hey Toddst1! Can you please check out my edit to "Papillon dog.. I wrote a column called HEALTH. If you can check it out, that would be great. DEIDRA C. (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

You need a citation - or is that your opinion? Toddst1 (talk) 19:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Um.... It's not an opinion. DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

ok. prove it with a citation. Toddst1 (talk) 01:50, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Um......I did. DEIDRA C. (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I apparently looked at the wrong diff. Your edit seems very solid. Toddst1 (talk) 21:19, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Thank you so very much. I really tried to make it solid. I tried to include all the references and information about most of my information and also my very own knowledge, (since I have one of these energetic papillons). Thank you. I did try really hard. It was the first thing I have edited successfully. Thank you, happy editing! :-) DEIDRA C. (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Goodenough College

Notable Alumni section was removed though all alumni added were linked to their Wikipedia pages and are bona fide alumni according to College records. Wardens, Controllers, Directors, Chairmen of Governors have also been added to after consultation with College records. Not sure how to correctly reference this on Wikipedia. Grateful for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.28.195 (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:CITE should have all the info you need. You need to cite info that you add to wikipedia - especially about living people. If you don't cite it, it will be removed from the article Toddst1 (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I still can't see how to cite unpublished sources - all of the examples on that page seem to be published. I'm using the organisation's records. I've checked other 'notable alumni' pages for similar organisations and they don't seem to source notable alumni either so I couldn't copy their format. I don't want to be blocked and the information I'm adding is correct and hopefully useful/interesting (it's the sort of thing I expect to find on similar pages) so please help. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.33.28.195 (talk) 13:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

unpublished sources fail WP:RS -> don't use them. Toddst1 (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Please can you help me to understand what I need to do to add detail to the currently incorrect information regarding College Heads and to add the information regarding Notable Alumni? I'm being asked to add this information and I have gone to great effort to make the page more complete and factually accurate. We have now published this information on our website and my latest edit has been deleted again. I want to ensure that the edits comply but I don't understand what's wrong this time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictoriaMayGC (talk • contribs) 13:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC) The original information which was displayed about College heads has also been deleted since I added sources - can this be revoked please?

Hi. Glad you signed up for an account. The problem is that those pages are copywritten by LGH. Take a look at Wikipedia:Copyrights. If you're working on behalf of LGH and want to give permission for that text to be included in Wikipedia, you can give permission through the Commons:OTRS process. They'll want to ascertain that you are authorized to do so. Toddst1 (talk) 21:27, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant, thank you! This is the first time I've edited a Wikipedia page and despite trying to read through all the guidelines it's been a little overwhelming. I appreciate your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictoriaMayGC (talk • contribs) 08:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Thanks again for your help with this - permission has now been agreed (see the GC talk page) so I have undone your last three edits removing the sections in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictoriaMayGC (talk • contribs) 10:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice work, Victoria. I'm glad you had the patience to persevere. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Toddst1 (talk) 23:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

3 RR warning.

The three revert rule does not apply to blatant vandalism, which is what I have been removing. --ZooFamily (talk) 21:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope. That's not WP:Vandalism. Toddst1 (talk) 21:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

From WP:Vandalsim "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate (on purpose) attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia.". POV statements, and blatant incorrect statements are vandalism.--ZooFamily (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily. While you weren't blocked for WP:3RR, WP:3RRNO #4 calls out exactly how and why it's not the case. Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ooops?

I think we block conflicted here? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

My bad, apparently. Toddst1 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson edit war

I see that you tried to block Sharyl Attkisson from repeatedly re-editing her own page and making threats of legal action. I am a scientist and blogger who wrote a recent article at Forbes that was mentioned in the text that was deleted. I didn't edit her Wiki page and wasn't even aware of it until recently. However, I wanted to let you know that Attkisson also sent legal threats to the editors at Forbes, and got the CBS lawyers to back her up, until Forbes agreed to modify my original post, which is here:

• http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevensalzberg/2012/07/23/anti-vaccine-movement-causes-the-worst-whooping-cough-epidemic-in-70-years/

So her legal threats seem to extend not just to Wikipedia. The revised blog post at Forbes isn't much different, and it contains links to several other sites that document in detail Attkisson's advocacy of anti-vaccine propaganda. --Steven Salzberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.14.241.250 (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, she or someone pretending to be her was blocked for making legal threats, not because she was editing her own page (if it was her).

If what you say is true, it is severely troubling. Toddst1 (talk) 19:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI

On June 23rd, you removed text from User:WilliamJE for violating WP:SOAPBOX. Just wanted to point out he's re-inserted the same basic idea on his user page (see the section called "Wikipedia administrators- Clear rules and policy need not apply to them"). Jrcla2 (talk) 20:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. I didn't want to have to do that, but it's clearly an epic problem. Toddst1 (talk) 21:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

KDFitzgerald

I reported this user at AiV, and you indef blocked him, but I am now reconsidering. He finally responded to the message I left on his talk page, and I believe he is not a vandal, just confused about how to add verified information. If you unblock him, I will work with him to figure out how to add the information he is seeking to add. Thanks! ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this so quickly. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 16:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Busch Edits

Hi, Toddst1. Thanks very much for your message explaining reverting the edit on the Busch page as well as your invitation to reach out to you if I thought you made a mistake. I was reading an article in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch this week and noticed significant differences between the wikipedia characterization of the incident in Arizona and this primary document:

http://www.stltoday.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/6/1e/61ec15fe-0758-11e2-aa75-001a4bcf6878/5062231d46b46.pdf.pdf

So, I tried to change it to reflect what actually happened. If possible, I'd like it to be changed back to my edits. I think you'll find my edits to accurately reflect the primary document. I'm a first-time wikipedia editor, so my apologies if I didn't follow proper protocol.

Also, if you'll notice, his middle name is also wrong... it is not Anheuser, but Adolphus: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-06-14/features/9102220836_1_busch-family-gussie-brewing

I'd like to be allowed to edit that as well.

Jfwhelan80 (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's always good to explain such edits on the talk page or at least in the edit summary. I'm concerned that you removed a couple of sources with your recent edit though. Toddst1 (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on the Lindale Page

Hey Todd! I wanted to say that my edit on Lindale High School's Wikipedia page was to prove a point, I had it in mind to correct my edit after the point was made. Thank you for removing it for me, I will keep in mind not to do such a thing in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForDebatePurposes (talk • contribs) 05:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Block on User:69.58.35.200

Hello, you recently blocked this account for persistent vandalism, the block has expired and the vandalism has begun again. As a persistent, long term vandal, might you want to consider blocking this account from editing until the end of the school year in June 2013? --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Toddst1 (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Contribution.

Hey, Toddst1. Please help contribute to my WikiProject. This WikiProject is about different cultures. If you can take some time and help contribute to it, that would be very nice of you. I am starting this project this week and would like to finish by next week. Please help me with this project. Thank you very much. Please answer on my talk page because I might not be able to keep track of who is contributing and who is not. I would like you to also share your culture. If you can give me a little summary about your culture such as, foods, lifestlye, holidays, traditions, e.t.c, that would be extremely helpful. Thank you. So if you would wish to contribute, please reply on MY talk page. Happy edits! Have a great day! DEIDRA C. (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

What is your wikiproject? Can you send a link? Toddst1 (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is ready for your jelly!

	Jack be nimble Jack be quick Todd be a slippery jellyfish!
	thanks for the quick edit! Seergenius (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

What quick edit? Toddst1 (talk) 14:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I guess you mean this one. You're welcome. Toddst1 (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

sockpuppeting

Hey User:Toddst1 I'm still somewhat new to this site but...Do you think this is sockpuppeting http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.65.123.86&diff=517461724&oldid=517461336 But users started editing around October 6th, and both have made edits related to music. I have a felling it might be User:The1337gamer due to the fact I was recently in a edit war with him. I mean what are the chances of you having the same signature as the person who is undoing the edits of the guy you're talking to clearly a Sock. --75.65.123.86 (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

200.30.165.101 (talk · contribs)

I have received an email on WP:UTRS from the IT director of the school (as verified by their email domain) at this IP stating that they have improved the "security and internet safety" at their school. Do you think this is sufficient to address the reasons for the block? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:29, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked per request with appropriate disclaimers. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

And reblocked as it appears the email was spoofed and vandalism commenced immediately after unblocking. Toddst1 (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You have a new friend...

...but I didn't like them very much so they are blocked now. See Toddst3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

He's quite the poet. Let's hope he graduates. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh Republic is also recently be vandalized, need to be protected too? ༆ (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Probable block evasion by 67.248.82.107

Thanks for the lengthy block on 67.248.82.107, but it appears that he's now using 163.153.122.197. This IP started editing during .107's previous block, and as soon as 107 was blocked today by you .197started restoring the edits that .107 had been blocked for. Meters (talk) 19:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Mole whacked. Let me or another admin know if that editor pops up on yet another ip or as a named user. Toddst1 (talk) 19:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If only they were all so obvious. Meters (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Megan Nicole

I have to vehemently disagree with your speedy delete of Megan Nicole.... I was trying to add a speedy delete to the article, but kept getting an error. It finally dawned on my that it had been deleted. My brain can only work so much and I expended way too much on that. Stop using your all-knowing, ESP admin powers would you. Be a normal admin would you... I can handle the cursing, derogatory remarks and a mental IQ of 80. :) Bgwhite (talk) 05:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks for the complement. Sorry for the now-retracted 4im warning. As you suggest, there are lots of folks with the 80 IQ around here. I apparently am trending in that direction. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I did ask you to be a "normal" admin and you obliged. Could be worse, it took me five times of trying to add the Speedy to finally dawn on me, so I guess my IQ tonight is still lower than yours. Could you close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Nicole (singer)? Bgwhite (talk) 05:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Reduced protection level request: 2012 Quebec student protests

This page appears to have been fully protected by you on October 20th, 2012, with the comment: "Protected 2012 Quebec student protests: Persistent sock puppetry: sock(s) of MrBoire still targeting this article (which led to previous protections) (‎[edit=sysop] (expires 14:43, 20 April 2013)"

I can see putting full protection in place for a short period of a few days while dealing with the sock puppets noted, however lengthy protection for a period of six months is overkill and does a disservice to Wikipedia. For example the Liberal Charest Government is no longer in power, yet it still referenced as the government in power within the article's lede sentence. Newer events are missing from the article, which also contains numerous grammatical errors. Kindly remove full protection from this article and reduce it to a lower level of protection if needed. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason the article can't be edited now. You can and should use the {{edit request}} template on the talk page.

The sock-puppetry has gone on over a period months targeting that article. It has led to edit wars and more than a few blocks. Had you bothered to investigate that history, you would likely see that the protection is not overkill. It's unfortunate that you think my work here is doing a disservice to wikipedia.

Despite your charm, I'm willing to consider unprotecting the article. Are you willing to monitor that article for the recurrence of the sock's edits if I do? Toddst1 (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, looking at your extremely poor judgement on User talk:99.57.136.216, I have no faith that you'll constructively deal with any sockpuppetry or other nonsense there. I'm retracting my offer. See discussion of wikibullying. Toddst1 (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Toddst1: you may be missing a bit of history related to Saint-Exupery. There has been a long-standing dispute over who can be allowed to represent the author's legacy: there are two camps, the relatives of his paternal family and the heirs to his wife's estate. Each has formed their own network of associations/societies and they have occasionally both clashed in the courts and in the media. I side with neither side and respect the contributions each brings to the memory of Saint-Exupery, whom I admire for his service to humanity. The deletion of the external link representing one of those camps, as may have happened in this case, can be seen as deliberate and offensive. I do not believe that it was simply some middle school editor's prank or a newbie experimenting. That's my view related to the Saint-Exupery article, which appears to have some parallel to your views of edits on the Quebec student protests. HarryZilber (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

History shows you as by far the primary contributor to that article. Your reaction to that deletion smacks of article ownership. In my quick perusal of the history of that article, I see no other time that EL was removed. Nor do I see any other time when that IP or its stated owner has edited the article, other than to add a wikilink which can only be viewed as the best of good-faith constructive edits. Your actions seems like some of the worst WP:BITE and failure to WP:AGF I've come across in a very long time to me. Toddst1 (talk) 20:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

If you could find an edit where I've interfered with others contributing to the article you might have a valid claim, but since you won't find such edits, you don't. Saint-Exupery, despite his name, was no saint, and that has been readily pointed out in the article by many, including myself. I suspect that most WP editors would view that an IP who comes to the article in order to delete the mention of an apposing 'camp' of heirs is not contributing to the article so much as detracting from it. If the IP had a valid reason for deleting the external link it should have been stated in the edit summary (per the MOS) which was blank, as is often the case with malicious edits. Again, I believe the deletion was a deliberate act of vandalism. That's my view at least.

I would appreciate if you could update the Quebec student protest article for the issues as noted earlier. HarryZilber (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The talk page where you can propose changes, get consensus and post an {{edit request}} is ->that way. Toddst1 (talk) 23:27, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Norwest Equity Partners

Todd - did you read the other talk back? Please help me understand this. I'm trying to put good information in. These are two separate companies. Kevinm397 (talk) 22:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Todd - thanks for the information on conflicts of interest. I'll read it. In the mean time would you please consider looking at the content to see if it's valid or not? At a minimum the page Norwest Equity Partners should not link to Norwest Venture Partners. Kevinm397 (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You have in no way asserted that the company is notable. Unless you can show that it passes WP:CORPDEPTH, the article won't last. Toddst1 (talk) 22:25, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Todd - The redirect is what I think is wrong. I agree I don't think it's notable either. I'm not sure how someone got a redirect to NVP to last here. Again - thank you for taking the time to explain all this. Kevinm397 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

If you don't think it's notable and the redirect is inappropriate take it to WP:RFD. Toddst1 (talk) 22:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Toddst1. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jasper Deng (talk) 01:00, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

hall pass

Hello, just a note to let you know that I removed your prod on the above article as it has previously been listed at articles for deletion. Thank you. Rotten regard Softnow 20:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a great example of when to apply IAR. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hey, you left a 3RR notice on my talk page, but I am pretty sure that this doesn't apply when what you're reverting is a clear-cut case of gamecruft. Like I said in the edit summaries, it's a case of WP:GAMECRUFT, #6. To paraphrase, the response has been "this should be here", with no attention paid to what I've actually linked. Check out the history of the page, I'm not the only one he's reverting. Eik Corell (talk) 17:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you see gamecruft mentioned anywhere on WP:EDITWAR as an exception? Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Ownership of Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Redmond

If you read over what I wrote in the DYK nomination template, I never once said that WilliamJE was not permitted to edit it. I know and abide by the fact that WP does not allow ownership of articles. I also know that one is not allowed to turn any page into a soapbox, which is what he was trying to do. I told him he has "no right to make this [his] soapbox." WilliamJE violated point 1 by attempting to draw support for his proposal to not include stats and citing who supported his idea. This also didn't make any sense at all, since there is an ongoing discussion already occurring. I'm also extremely puzzled why no one has protested to William after he falsely labeled me as "a stalker," a clear personal attack on me. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Todd, I am just writing to say you should check edits and what was written in edit summaries done at Mike Redmond, Administrator Ed Johnston's talk page, and here[25]]. Bloom's continued harping(Two editors including one contributor to the DYK said my edits were right and noone has backed Bloom's edit. But he continues on about it) and refusing to drop the stick adds up to a wikibullying and I won't be bullied. I've had my edits called garbage and been accused of lacking human decency. Should I post all of this at ANI?...William 00:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolute lies! I never once called your edits garbage. And my human decency comment was directed to everyone in general. Sheesh, don't take things so personally, will you? Especially when they never directed at you to begin with. BTW, I hope you know that voting has little effect in WP. So two editors siding with you just isn't going to cut it. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

On a final note, until William decides to redact all the rubbish and lies he has made against my name (namely, accusing me of behaving like a stalker, falsely claiming I wikibully and dishonestly insinuating that I call his edits garbage & lacking human decency), this conversation is over on my part. I see no point in discussing with someone who has made such hurtful, outlandish and revolting claims against me on a personal level. —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I think you'd both do better if you each found something else to work on. If this goes to ANI or other venues, the outcome won't be favorable to either of you. Toddst1 (talk) 13:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Block notices on User Pages

Hello. I was monitoring recent changes to WP by new Users, which led me to the Benny Goodman Article, which led me to User: Sphinxcatalyst (talk) (contribs), which led me to you and your blocking of him. I just wanted to let you know that the User has not been notified on their talk page that they have been blocked. I don't know if that's done automatically or if the blocking admin is suppose to do it, so I just thought I'd let you know. Cheers Mate. With Thanks, King of Nothing (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Users get a message when they try to edit automatically explaining their block. Block notices on talk pages are usually manually placed by admins. In this case, such an obvious vandalism-only account, didn't seem worth the effort. I guess I was feeling lazy. Toddst1 (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Lol, yea I just didn't know what the policy was or if it was done automatically. Couldn't be more of an obviously vandalism-only account if he tried. Cheers, King of Nothing (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. That's pretty much the policy. If an admin puts that info in the block log like we're supposed to, that pretty much covers it, especially in a WP:VOA. I probably leave messages for 80% of the VOAs I block, but as you can see, I've blocked quite a few over the years.

"Quite a few over the years" is a bit of an understatement, 11,124 jeez, lol. Cheers Mate, King of Nothing (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hello, Toddst1. I noticed your block of User: Doodooball123, and while I agree that the block was by all means warranted, you failed to properly inform the user that they were blocked. I have therefore placed a block template on their page, which you may edit as you see fit. Please feel free to discuss this matter with me at your leisure. Thank you. Valientscout (talk) 19:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Administrators must supply a clear and specific block reason that indicates why a user was blocked. I think the Doodooball figured out exactly what they were blocked for given the message they saw when they attempted to edit. That's why we put things like {{usernamehardblock}} in block logs. Sometimes it's ok to block a WP:VOA without leaving a talk page message when it's obvious like in this case. Thanks for your interest. Toddst1 (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

My reply

Is already on my talk. By the way since when, even without the elephant in the room, is two reverts grounds for a warning on my talk? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I left a supplementary question for you on my talk. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

(e/c)

[26], [27], [28] makes 3, using your rollback privilege. As a rollbacker, you are implicitly expected to understand WP:EW and you even warned your opponent in the war. That the article is subject to Arbmac makes it worse. Toddst1 (talk) 00:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice for ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:25, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

some help/advice please

hi toddst1 - i saw your comments on dr.k. user's page regarding his edit warring and revocation of rollback. i posted you a note there, but he removed it. so, i am asking you here:

toddst1 - i see that dr.k. seems to be involved in edit warring quite a bit. i am editng the page on mikis t - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikis_Theodorakis , and, dr k just won't stop. can you please have a look there as well? review the history for the last week or two. and there were earlier examples as well. thank you. Soosim (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

his friend athenean also prevents acceptable RS material from being added, and both of them leave unsourced info. if i put in sourced material, i am told it is wrong or blp violation. if i mark what they have as cn, i am told that i am tag bombing. not easy. thanks. Soosim (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you take this to ANI (start another section) if you feel it requires attention. I don't feel my involvement here would be appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hi Toddst1. This is to let you know that I mentioned you at NYB's talk. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Echo Radio

Hello! I am from the band Echo Radio. Please do not edit my page. Thank you... S — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.180.30.76 (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it works. I think you need to read Help:Getting started. We are a collaborative community and you don't own any pages. All editors are free to edit each article. Toddst1 (talk) 18:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's my bad... Thanks for the links and info... Best... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelcmorgan (talk • contribs) 19:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Paula Broadwell

No, i resolved the issue. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 02:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback re Paula Broadwell date of birth

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Talk:Paula_Broadwell.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gmporr (talk) 05:26, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

John E. Pike

Dear Toddst1, I welcome your shortening of the extensive article which goes far beyond an encyclopedically portrait. I also wondered the numerous quotation of and about this person. In German wiki I had written a much shorter version about him, but did not dare to intervene in the English article. But I found out that his second name is E=Emory, what I added. So thanks for the improvements: --Stonepillar (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The way we handle quotefarms like that is if we want to retain them, we push them to Wikiquote. Take a look at Jonathan Boucher for example. Toddst1 (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

And then there's this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John E. Pike. Toddst1 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Who did this? There is a edit dictatorship of some ignorant people at work. What can we do? This person is really an important analyst. He is chief of global security, a company that is still honored by a wiki article. If the company is worth an article, than the same is to her chief! --Stonepillar (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Notability is not inherited. Just because his company is notable, doesn't mean he is. If you don't agree with the AFD conclusion, there is WP:DRV. Toddst1 (talk) 20:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is really a very unprofessional answer. The content of the article you or your team have deleted gives enough evidence for notability of the person who is really one of the leading experts in the world in security matters. It is a shame how you act that damages the worth of the Wikipedia! --Stonepillar (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Easy there. No need to get personal and it's not "my team" - I wasn't involved in the discussion at all. Toddst1 (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Can you give me a clue? I can't find my name there, nor can I see anything I've been involved with. Peridon (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Improper_restoration_by_admin_with_RL_consequences (now collapsed). Toddst1 (talk) 20:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Just found it in there actually, ta. Looks like all I did was delete something (as usual...), and quite some time ago. Several thousand deleted pages ago. I was looking for something I'd done recently. My Firefox search wouldn't find me in there, and I wasn't around at that time of the morning anyway. Better to be the one who deleted it than the one who put it back, from the look of things. Thanks for letting me know, anyway. Peridon (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

possible BLP re media references

Hi,

I posted a topic here: [29] to which you responded.

More media stories are being added. I was considering posting a message at the BLP noticeboard, but I've never posted a message on any noticeboard, and in light of the contentious, well-publicized, and somewhat ambiguous nature of this issue I couldn't decide if it'd be advisable. I don't wish to start a dramatic discussion if there's already older and wiser editors looking at and thinking about this issue which seems like could be the case.

Do you have any thoughts? Thanks! AgnosticAphid talk 00:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

ARBMAC

Hi, Toddst1. Thank you for your advice. As I would obviously like to avoid any sanctions, can you please advise which are those "several" articles you mentioned. I believe you have also failed to issue User:Macedonian with a similar notice. Thank you in advance, WavesSaid (talk) 00:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• United Macedonian Diaspora
• Bozhidar Dimitrov

Toddst1 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You'll notice that in each case I outlined the reasoning for my edits on the respective talk pages. I was being bold and the other editor(s) blindly reverted *my* edits without engaging in a discussion. I think your warning was misplaced. --WavesSaid (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You were bold the first time you made the edits. You were edit warring when you restored them. Please read the policy. Toddst1 (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

What other option did I have? What would you suggest I do? That user has still failed to engage in a discussion on the talk page in spite of the fact that I personally invited him to do so on his talk page and, as a result, I'm unable to pursue dispute resolution. I'm still failing to understand why I received a warning for a single revert, but the other user hasn't for subsequently reverting my revert while making no effort to engage in a discussion. --WavesSaid (talk) 02:15, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Hopscotch. Toddst1 (talk) 06:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought as much. --WavesSaid (talk) 09:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notification on Another User's Page

Yo. On Vanobamo's talk page, you left a notification that there was a discussion with which that user might be involved on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page. Could you possibly provide me with the topic and/or name of that discussion, and perhaps even a more precise link than the one on his page? Thanks either way. --Mr Bucket (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't remember. You can search the ANI archives using the search box. Toddst1 (talk) 00:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr Bucket, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive775#Improper restoration by admin with RL consequences. Incidentally there was no problem with Vanobamo's edits; he was an innocent bystander. EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Macedonia and Hopscotch

I appreciate your administrator efforts, including those related to maintaining NPOV and decorum in the Macedonia topic area, but I happened to notice the thread above involving User:WavesSaid. I don't see immediately see how responding to a presumptively good-faith question from this brand-new editor with the reply "Hopscotch" is going to be helpful to the editor. In fact, I'm afraid I'm not following what you meant there at all, really. Perhaps I am missing something obvious, but I'd appreciate your thoughts on this or any clarification you can provide. Thanks and regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that hopscotch is a game. Given that the editor already had a dispute going at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Marko_Cepenkov (edit #51 for that editor, none of which have been to that article), I'm pretty sure WavesSaid knows about DR. He's playing games. Toddst1 (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me butting in. I want to assure you that I'm not playing games, and I'm also not very familiar with dispute resolution. Are either of you able to advise where I can seek further assistance? My request at the noticeboard fell on deaf ears. --WavesSaid (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Just a note. I've been looking at the user's edit pattern and the edits he makes. I'm getting the feeling he is well-familiar with both wiki mechanics and wiki policies. I admit it is an assumption but some of his actions suggest this. And they also suggest the user is indeed playing other editors. --Laveol ^T 01:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

@Laveol. Compare the date I created this account with the date of my first edit. I was lurking and familiarizing myself with the project during those several months so as to avoid incidents such as this one. --WavesSaid (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Question

Am I right in saying that my 1RR restriction will be lifted on December 22, 2012? AARON• ^TALK 22:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe it does. Congratulations and happy editing! Toddst1 (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Jeff May

Hi Toddst1, I saw that you removed the PROD from Jeff May. I hadn't realized that the WP:ATHLETE criteria had been changed. In the past athletes must have competed at the top level in their sport (e.g. NHL for ice hockey players). Do you know when this was changed? It seems like the criteria for presumed notability of athletes has been significantly weakened. Pburka (talk) 15:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea. Toddst1 (talk) 13:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

intoronto is edit warring again -- reverting edits without explanation

Please consider what course of action should be taken. BlueLotusLK (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

How is intoronto's 1 revert an edit war? I do see how you twice restoring the contentious material is edit warring though. Toddst1 (talk) 19:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka&action=history <-- I was talking about here. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was able to revert the material on the press freedom article because the source clearly does not support the bold assertion. I guess not. I will open a discussion on talk. BlueLotusLK (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Seattle Public Library

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but that is way far away. Toddst1 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA notice

Hi, I just got an 'ARBPIA notice' from you. It contains a lot of info, which probably sums up to being a bad boy, any chance you can help me out and point me to what I did wrong, to avoid this in the future . --109.186.17.8 (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You've gotten into a conflict with Babbaq in an ARBPIA-covered topic. A notice like that is meant to make you aware that we don't tolerate nonsense - not accuse you of wrongdoing. Edit carefully, don't edit war and be civil and you'll be fine. Toddst1 (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clear up. --109.186.17.8 (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Toddst1. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
Message added 22:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sharyl Attkisson

6 months seems a bit excessive? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Why do you say that? Toddst1 (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Well a minor (potential) edit war over DoB between two editors doesnt generally warrent full protection unless its REALLY controversial. Admittedly DoB can fall into that with media personalities, as I explained to the editor who wished to insert it. Personally I would rather editors took it to talk page instead of talking through/past each other in edit summaries. On the info they wanted to add - I took a look, and sourcing seems valid (and TRPOD concurs after I linked him to it) it was a matter of how he was citing it. If you take a look at my talk page and the talk page of the article, I dont think there will be further issues on that. So if you are happy with result the protection probably isnt needed any more. Its currently got an edit-request on the talkpage as well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You appear to be unaware of the long history of that article. Perhaps you should read up on it and the ANI threads related to it. I'll take a look at the edit request later when I have time if it's still outstanding. Toddst1 (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

please restore my edit to the sharyl attkisson article. here is the full corrected reliable source: Gill, Kay Who, a Directory of Prominent People (2006) p. 31. the page is protected now for some reason so i cannot edit it, thank you very much. Coubelle (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Blanking

Thank you for your message. If you review the editing behaviour 77.96.180.241 you'll see a quite deliberate pattern of editing behaviour involving attacking other editors, then self-blanking, then directing people to read what they said previously in the history. Apparently he believed this was an acceptable way to avoid any action against him. His blanking of his talk page was an extension of this, in order to avoid his behaviour being noticed. I understand what you are saying and the policy is sound for editors who are editing in good faith, but I have few qualms in regard to this guy's behaviour. Quite simply he was gaming the system.

I also reverted his edits twice on The Foremost, edits that he had already had reverted multiple times by other editors. I was no where close to edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Escape Orbit (talk • contribs) 16:30, 8 December 2012‎

Yes, this is the second time that I have blocked that IP for that NPA. However, you seem to misunderstand what WP:EW is as well. Toddst1 (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Re: 3RR Warning

In response to the warning you left on my talk page, I'm confused as to how I've violated the three-revert rule. I reverted an edit twice by someone who continuously adds unsourced material in spite of being warned, but at no point did I engage in any sort of edit war. Friginator (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Well, you have just admitted to a violation of edit-warring. The concept is WP:BRD, not WP:BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It isn't edit warring when the edit being undone is disruptive. Friginator (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your definition of disruption. A content dispute certainly does not count as disruption (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:10, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

And how does this count as a content dispute? This isn't someone trying to make a coherent argument we're talking about. This is a genre-warrior, using their IP to make over a dozen unsourced POV edits in less than an hour. I don't even know what "Black Holes and Revelations", (the page I'm accused of having a content dispute over), sounds like. And I couldn't care less what people think it is. However, when someone, such as the IP in question, adds unsourced material to it based on what is solely their own point of view, and when that person adds this info in a place where it could be interpreted as sourced when it is not (there was a citation listed in the "genre" parameter that didn't reflect the content being added), that is disruptive. Friginator (talk) 01:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

It takes two (or more) to genre-war. A genre war is a content dispute. You might have noticed that the genres you warred to maintain are not supported by the citation given. Toddst1 (talk) 17:57, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Another 3RR warning

And here's another one for you to explain. Please explain how you can possibly justify giving me this 3RR warning for List of programs broadcast by Playhouse Disney. Did you look at the article and the history? The first sentence of the article is "This is a list of television programs currently or formerly broadcast by Playhouse Disney..." That's it. An alphabetical list of current (and former) programs. Why would anyone need to insert an additional, unsourced section listing current programs, as the IP keeps doing? I clearly stated in my edit summaries why the edits were being undone and how the information could be added. The IPs were correctly warned and I added additional explanations to the template warnings. It's not a content dispute, it's 2 months worth of vandalism by the IPs, and reverting that is not subject to 3RR. Consider yourself warned for abuse of warning templates. Meters (talk) 03:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

I realize you may have been confused by the unfortunate edit summary that TW left. You were warned for EW, not 3RR.

Maybe you should read the warning:

"Your recent editing history at List of programs broadcast by Playhouse Disney shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing..."

You may misunderstand the difference between WP:3RR and WP:EW - which could be a real problem for someone with Rollback. I also think you may be confused about what is obvious vandalism and exempt from edit warring. I suggest you read WP:EW carefully, and you should be aware that continued edit warring can also result in loss of rollback.

In any case, WP:RFPP and/or WP:DR is a better solution. Toddst1 (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

SPI

You were mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lurulu regarding a block where the blockee wasn't notified. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 09:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've commented on the SPI, but for the record, the notice may have been overlooked :User_talk:Lurulu#Blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

New account

Hey Todd, Snobygravt (talk · contribs) was just created by Snobygravy (talk · contribs). Is this something worth noticing? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's see what they do. AGF for now. Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure; thanks. Drmies (talk) 20:51, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Eh?

Um? The page says it won't let me post, and I keep removing words so that the filter will finally permit me to post. How can I get an only warning for trying to find out what the filter will and will not let me post? That's stupid even by Wikipedia's nonexistent standards.

As to WP:CIV/NPA, please check the civility waiver in Nableezy's talk page editnotice:

Civility does not exist on this page. If you feel the need to say something uncivil to me feel free to do so. Personal attacks too, though if you say somethi ng be prepared to either back it up or have a large collection of insults hurled at you.

--87.79.133.18 (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

You were nipped by the edit filter for good reason. [30] Toddst1 (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Kiddo, look at Nableezy's waiver. Then look at my question again: How can I get an only warning for trying to find out what the filter will and will not let me post? At any rate, I'll keep trying to find a formulation that passes the filter. And when push comes to block button, an all-fresh IP is two clicks away. Now go find something remotely useful to do. Why don't you go take a shower? --87.79.133.18 (talk) 18:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

That's why we have rangeblocks. Toddst1 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I have found that during the more than three years that I have now been evading the indef block of my former account (He openly admits it! Get the pitchforks!), some people have at points considered a rangeblock, but it never got greenlit. I like to believe that one of the reasons is that I'm only offensive when I'm offended by someone else's barefaced POV pushing. More to the point you haven't yet answered: "Deliberately triggering the edit filter" is a blockable offense? So in other words: I am not allowed to see what the filter will permit me to post. My thoughts have to be clean. Wow. Digital Stalinism has arrived at Wikipedia. Open POV-pushing by contrast is all good and fine by you. Good. You're doing great. You're a sensible person, and an even better admin. Two big thumbs up for you. --195.14.204.246 (talk) 19:23, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Saying you cant block me because I can start socking isnt generally a smart way to endear yourself around here. nableezy - 18:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If this about something that happened on my talk page, I dont mind. In fact, I would very much like to see what the attempted message was. nableezy - 18:56, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

See the edit filter log. Toddst1 (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Cant see the edit, and the actual filter is hidden from public view. No worries though, not that big of a deal. nableezy - 19:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Difficult to know what the world looks like outside of the admin lens. Toddst1 (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Nableezy, it was a complaint about an edit you made, restoring an image at Template:Islamophobia. It was accompanied by words of personal abuse that did not suggest any particular ethnic or religious motivation, though they showed little imagination. By the way, there is a risk of an edit war regarding that image. I wonder if a consensus has been found anywhere regarding the use of the mosque with a stroke through it as a symbol of Islamophobia. Conceivably there might be an argument for protection. A month of semiprotection (due to socking) expired on December 9. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The new comment above indicates that an admin would be justified in restoring the semi on {{Islamophobia}} with the notation 'Socking by User:Everyme'. EdJohnston (talk) 19:27, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. I'm surprised you didn't do that yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

It's always good to have a consensus. Plus, your knowledge of the record allowed you to do a longer semiprotection than I could have. EdJohnston (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Input on fixing article without edit warring

Following on your particular take on WP:EW, I would appreciate your input on the situation [here]. I have already reverted this IP editor once (as have two other editors) because of the totally unsuitable unsourced tone, and the fact it covered the same ground as what was there already. They appear willing to listen to what has been said, but have still left the article in an unsatisfactory state;

• They have replaced something that used to be cited, with something unsourced, vague and badly written.
• It is in the wrong position on the article using the football project's guidance.

Frankly, the article was better before this edit which, although in good faith, has removed information. Would you consider it edit warring if I was to revert again? I realise I could try and discuss with the IP editor, but the chances are they ;

• don't care that they're already past 3RR
• are long gone
• are not going to agree to remove what they did, despite what everyone else says
• if reverting, are only going to struggle to do what I can do myself

Do I leave the article in its unsatisfactory state? Is anyone else who chooses to fix it edit warring, as you suggested previously? How long should it be left like this? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• First, it's not my take on EW, it's policy.
• Second, you could start by posting something on the talk page and establishing consensus that the IP's edit is or is not acceptable. Once consensus has been established, that should guide the content.
• Third, you should warn the IP about edit-warring, which I have done for you.
• Fourth, failing that, you could ask for page protection.

This is elementary WP:DR. Yes, anyone choosing to "fix" the article without establishing consensus is participating in an edit war. Thanks for asking and not continuing that edit war. Toddst1 (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Actually it is your interpretation. WP:EW says "an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring", whereas you say "(if you) make a single revert that is being made by other user(s) then you are edit warring". (My emphasis). What "repeatedly" means could be a matter of opinion, but I'm pretty certain it doesn't mean "once".
• Secondly, is the fact that three editors reverted the edit (attempting to follow WP:BRD) not an indication of consensus? Is the fact that the previous content has been there for months/years previously, fully compliant with policy and guidelines, not even a suggestion of it being in line with consensus? Consensus can often be disputed, so what point is there to it if reverting to it is still edit warring?
• Thirdly; warning a passing IP editor, who is long gone, does nothing to improve the article while no-one is allowed to touch it. The IP editor has achieved what they wished, against the wishes of other editors their edit is left as it stands, without consensus and often without any discussion. So what do they care about 3RR and blocks? The damage is done in minutes, and we sit around for days scared to repair it.
• Fourthly; what point is there to page protection when, again, no one is allowed to to revert to the last good version?

A hypothetical example. Joe is honestly convinced Obama is a devotee of furbies. Coming across Wikipedia for the first time, Joe edits the Barack Obama article in good faith to state in the lead that "Obama loves furbies." An editor reverts it as unsourced and dubious trivia. Knowing nothing of Wikipedia policy or rules, Joe puts it straight back in. Are you telling me that Wikipedia policy is that Joe's edit should remain until the matter is discussed in full on the talk page, consensus is established, and then someone makes the bold step of reverting it a second time, hoping no-one thinks they are warring? Meanwhile, Joe has been warned for two edits, 3RR regardless. But what does he care? The Wikipedia page on Obama now says what he wanted, at least until someone works up the nerve to revert it.

That's what you are suggesting should happen, but I can tell you, that is not what would happen in practice. The edit would be reverted again within seconds, possibly by the same editor, and Joe would be invited to take the matter to the talk page. No-one would be accused of edit warring, apart from possibly Joe.

I am not being argumentative for the sake of it, I'm trying to demonstrate your interpretation of WP:EW would inevitably mean poor quality edits to articles (all be it done in good faith) by any passing IP editor would remain, while no one can, in good faith, revert the article to its previous condition without fear of being taken to task about edit warring. Even if the edit was patently not an improvement. Even if their revert was their first, and even if they are unaware of previous reverts. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 01:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to answer my questions, but could you at least explain more clearly your understanding of what "repeatedly" means? It's kind of important. If it can mean "once" then I really think the policy needs urgent rewording if it is to be understood. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

On your first revert, you should explain to Joe on his talk page why you are undoing his edit and what policy he is running afoul of and you should ask him not to restore it. If he persists in restoring it, then he is being disruptive. If you haven't discussed it with him and you undo his work, wouldn't you expect him to be indignant and want it restored? You've set it up to be a test of wills, hence the edit war.

Most folks, once they have a friendly explanation of why their edit is unhelpful will be responsive to coaching. Believe me, I've done this a few thousand times. Toddst1 (talk) 22:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Rverting and troubles

Thank you for clarfying that to me, illl amend my pratices from now on as i was told long ago that the summaries where a way to convey things to other editors and if it content dispute to ask them to take it to talk, but i will now take it to talk after reverting.

Troubles, i had to check this myself after it was added, it do with teh secterism of the article teh torubles relates to the catholic and prodesent issues and anything regarding religion so isnt revelent to the hsitory article at lesa tnot unless it starts to contain religion stuffAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Apparently it has to do with the rivalry with Celtic. Toddst1 (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

yip but it goes deeper down to the rivalery of the fans them and there regliouss beliefs, from wha ti read of it, it to do with something that happened in ireland and that then steems to the rangers and celtic articles and there supporters articleAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 22:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Cliff Click from the HotSpot article

Can you please tell me how the mere mention of the principal author of the subsystem (the JIT) after which HotSpot is named is "promotion of an individual"? Are you really sufficiently versed in the history of HotSpot to make that judgment call, because from my perspectively that's completely myopic and ignorant of the history.

To put things in perspective, if I were to head over to Wikipedia and remove any mention of Jimmy Wales from the article under the auspices of "promotion of an individual", would you consider that acceptable Wikipedia behavior? Because if you think what you've done to the HotSpot article is really a good idea, I can totally try that, and point to your shining example as evidence of how Wikipedia's policies should be enforced. If the Wikipedia community decides that Jimmy Wales should be mentioned in the Wikipedia article, then perhaps Cliff Click should be mentioned in the HotSpot article.

Tarcieri (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cliff. I've replied at Talk:HotSpot#Click_on_Click. Toddst1 (talk) 15:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

2012_Quebec_student_protests

Hi there,

I'm working to bring the article Anarchopanda up to Wiki standards. One thing it needs is to be linked to, and I would like to add to the events section a line for May 8 marking the first appearance of Anarchopanda. Anarchopanda is a visual icon of the recent movement and should be mentioned in the article on the 2012 student protests (in fact he appears in the top image of the article). I understand there's a sysadmin lock until April 2013, I find this a little extreme. You can see my account is quite old (if not recently active). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themindset (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 December 2012‎

That article, by its subject, attracts extremists. Follow the instructions at WP:GOLDLOCK if you want to suggest an edit to that page. Toddst1 (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for pointing me in the right direction! And sorry for not signing before. Themindset (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Toddst1 (talk) 03:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

FYI on unblocking of IPs

This is FYI that I unblocked those IPs that had been editing the Caroline Hoxby article. The article is semi-protected, which prevents further damage for now (I extended the protection for the next week). Additionally, the same user popped up on the talk page, using another Stanford University IP, leading me to think that IP blocking is ineffective -- and anyway it could be helpful to engage them on the talk page. --Orlady (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for letting me know. Toddst1 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Accepting outcomes

There has been no "outcome" as you put it, to the Sandy Hook debate, since you keep on shutting it down.

You sir, are abusing your position to enforce your opinion. I see from comments above that you have had this problem on other articles.--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your statements are inaccurate and inappropriate in many dimensions. Toddst1 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In which particular regard? You have mounted a complaint about me. Anyone who goes through the history of your recent edits, can see that when I present an opposing opinion, you use your privileges to shut it down. I am completely justified in doing so, and I would do the same within a business, a newspaper or any other real-life context. In fact, my criticism is covered by fair comment. As soon as I say anything, you shut it down, depriving me, and anyone of my viewpoint of the right to debate. --MacRùsgail (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC) p.s. I don't live in another dimension. I live in yours.

What can I do?

It does not seem to matter what I do? I have tried to respond in a calm and concie matter. I am not the one who has come back with dismissive responses. I am really trying to work out a peaceful solution. Still, it feels like a sword of death is holding over me and no matter what I do I am accused of being disruptive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Avoid that editor. Stop hounding and harassing him and stop canvassing others about him. See the note on his talk page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will try this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Canadian style?

I have to ask. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Feeling a bit cheeky - I've handed out a few dozen schoolblocks today. Toddst1 (talk) 20:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I figured you were being clever; I just mean, I don't get the reference, probably because I'm old and out of touch. I will accept, with the appropriate degree of shame, if it is so obvious that you choose to mock me instead. :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty out of touch myself. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

High-profile

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

I asked you this on my talk page, but I figured you weren't coming back since we pretty much finished what was going on. Anyway, why is Newtown High School (Connecticut) considered high-profile? You mentioned that on my talk page. The shooting didn't happen there and there's been relatively little activity in the article. A lot of what's been edited were the new accounts who don't understand how a "bad" person can be notable on Wikipedia. So why's that article high-profile? Sorry for the confusion but almost all the focus and editing is of course for a different school. Also, why was one revert considered edit-warring? Is it because one revert can be edit-warring if an article's considered high-profile? If so, how does an editor know if an article is considered high-profile? Thanks for protecting that page, though. You can reply here (if you want); I'll follow this thread. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - that pesky sleep thing delayed my reply.

There isn't a Wikipedia definition of high-profile, but I would say that Newtown High School (Connecticut) would fit that category. Basically, it's an article where a bunch of folks who normally wouldn't edit an article suddenly do because of current events. In cases like that we tend to look very closely at what's going on to keep things cool. For example on Talk: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, there were at least four administrators working in tandem on that page.

Compare that to Evangelical Lutheran Church in America for example. While it is a huge organization and theoretically has millions of people that might have a connection and want to edit, it is a very slow moving article.

Hope that helps. Toddst1 (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I realized I didn't answer your question about 1 revert being an edit war - sorry coffee hadn't kicked in yet:

If there is an edit war underway - as you said there was on that page, a new editor coming in and reverting one of the edit war participants' edits in favor of the other is edit warring. It's not WP:3RR with just one edit, but "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." An additional editor overriding the contributions is not helpful. Lots more info at WP:EW. Toddst1 (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

One of the 3RR exemptions is: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). (emphasis added). If you look at the edit history of the article, you'll see that every edtior who removed Lanza's name had just that one edit, or a few edits at most. Some gave no edit summary at all, which in itself would allow a revert (unexplained removal of content), particularly because it was sourced content. And for those who did provide an edit summary, they were absolutely biased/emotional reasons, making them completely contrary to clear guidelines and the five pillars. Examples of the biased edit comments: "Notable and known are two very different things. Notable and newsworthy are two different things. If you want to name somebody notable, I'd invite you to name the principal who saved lives. That is a notable act.", "Killing children does not make somebody notable", and "He should not be on a list of noteworthy people". So unexplained removal of sourced content and bias warranted the reinstatement of Lanza's name, not to mention very clear policy (WP:PERPETRATOR). So instead of blocking me, I feel the editors who made those clearly inappropriate reverts should have been officially warned and educated on notability, preferably by an administrator like yourself. Thanks. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I also don't understand why the only editor that was blocked (me) was someone who made one revert (with a clear edit comment), even though there were other editors who reverted multiple times, including one who reverted seven times. None of the others even received a warning, let alone a block. And my one edit wasn't until after I posted my detailed explanation on the talk page about the relevant policy. And as far as having discussion... first, this was a policy-based revert vs. an emotional-based revert. Second, the other editors refused to participate in the talk page discussion; you can't force someone to talk it out. But I chose the right path... going to the talk page first and clearly outlining the policy, which supplemented the great information by the editor who started the thread. Overall, I think you should have praised me for my actions (perhaps with some education), not block me. And with no commnication at all beforehand - no comment on my talk page, no warning, nothing. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

By your edit summary, you acknowledged you were edit warring and that you knew what edit warring was. That precludes the need for any warning. It doesn't matter if your edit was right or wrong, it was edit warring. This wasn't a 3RR block it was an edit war block. I unblocked you so I'm not sure what the issue is at this point. Blocks aren't punative - they're preventative.

As far as going to the talk page, yes, that's the right way to do it, but just because you posted there, doesn't mean you can continue the edit war. As far as not warning everyone edit warring, I'm trying to address the issues as I see them. There's a reason that there are at least 3 admins working that talk page and article now. Toddst1 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I never acknowledged I edit-warred. At least that was not my intent. I explained why I truly felt what I did was in fact not edit-warring. And if a block is preventative, why not just write me and say... hey, I know you've only reverted once but here's why you shouldn't revert any more? So you saw my revert, but didn't see the editor right below me who reverted seven times? Or all the one-edit editors who were battling the seven-revert editor? I think my clear edit summary and talk page explanation may have stopped the battling between the others, since no one else had done it. But even if it wouldn't have worked, I was going to try an get an admin to protect the article, or at least watch it, for awhile. What was going on with all those one-purpose editors was a perfect opportunity for administrators or other experienced editors to contact them and educate them on notability. Btw, I do get what you're saying about 3RR vs EW. You're right, I shouldn't mix the two. Thanks for getting back to me. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There are many ways I could have handled this. Given my previous experience with you (you were pretty combative when I first ran across you - I want to acknowledge that this has changed significantly and thank you for that) I chose the course of action that I saw as appropriate. Given my positive interaction with you after your block, I unblocked you and have endeavored to engage you and educate you about some of the finer points of editing.

My advice is learn from this and move on. You're already unblocked and my actions were completely reasonable. You seem like you could be a very solid editor and I encourage you to sign up for a username. Let me know if I can be of help in the future. Toddst1 (talk) 22:23, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comments and discussing this matter with me. I really appreciate it. Btw, I asked a policy question on the help desk a few hours ago about whether an editor actively involved in a talk page discussion is allowed to archive it. So far, no one wants to answer it. Haha. Hopefully, someone will. I just want to know for future reference. Anyway, thanks for your feedback and EW explanation. :) --76.189.123.142 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Be careful, 76.189.123.142. You might run out of butter. --213.196.212.146 (talk) 22:48, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

213, I'm not sure why you feel the need to stalk me whereever I go and interject in my discussion with Toddst1 on his talk page. But I strongly suspect that I am not the only editor that you've treated in a hostile and sarcastic manner. Even though you have a one-day edit history on your current account, it is obvious that you have been editing for a very long time, based on your awareness of so much Wiki lingo, processes, template usage, and article and talk page histories. I suspect if one would look at your prior IP accounts, it would show a long history of warnings and blocks for mistreatment of other editors. I'm sorry that my being friendly towards Toddst1 or anyone else bothers you so much. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Todd--it seems I missed all the action--what with mac and cheese, baths, writing Christmas cards, et cetera. 76, I am not aware of y'all's history (with 213), but take it easy: I thought this was a remark made in jest. Also, many IPs (such as yourself, possibly) fit that description that you just gave (minus the warnings, perhaps)--you should know that IP editors may have good reasons to not have an account. Leave it be. It seems to me that both of you are interested in improving the project, so let's stop jabbing at each other: if there really is a problem, limit or cease interacting. All the best to both of you, and also to Todd of course. Time for coffee, old friend. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

It's a little hard to do that when he follows me around. And what he's doing is definitely not in jest. He posted little, snide comments about me today here, on the Sandy Hook talk page, on your talk page, and even on the help desk. This is bordering on harassment. But I definitely appreciate the intent of your comments. It was nice of you. --76.189.123.142 (talk) 02:36, 19 December 2012 (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.

tood read the article

the shooters brother confirms the shooter had mental health problems. --Agnostihuck (talk) 05:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Shooter's brother isn't a mental health professional; wait for an official call on this.HammerFilmFan (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Accepting outcomes

There has been no "outcome" as you put it, to the Sandy Hook debate, since you keep on shutting it down.

You sir, are abusing your position to enforce your opinion. I see from comments above that you have had this problem on other articles.--MacRùsgail (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your statements are inaccurate and inappropriate in many dimensions. Toddst1 (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

In which particular regard? You have mounted a complaint about me. Anyone who goes through the history of your recent edits, can see that when I present an opposing opinion, you use your privileges to shut it down. I am completely justified in doing so, and I would do the same within a business, a newspaper or any other real-life context. In fact, my criticism is covered by fair comment. As soon as I say anything, you shut it down, depriving me, and anyone of my viewpoint of the right to debate. --MacRùsgail (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2012 (UTC) p.s. I don't live in another dimension. I live in yours.

Go on...

Toddst1 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

— ΛΧΣ²¹ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

— ΛΧΣ²¹ 05:53, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you too! Toddst1 (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Snoozlepet (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wishing you and your family a very merry Christmas and a wonderful and prosperous New Year! Snoozlepet (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:38, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Cin Cin! Toddst1 (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

GloZell Green

It passed AFD a second time around after the DRV the first time around closed as "no consensus, default to status quo". Please restore the article post haste.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I'm informing you that I've brought this problem up at ANI just in case you do not respond in time. I understand that the second AFD does not show up in the first's template or whatever (because it was sent to AFD prior to the page being moved to the proper title) so that's why you missed it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for finding and fixing my mistake. Toddst1 (talk) 18:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Toddst1! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 14:08, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

IP block

Hi there. Would you mind reviewing your block at User talk:76.102.49.177? If you still feel it was warranted, then I'll just wait for another admin to come along and review it, but it occurred to me that perhaps you'd like to reconsider it yourself. I've raised a few pertinent points there. Thanks. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 12:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

User talk:76.102.49.177

A user you blocked makes a decent point about his edits. You also protected the article after removing the copyvio, but it is very plausible he was acting in good faith, even if he was adding back bad material. The other editor that was reverting is now a blocked sock, this IP only reverted twice. Just thought you might want to review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Took a look and replied. Toddst1 (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And thank you. He had been named in an SPI case, but he was actually reverting the sock and not related. I wasn't sure if that SPI had played a role or not, so wanted to get your input rather than assume. If we don't cross paths again before the 1st, hope you have a fun and safe New Year's. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

You too. Cheers!! Toddst1 (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Camden School for Girls

I have noted your edit-warring with Edwardx over old pupils of Camden School for Girls (and other schools). Rather than adding to the argument here, I have opened the issue up for debate on the WikiProject Schools talk page. GrindtXX (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Explained on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools#School alumni edit and on User talk:GrindtXX that there's a difference between BRD and an edit war. No drama-mongering needed. Toddst1 (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I routinely delete unreferenced names from "Notable Alumni" lists on US high school articles. I have deleted hundreds of them. Occasionally, someone will gripe because their favorite teacher or best friend got deleted, but universally they stay deleted til referenced. Gtwfan52 (talk) 07:25, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion in place involving you

There is a side discussion going on over at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting#Edit warring warning which seems to involve you and User:Scalhotrod, just a heads up. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It's an issue between me and Scalhotrod and doesn't belong there. Toddst1 (talk) 22:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

My Vast Experience

You wrote on my page:

Thank you, For sharing your vast experience with us. Toddst1 (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I would have to assume tremendous good faith to think what you left on my talk was a compliment - you know very well that I don't have vast experience and I know you know that because nobody has vast experience. I imagine you didn't like my comment back to you that you could learn from this experience as well - that's dissapointing - I do hope I'm misreading the duplicity in your post to me. My first point is that Frankly you did come on too strong on a good editor, knocked him on his back before you realized he was a good guy - and a great many of us watched. I'm glad you've both resolved the matter amicably. On another note, I thought the edit you made that started all of this was spot on but your way of initially approaching the matter left room for improvement.

My other point is that ALL editors need to be treated with respect even the first time anonymous IP who could be a expert-in-his-field PHD back there who needs help to make a good edit or someone like Scalhotrod who has been working tirelessly for 96 hours round the clock on an article.

Throwing a little barb at me at the end makes me worry that you didn't learn anything at all. I expect great things from administrators - sorry, I do and I think we should. We expect leadership & stewardship. We also need to mentor and bring along more good editors on here, I've been editing since this thing started a decade ago and I've seen a lot. There isn't much room for bravado and strutting around in Wikipedia. My two cents.

Thank you for your hard work on here and for all the years, take the next step. We all can continue to grow. And yes, I'm an old man. -Justanonymous (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

When you post an un-informed (or misinformed) opinion, folks may think poorly of you and express that. Maybe in the future you should stick to issues you understand. Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking at your edit history and there appears to be a trend with you of bullying others into submission instead of working constructively. You block editors capriciously, attack others of edit warring when you yourself engage upon the act yourself, and all around bully people on here. Worse, you refuse constructive criticism when someone dares offer you constructive criticism, you feel above everyone, only you're not. Stay away from good editors please, we need them.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to review my admin actions, you'll find them here. Otherwise, move along please. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

You have a tough job, you posted that you didn't like me either and then you reverted yourself. A clear indication you're emotionally invested, don't be. I can tell you're a good guy, the emotions get all of us. My previous statement is an example of my emotions getting away from me. Go in peace administrator with thick skin. Feel free to delete all of this. I'll do likewise on my page.-Justanonymous (talk) 18:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)