User talk:Toddst1

edit count | edit summary usage

Help plz

Hi Todd,

You have recently deleted

21:08, 19 March 2008 Toddst1 (Talk | contribs) deleted "IP Triple Play" ‎ (A7 (group): Group/band/club/company/etc; doesn't indicate importance/significance)

It's a fact that "IP Triple Play" the trade name IPTP Networks is a quite big network organization that have a hundreds of peering partners, it forms 1% of AMS-IX. Also the company is the member of three largest internet exchanges AMS-IX, LINX, DE-CIX in the World List_of_Internet_Exchange_Points_by_size.

References:

[1] [2]

[3] [4]

I hope it's sufficient to restore page and I will take care to update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RusMaxwell (talk • contribs) 22:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

About a "vandalism" warning I got from you

I wanted to report that it is false but it said "If you didn't edit this page, you don't need to report it." With all due respect, the hell I don't. Because I have 2 vandalism warnings now and it says I have only a final one left. So I'm just going to post my report here. I don't know if I'm making a mistake by doing so, but I don't know where else to write it:

Only my brother also uses this IP because we share the same modem but different computers we use. 1. He doesn't even use english wikipedia, let alone editing a page. 2. I myself did not edit those 2 pages. 3. When I want to edit, I log into my user account, don't do it anonymously.

So this was probably a mistake by your bot. Nobody uses my computer. And I want my 2 warning rights back. Not that I think I'll vandalize in the future, but because I'd like to keep all 3 of them in case I make a mistake while editing.

Thank you for your understanding, in advance.

Mike Cr.

wikipedia-en-admins

Please also register your nickname before adding a request (type in /msg nickserv register password, replacing password with one of your choice). Then leave a note on my talk page, please. Cbrown1023 talk 16:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Aggrivated

This user is requesting an autoblock removal from a block you made, but the account has no edits and looks suspiciously like a sleeper account to me. Mind taking a look when you get the chance? Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Carl.bunderson

Hello, you blocked this user for 3RR today. Now, it seems he was actually right in his conviction that his opponent was a banned sock (User:Beh-nam). Would you mind unblocking? Defending the Afghanistan articles from socks has been a huge problem, and we don't want to lose our last remaining legitimate editors in that field. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. Toddst1 (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reconsideration, Todd. In the future, do you think there's a better way for me to deal with the vandals and socks than my admittedly ruthlesss reversion of their edits? It's just that I hate the thought of becoming the type of user who goes and tattles on others at the admin noticeboards. Thanks again, and have a good day. Carl.bunderson (talk) 00:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My recommendation is to stop editing at 3. If it's vandalism, warn with each revert. Someone else will revert after your third, then file an AIV report. Toddst1 (talk) 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I will warn with each revert, I assume the tpv is the best one to use. I kind of don't believe that someone will revert after my third though; it took rather awhile for admins to respond to the situation well. Not to be offensive, but I feel like you guys don't always look at the context as fully as you could before doling out blocks. It seems obvious to me that the anon, and then the other user you blocked were in the wrong, and the only person that responded consistently on the noticeboard was not an admin, and sided with the anon. It's just frustrating that I go through so much trying to fend them off, and the admins don't seem to notice for quite awhile. I have nearly 8k edits, have been here for awhile, and have a barnstar for reverting spam; my other block was also on a 3rr violation, but I should have contested that as well; the other editor was in clear violation of "links to be avoided". Shouldn't admins notice these things, and give well-established editors the benefit of the doubt (as well as going through the whole context rather than blocking all involved)?

So how do I avoid this? Will my going to AIV before the anons/socks do actually help in these cases? I'm sorry if I'm being a pain, but I really do wonder about these things, and I really do appreciate you unblocking me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of Flukes1

I was wondering if I may extend his block to indefinite; his vandalism of J.delanoy's userpage, along with statements such as this, lead me to believe it's just a SPA vandalism account. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 01:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all a problem. I appears to have already been done. Toddst1 (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

FOAD

Could I ask you to please reverse your deletion of the FOAD article. It was a valid and IMHO useful soft redirect to Wiktionary. It was deleted a week ago as a G6 Housekeeping deletion, but no actual work has been done there in the week since. I have asked the original G6 tagger for an explanation of the need for the G6 deletion, but they have been inactive in the last several days. In the absence of any progress towards whatever housekeeping was intended, I would request that it be restored. If the tagger returns with a valid explanation for needing a housekeeping deletion, then I can re-delete it myself for them. But until that point, I think the project is better served by the restoration of the soft redirect. - 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

done. Toddst1 (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Hyowon1

Why did you give Hyowon1 an additional warning about chatting?He's already gotten one and he stopped ater that. Mr. Green^chat 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Because he/she didn't stop. The edits speak for themselves. Toddst1 (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you read my response to his last comment on my page?He has stopped since then. Mr. Green^chat 18:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

spam blocking

Hi Todd, You've recently removed all of the edits I have made about Santa Barbara Business College. It was not my intention to create spam. How would I edit the page to provide users with more information, without it coming across as spam?

And also, what is the 'stub' level, and how would I raise the level of a page?

206.169.19.202 (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)mr

Syken

This was the thing to do, sadly, more so with the unsourced, negative content now gone from the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The user had 8 warnings on that article. I don't see it as silly.Toddst1 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Silly? I don't understand... Gwen Gale (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I should read more carefully. Yes , this was unfortunate. They had exactly the content they wanted on the page. Toddst1 (talk) 21:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Honduran72

Why did you remove the report from AIV without so much as a comment?Kww (talk) 01:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Especially fun since once he stopped editing under his account, he hopped over to 69.118.13.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)Kww (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad edit on my part. The Honduran72 edit was stale - about an hour and not vandalous and my intent was to remove that one only. I apparently clipped 193.180.104.200 as well. Sorry. Toddst1 (talk) 14:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was Honduran72 that I was complaining about ... a blatant vandal that has been attacking a group of articles about the Honduras since December, 2007. That's why I posted links to the ANI discussion. Finally got him blocked last night, along with a sockpuppet account this morning, but it would have gone much faster if you had acted on the report instead of deleting it. Reports of vandalism from named accounts never go stale. You may choose to take a different action if it is obvious that the account has renounced his vandalistic path, but being an hour old doesn't make any difference at all.Kww (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Can you chime in with your opinion on this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Inactive?

What makes this one "inactive"? The last incident was today. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:ANI

Thanks for the notice. I didn't really understand the whole problem. I mean, I understand some like me closing Afd's, but I can do that now. You close one that should be an obvious WP:SNOW keep (I'm not touching any ones that have been decided to be deleted, merged, ect.). You then rm the template off the article, then you add a different template to the talk page.

Anyway, I also stopped adopting since users have told me I should be the adoptee.

Comments?--RyRy5 (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for context, I'm sure you know I spoke up in opposition to the discussion. Standatoms1985 didn't say you violated any specific policy other than appearing to him to be a bit of an annoyance. (my words not his). I used to see your reports on AIV pretty frequently, but haven't come across too many lately, so I really don't know much about what you've been up to. I just didn't think the conversation on ANI was appropriate and certainly not without you knowing about it.

If I were you, I'd just focus on making constructive (not over-enthusiastic) contributions. Use TW with care and be sure not to bite newcomers and you should be fine. Your heart seems to be in the right direction. Try working on a few articles from scratch and bringing them along to at least start-class if not B or beyond. It puts all the vandal work in context.

Good luck and let me know if I can be of assistance. Toddst1 (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't use TW (I use IE and it doesn't work there). The reason why I don't report on the WP:AIV is becuase I don't see many users that need to be blocked since most of them are on their first warning. I've been busy creating and editing articles. I'm currently put Jackie Robinson for WP:GAN but nothing has happened for two weeks.

I'm having some problems here at wikipedia of my editing. It probably started with the deletion of my adoption program. I then stopped adopting and became an adoptee myself, just today. I just don't like it much when many people are talking negative about me when I've matured here almost. Some have stopped though which is good. I read up on wikipedia policies the past week but would like to come clean, but I can't really do that now. Comments?--RyRy5 (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

That user, RolandR, kept removing my comments from talk pages. When I politely asked him to stop doing it, he removed that comment as well. Seemed strange. Thanks for your note. Amoruso (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. Your advice is sound. Amoruso (talk) 02:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal info and reverting one's own talk page

Thanks for your offer of help. However, my identity has been posted by abusive vandals so often on Wikipedia that removing references seems to be a losing battle. See the edits made by Runtshit (some of them to pages hidden by adnmins or removed through oversight). Some of these edits were abuse posted on Tanya Reinhart the day after she died; it was the content of these that Amoruso was posting again on Steven Plaut. Indeed, he seems to have posted it on the Reinhart article again, for the third time this morning. I'll leave it for now, in the hope that another editor with a sense of decency will remove it. The same gleefully abusive comments were also posted on the articles about Shimon Tzabar and Baruch Kimmerling after they died. I realise that you cannot libel the dead, but this relentless vicious smearing really angers me.

Please tell me where you think I "appear to be in violation of 3RR". RolandR (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What on earth is the Infield Fly Rule? I'm a sport-hating Brit, and don't even understand LBW. RolandR (talk) 02:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

nosing in

Excuse me for nosing it, but RolandR's talkpage is on my watchlist. Roland gets nothing short of persecuted on Wikipedia for standing his ground in difficult places where the truth can be very quickly bullied away. I'm sure your diplomatic note to both he and Amoruso would have been a difficult for him to read. It's important for editors to see Admins as neutral and impartial when times are tough. Why effectively take sides by calling them both competent editors? This 'levelling effect' often lessens the validity of one editor by seeming to justify the other. Wikibreaks are sometimes sound advice (though 'Wikipedia', imo, could perhaps better appreciate how it benefits on some occasions from people not taking that luxury), but I've had experience of both editors here, and I found the 'double praise' insensitive to Roland in particular. Admins should always keep out of personal judgements! I'm sensitive to admins at the moment - they often only seem to slip up when they let their guard down and start thinking in personal terms: the advice to let go should surely suffice. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppet

I have reasons to believe that user On the edge of my mind is a sockpuppet of user 74.130.43.138. Not too long after you blocked 74.130.43.138 (about two mintues after), the other account was formed and was personally attacking me. I noticed the similarities between these two accounts. I figured you are the person who I let know about this since you were the one placed the block on 74.130.43.138. Thanks KeltieMartinFan (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

Thanks for responding to my request at WP:ANI about blocking User:Spadge47.This is the first time i requested a block against a user. Next time i'll report vandalism at WP:AIV....Thanks for the advice again...Gprince007 (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thanks for the heads-up on that. Toddst1 (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the block, but more help needed

Almost immediately after you blocked User_talk:86.129.31.62, a new editor User_talk:Argus-Bot immediate showed up and started making the same changes [5] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the warning. I'm weary of continually reverting these edits even though they are vandalism, I don't want to run a fowl with the 3RR. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never posted to AN/I before, I'm concerned I may not have done it properly. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Thanks for the heads up. Have put the page up for protection from non-registered users and alerted the wikiproject:football community. Will pay closer attention to the 3rr rule in future.Londo06 18:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I Dont understand? i was trying to make a page and oh no it gets deleted straight away. Whats with that. why cant i make a page about myself? whats so bad about that. it says you should not make thm about real people but there are millions about real people. i would just like to hav one about me and my cousin. thought it would be a nice idea. dont undestand why you wont let me? Can you find it in your heart to let me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephhhhhhhhhh (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

What?

How in the fuck was that an attack page? You've got it up your ass now, you little pig fucking shit monger.