User talk:Toddy1

Can you become the Supreme Leader of the Supreme Cabal?

Wikibreak	Third opinion $220	Chance ?	Mediation $220	Arbitration $240	Jimbo Wales $200	In the news $260	On this day $260	MediaWiki $150	Did you know $280	You are banned!
RFA $200	WIKIOPOLY									FPC $300
PERM $180										POTD $300
Community discussion										Community discussion
Editor review $180										FAC $320
Developers $200										Rouge admin $200
Deletion review $160										Chance ?
AFD $140										TFA $350
Wikimedia Foundation $150										Edit war (pay $100)
CSD $140										Main Page $400
WP:BANNED Just browsing	WikiProject Spam $120	UAA $100	Chance ?	AIV $100	Admin cabal $200	Teh Drahmaz (pay $200)	AN $60	Community discussion	ANI $60	Go Collect $200 salary as you pass

Bro, keep an eye on the activities of...

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.

---

Toddy, I didn't know where to tell you this, hope u don't mind me messaging it here. Bro, keep an eye on the activities of GorgeCustersSabre ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GorgeCustersSabre ). He edits articles based on his likes and dictates his bias everywhere, he was banned before but no change in his attitude. Ishan87 (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

​​I am confused by your post.

• contribution history
• block log
• filter log

What ban are you talking about? Please could you supply a diff of admins banning the user in question.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I have never been banned. You may not agree with my edits (that's your right), but I try to edit in good faith and according to Wikipedia policies as I understand them. If I am wrong about a policy, show me. Don't just allege bias. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 10:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your sincere reply George, but you seem to overwrite other people's edits based on your personal preference. I could be wrong but you abuse the "unreferenced" terms to remit any writing whenever you don't like something. Wikipedia is not a fact book. You cannot expect every sentence to be backed by a 3rd party citation. As for ban, I've seen you getting blocked from editing some months ago because of similar reason. Anyway, I only wish you well and want you to help with people's edits, not dictate your biases. I hope you take my comments positively Ishan87 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Verifiability means other people using the encyclopaedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Therefore we should expect every sentence to be backed by citations. In some circumstances primary sources are appropriate, in other circumstances not. There are also circumstances when the best source is something written by the subject. -- Toddy1 (talk) 22:19, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I repeat: I have never been blocked. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2021 (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.

Regarding User talk:Film Fanatical10069

Hi Toddy. If you recall, User:Film Fanatical10069 has an open unblock request. You may also recall, User:Fred Zepelin is very keen on seeing the request be unsuccessful. I left a comment on the unblock request stating my opinion on whether Film is a sock of User:Ugochukwu75. This resulting in an unceasing chain of replies which I consider to be bludgeoning the process and which descended into insults about my mental faculties and open mocking. Since you have some familiarity with the subject, perhaps you can mediate a little here. I don't want to have to escalate this any more than it needs to be. Thanks, --SVTCobra 17:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You can very easily not escalate by leaving the entire process alone to play out with an uninvolved admin making the decision on the block appeal. I left comments on the block appeal that offered hard evidence. Your comment ignored all of the hard evidence and essentially boiled down to "this account seems to act more maturely than the other account". I'd like to know how that's helpful to anyone besides the sockmaster. Fred Zepelin (talk) 17:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

SVTCobra, I thought your comments were most helpful. Regarding the trolling, I think the choices are (1) wait for admins to make a decision on Film Fanatical10069's unblock request, or (2) make a complaint at WP:ANI or WP:ANI/3RR depending on the exact wording of the complaint.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Toddy. It's a shame Fred doesn't understand what hard evidence is. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to listen to your explanation of what hard evidence is, and I mean that earnestly. What am I missing, exactly? Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

What are you missing... (1) experience in SPIs, (2) perspective, (3) impartiality.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wow. I ask honestly for an explanation and I get condescension. I wish you'd treat me as well as you've been treating a blocked sockpuppet that was paid for editing and denied it until he was caught. That would be an upgrade. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

You did not get condescension. You got an honest and sincere answer. It just was not the answer you wanted to hear.-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I asked for an explanation of "hard evidence". We'll have to agree to disagree on whether you were being condescending in your reply. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:47, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

OK, the only type of hard evidence there can be is from a CheckUser investigation. Everything else, barring a confession, is circumstantial. --SVTCobra 19:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe I shouldn't be using the term "hard evidence" when referring to anything outside a CheckUser (although I don't see that specific definition on the WP:CHECK article - you might be really talking about "technical evidence", but whatever). I'm talking about the difference between "well this guy is more polite" and my research about very specific actions, such as the two sock accounts both using broadwayworld.com on separate articles as a reference. It's a website that covers Broadway shows but accepts paid submissions on almost anything even tangentially-showbiz-related, and one of the socks used a paid submission as a reference on Wheels (a film) while the other used a paid submission as a reference on Joseph Carraro, a politician. I realize that this is more in-depth than you've gone, but I bring it up precisely for that reason. Also keep in mind that Celestina007 and Dennis Brown stated there's more evidence that they're not making public, which is what made the final decision happen. Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, checkusers conduct a technical investigation. I am unaware of any such statement by Celestina007. Dennis Brown said there was behavioral cues he didn't want to divulge, though I can't imagine what that could be. Both of them are admins but not checkusers. As an admin myself for over 14 years (on another project) I know exactly what admins can see that other users cannot. Basically, it's just deleted articles and other pages as well as the related edit histories. --SVTCobra 20:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Celestina007 says it here. She also calls out the Fanatic for "Ad hominem & a deflection tactic", which is very much consistent with Ugochukwu75 account's behavior. Apparently he couldn't hold the facade 100% of the time. Fred Zepelin (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

What did I do to you?

I'm baffled. I uncovered a sockpuppet, and then another one. His last account is still appealing. I offered evidence that shows he should not be allowed to edit again, because he deleted it off of his talk page and then deleted my comments over and over again to hide evidence. Yet, you're watching my every edit, and hounding me to the point where I can't understand what it is I did to deserve this behavior. I asked once what I'm missing and I got your flippant "What are you missing... (1) experience in SPIs, (2) perspective, (3) impartiality.-" comment. I'm asking again, and I'm not trolling. I really want to know why you seem to have taken an adversarial stance against the person that uncovered a paid editor that was socking, and taken the side of the paid editor that was socking. Fred Zepelin (talk) 01:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Gravedancing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

He's not in a grave. He's still trying to get unblocked. If he wasn't, I would never give him another thought. Fred Zepelin (talk) 13:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Direct quote from the link you posted: "What isn't gravedancing: Describing factually, solely for the information of other editors, disruptive activities that resulted in a ban/block." Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:14, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Dusrapehelu

I have spent some time on investigating Dusrapehelu. They seem to evade detection somehow. Hence the confusion on who the original sock master is. This presents a genuine problem of where to file the SPI. The experienced admins are much better than us in looking for clues. The sharp personal attack is one of the many characteristic of Dusrapehelu. Venkat TL (talk) 12:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D on the Franklin–Nashville campaign Review essay: Military History Wikiproject Coordinators' reading list

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Google News Britain or India?

In this comment did you mean "Google News search results for India"? I am under the impression that www.google.co.in refers to India, and www.google.co.uk would refer to Britain. Or are they the same thing? VR _talk 00:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

They are the same thing. What makes a difference are (1) the filter for Country: the UK, (2) the filter for Past year. You can see these filters in URLs.

• Country: the UK Past year gave me 199 results this morning.
• Country: the UK Past month gave me 36 results this morning.
• The web Past year gave me 6,580 results this morning.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Your first two links look exactly identical. And how do you see the number of results it gives? It doesn't say on the webpage.

Also, dumb question, but how many distinct (English) googles are there? I guess there's US, UK...what else? I'm not talking about "same" googles (as you pointed out Google UK and Google India are the same thing).VR _talk 06:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The number of results

I use a computer. There are two ways to find out number of results it gives.

1. There is a button marked "Tools" to the right under the search bar. If you press that button, the filter choices disappear and are replaced by About 181 results (0.22 seconds). If you press the button again, the filter choices reappear Country: the UK Past year Sorted by relevance Clear and the number of results disappear.
2. At the bottom of the page there is a list of numbers 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next. Click on the number to the far right (10) and you get Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next. Click on the number to the far right and repeat until there is no "Next" Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19. On each of the first 18 pages, it showed ten results. On the 19th page you have to count the number of results, which is six. Therefore, the search produced 186 results.

The second method is more precise, and sometimes produces a much lower number than the "Tools" method. If you do the search looking at the web for the past year, the "Tools" method gave me "about 6,490 results", the second method gave me 293. When I pressed the "Tools" button on the 29th page for "Web" it gave me the same result as the second method, but on any other page it gave me "about 6,490 results". So if quoting result numbers, you need to be consistent how you do it.

I have been told by Tecumseh*1301 that the numbers are shown by Google when he accesses it through a computer, but not when he/she accesses it through a so-called "smart phone".-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I didn't know about the Tools button, thanks! I also use wikipedia from my desktop only.VR _talk 15:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

One of the challenges on Wikipedia is trying to understand what it is that the other person does not understand -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

How many distinct Googles

I do not know. And I do not know how many (if any) are district. I did find some years ago that some books people were citing on Wikipedia were available some country Google Books, but not others.

Since Google do not tell us when they change Google, or how they change it, differences and features of the Google system of systems may change.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Copy right violation ..

No i was not using a copy image that u had told to me i had upload this icon at the same time here in wikipedia as well as in facebook Malik umer 121121 (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

That is only possible if you control the Tehreek-e-Soutul Awliya organisation's Facebook page.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Toddy1!

Happy New Year!

Toddy1,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— DaxServer (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Regarding recent reverts

Hi Toddy1,

I noticed that you were reverting some of the recent undiscussed moves of places in South Africa; thank you. I just wanted to note that there is an ongoing discussing regarding those moves at ANI, on the off chance you are unaware.

BilledMammal (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Sorry if it seems that I am duplicating things that you already said in various South African move discussions, but Desertambition said We need Wikipedia editors/admins with no connection to South Africa to look over this whole thing.^{22:24, 4 January 2022} (I think he/she meant connection with, which has a slightly different meaning.) Since I have no connection with South Africa, I am helping out -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)