User talk:Toddst1

This is Toddst1's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 2 days

Alexcason Impersonation

Hello there. Just per your comment here, the user signed their username using the wikicode [[User:Alexcason|Fin]] here, which I took to be a (rather blatant) attempt at impersonating me (seeing as I had just signed the talk page above the comment), and so felt a warning was justified. Hope that's ok =) Thanks! Fin ©™ 07:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and sorry for exceeding 3RR, usually I'm careful enough about that sorta thing! Thanks! Fin ©™ 07:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy to do. See additional comment on User talk:Alexcason Toddst1 (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool yep. Sorry I didn't make it clearer in the first place. Talk 'cha. Thanks! Fin ©™ 07:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scribner

Hello Toddst1. You have unblocked the above user without any attempt to discuss the issue with the blocking administrator first. I am sure you are aware of the blocking policy: “Except in cases of unambiguous error, administrators should avoid unblocking users without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them.” Could you therefore please explain me how this block was an unambiguous error or, if it was not, why you did not care to act in accordance with the relevant policy? Many thanks, — Aitias // discussion 09:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My experience has been that if an editor blocked for an edit war requests unblocking with a statement that he/she will refrain from edit warring, then the unblock is routinely granted, most of the time without consultation. As blocks are to be preventative and not punitive, it seems within the spirit of the blocking policy to unblock upon such a request. I'm pretty sure a fair number of blocks I've issued have been similarly unblocked.

However, you are correct in your reading of the policy and technically my unblock could be viewed as outside of policy. Either way it probably would have been good to contact you. It wasn't my intent to wheel war and if the unblock has offended you, I apologize.

In this case, while the editor had edit warred several hours before the block, he/she appeared to be making good faith efforts to resolve the dispute even before the block, having engaged in the discussion about the dispute on the talk page and that was referenced in the unblock request. Toddst1 (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your explanation. :) I accept your apology. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 11:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking, Toddst1. The 72 hour block came without warning, was excessive and completely unnecessary. I had moved the disputed section to the talk page and myself and three other editors were discussing the edit and had been doing so for some time when the block was issued. I'm disappointed Aitias didn't show more diligence in this event. The POV smears against Paul Krugman are still occurring here, here and in a separate article here in which in each instance quotes are being taken out of context to promote a conservative smear. I'm personally surprised Aitias allowed it to happen on a BLP article. At any rate, thank you again. Scribner (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote to this: ChildofMidnight who instigated this block has been restricted in editing BLP articles. This makes Aitias failure to apply due diligence even more surprising. Scribner (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be clear: I never questioned Aitias' block at all. However it appeared that by the time I came along that it was no longer necessary. Toddst1 (talk) 21:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving comment

There was already a Warnings section with the date of your warning so I popped it in there for neatness and to group them together. Please move it back if you like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Slimm (talk • contribs) 11:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Michael_herc

Thanks for clarifying, and overall dealing with the matter of the multiple accounts. Thinking about it, I'm sure the user would of probably noted the multiple accounts anyway; they seem to have placed a userbox to that effect on their userpage anyhow. My report may have been unnecessary, but the past is the past. Thanks again. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for third opinion

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.

The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Brooklyn Law School, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Toddst1 (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to appeal this. I believe the fact that bernard madoff is included in the notable alumni section even though he did not graduate is another example of the so-called tendentious editing. Why is this ok for another user to post this?

Also, I made edits to New York law school's page that were apparently acceptable. These changes reflected the fact that the dean of that law school questioned the school's integrity in charging inflated tuition. In fact, he was quoted in a nationally recognized law journal.

I want to argue that historical data on a school's tuition increases that is documented through credible sources belongs in it's "history" section. I would like for another editor to review my arguments.

Thank you.Berknyc81 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Brian McKim

The entry I put up for SHECKYmagazine.com has been ajudged to meet notability criteria.

And since Brian McKim is the co-founder/co-editor/co-publisher of SHECKYmagazine.com, I am hoping that a similar judgement be made regarding the entry for "Brian McKim"

I scoped out a few similar entries (standup comics with similar credits, level of experience, etc.) and mine is similar to theirs... in tone, in POV/no POV, in references, etc. And since I don't have an agent or a manager, who is going to write an entry for little old me? (Of course, I'm implying that the others are self-written... or written by agents or managers or publicists-- which doesn't, in my opinion make them any less worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, nor does it make them any more of a press release or does it indicate a conflict of interest that would disqualify them... unless, of course, I am woefully ignorant of the mission and purpose of Wikipedia.

To restate it, many comics of similar notability have perfectly fine entries, but none of the comics profiled have ever started an online magazine about standup that's been around for ten years, interviewed Shelley Berman, Dick Cavett, Mitch Hedberg or Richard Lewis or been profiled in USA Today or the Wall Street Journal... so, I suppose my point is that the notability of the magazine somewhat bolsters the notability of the comedian who started it.

Lemme know if I am barking up the wrong tree.

THanks!

Bmckim (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)][reply]

It's out of my hands at this point. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sheckymagazine.com Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deford, MI and Cass City High School

Hello, I was wondering if it was possible to continue to monitor not only Deford, Michigan but also Cass City High School. I have noticed that both have continued to be allowed to have unreferenced information and also information that has improper references that do not coincide with the information being provided. I have tried to edit the page as well as talk to the user responsible, but to no avail. I have the proper information for both pages as well as the proper sources that are very reputable. Thank you very much. Mrhercli89 (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be nosey or anything but you seemed to removed 2 templetes that include Cass city high school. why is that? DanRother (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed them because Cass City High School is a Class C high school and this template seems to have been created for Class A high schools. I also removed Bay City All Saints because they are a Class D high school. As I just happened across the page, I noticed that another template was added. I am not sure if that was you, but I'm not sure if that is relevant to this page. Cass City High School is located in Tuscola County, so I'm unsure as to how it could possibly be a part of the Oakland Activities Association, which serves southeast Michigan. Mrhercli89 (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppetry

I am not sure who is in charge of sock puppetry, but since you have been helping me with issues related to this user, I thought you could help. I have noticed that because user Emily Bernette has been blocked, Avery_player2011 is now editing the same pages that Emily Bernette has been blocked from editing. They seem to be editing the same exact content and both not referencing their sources. Thank you very much for your help. Mrhercli89 (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing to do would be to file a WP:SPI report. It's pretty easy. Once that's there, I or (even better) another admin can take a look. If you ask for a checkuser, it will be conclusive as that checks the IP address that the user is logging in with. Good luck. Toddst1 (talk) 23:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, never mind. It appears pretty obvious that they're either the same person or working in tandem. Toddst1 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Template parameters reversed

The block box at User_talk:DoctorBenwayMD reads: "You have been blocked from editing for a period of Cameron Carpenter in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at 24 hours". Rivertorch (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

God bless you for bringing about an end to that farcical situation.--Just James ^T/C 16:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]